National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-06-29

the case as TO understand fully the facts or
the decisions OF the courts on the subject.
He proceeded TO give history OF the mat
ter, and to urge the passage OF tho bill over
the Presidents veto.
At the close OF Mr.. Allison's remarks the
subject went over until to-day.
The Senate at $50 went Into secret
session, and after short time adjourned.
THE HOUSE.
Morning business having been disposed
Of, the House went into committee OF the
whole (Mr. Reagan, Of Texas, In the chair)
on the sundry civil appropriation bill.
Mr.. Morrow, OF California, moved TO
amend the bill by increasing from s., 800 to
$4,000 the appropriation to meet the ex-
penses incurred under the Chinese immigra-
ton act, and by adding proylso requiring
the Secretary OF the Treasury to cause to be
prepared preliminary and return certificates
identifying more particularly than at pres
ent the Chinese TO whom they are granted.
He went on TO point the defects In the
present law, declaring that that law was
evaded in the most shameful manner. The
certificates now used, instead OF pre-
venting the Introduction Of Chinese
The defects In the law existed In the priv
ileges accorded to certain classes Of Chi
nese by treaty to come and go at pleasure.
Chinese laborers were constantly coming
to the country under the pretense OF be-
longing to one or other Of the classes.
The condition OF the Pacific coast, as far as
the Chinese question was concerned, was
worse than ever before and II Congress
knew the whole truth OF that question, the
Burlingame treaty would not be in exist
ence one hour. He presented n petition
prepared under the auspices Of the Knights
Of Labor Of the Pacific coast and signed by
$4,000 persons asking that some action
should be taken which would forever pro-
hlbit Chinese immigration.
Mr.. Belmont, Of New York, suggested
that absolute prohibition was not possible
under the treaty.
Mr.. Willis, OF Kentucky, remarked that
the treaty could be repealed.
Mr.. Morrow said that the gentleman
from New York Mr.. Belmont), as chair
man Of the committee on. foreign affairs,
should have brought before the House some
proposition which would assure the people
that there was sentiment In Congress to
protect American labor against Chinese
cheap labor.
Mr.. Belmont answered that the committee
had reported back the gentleman's own bill.
Mr.. Morrow, continuing, said that pro-
tective tariff or tariff for revenue, with
incidental protection, was but a delusion
and sham II pauper labor could come here
and compete with our own labor. Chinese
cheap labor was the very worst form OF free
trade. This immigration must absolutely
cease. American labor must have protec-
tion. [Applause,
Mr.. Rice, Of Massachusetts,, expressed
his regret that the gentleman from Califor-
mia had reflected upon the committee on
foreign affairs, which had unanimously re-
ported bill calculated to remove the de-
fects OF which the gentleman complained.
This was not question Of the restriction
Of the Immigration OF Chinese labor. That
had already been fully and carefully
guarded against by previous legislation.
on the Pacific coast had been reduced to
such an extent that in California the en-
ployers were complaining that industries
were suffering on account OF the reduction
Of the labor force.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Willis) had suggested that Congress could
repeal the treaty. II could but when this
great nation had sought to make treaty,
when II had been deriving benefits from
that treaty, when there was no evil arising
to our own country from its continuance,
1t did not sound we'll, coming from, the lips
of gentleman who was seeking tdteducate
the people in lessons Of morality and
ernment should repeal that treaty, OF which
II had been thus far the beneficiary.
Mr.. Belmont, referring TO the petition
presented by the gentleman from Cali
fornia, called that gentleman's attention
TO the fact that in article Of the treaty Of
1880 were the words, "the United States
may regulate, limit, or suspend such COM
ing Or Or. residence, but may not absolutely
Mr.. FELTON,, Of California, spoke in favor
Of the amendment, contending that the
government should furnish the sinews of
law TO carry the immigration act into ex-
ecution.
Mr.. Worthington, Of Illinois, also IA
vored 1t. All that was necessary was to re-
quire rigid observance Of the present law,
and there was no necessity for q willful alb
rogation Of all the treaty stlpulations be-
| tween the United States and China.
Mr.. Cox, Of North Carolina, said It was
| the desire Of both nations that present re-
strictioDs should be ngidly enforced.
| Cody labor stood as continual menace
| to American labor, and American laborers
| friends ON this floor who would recognize
and enforce their rights and not drive
them to private organizations to secure
| their rights.
The amendment was then adopted with
| out division. Later in the day, however,
| Mr.. Randall, Of Pennsylvania, stated that
| he had understood that the vote on Mr..
Morrow's amendment, which was adopted
| this morning, would not be taken until this
afternoon. He therefore asked unanimous
consent that the vote be annulled. This
was agreed TO, and then the amendment was
| re1ected-74 to 81.
The clause relative to the expenses Of the
collection OF revenue from sales OF public
lands having been reached, Mr.. Laird, OF
| Nebraska, made severe attack upon Com
missioner Sparks In his administration Of
the general land Office, and quoted from
| number OF letters written by homestead
settlers In his district, denouncing. the
Sparks orders and characterizing Sparks as
scourge worse than the grasshoppers.
| Mr.. Cobb, OF Indiana, defended The COM
missioner, declaring that his action was
meeting with the condemnation OF every
lands. lie quoted from letter from Il. Is.
Washburne, strongly indorsing the commits
BiOner OF the land office; and then quoted