Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-03-13
CHINESE RESTRICTION.
THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE ON THE SUBJECT.
Majority and Minority Reports-fm-
portant Clauses of the Nor
row Bill Stricken Out.

Majority and Minority Reports-rm
portant Clauses of the Nor
row Bill Stricken Out.
by Telegraph
| WASHINGTON, March 12th.-The Hons
Foreign Affairs Committee Yesterday re
sumed its discussion of anti Chinese ieeis
lauon. Rice of Massachusetts submitted
minority report adverse to the passage o
the Morrow bill, which had been favorabl,
recommended by the majority of the sub
committee. The time of the Senate to-da,
was principally occupied in reading minor
ity reports.
Cox of North Carolina asked Rice few
questions as TO the accuracy of the statistic.
| presented, and said he would renlv n
length at the session of the committee. OF
Tuesday next.
| An unexpected opposition to the passag.
OF the Morrow bill has developed in The
committee, and the friends of the measur,
are becoming impatient at the delay. 1t i.
understood that Chairman Belmont. VIII.
was supposed to favor the bill, now ex.
presses doubt as to the propriety of it:
passage.
| The subcommittee, which had the con.
sideration of the subject, devoted much
time to the investigation, and heard argu.
ments by the members of the California
| delegation IN support of the necessity OF
| additional restrictive legislation.
| The following are the majority and mi.
nority reports of the Committee on Foreign
affairs:
MAJORITY REPORT.
! The committee to which was referred the
| Dill supplementary to and amendatory of
IAN Act to execute certain treaty siipua-
| tions relating to the Chinese" approved
May 6, 1882, as amended by an Act TO
amend said Act, approved July 5, 1884,
| nave had the same under consideration.
and having fully considered its several pro-
visions, do respectfully report it back to
the House, with the recommendation that
| it pass without amendment. The bill was
carefully prepared by its distinguished au-
! thor. and, as your committee believes.
| fairly reflects the unanimous wishes of the
representatives in Congress and the intelli-
gent thought of the great majority of the
conservative people of the Pacific States.
brief history of our treaty stipulations
with China and of the restrictive legislation
of Congress in regard to this Mongolian i'm
| migration is believed to be necessary for
the intelligent understanding of this sub
ject, and We therefore submit as a clear
presentation of that latter the opinion OF
the Court delivered at San Francisco Sep
| tember "a. 1888, in the matter of All Long
on petition of habeas corpus. Here fol-
lows the opinion of the Court1 The Acts
of May 6, 1882, and July 5, 1884, were in
line of the attempted exclusion of Chinese
laborers, commencing with the Fifteen
Passenger Act vetoed by Mr.. Hayes, and
coming down to the Twenty ears Restric-
ton Act vetoed by President Arthur, and
eliminating in the Act of which this is in
tended to be an amendment Notw1th-
standing these repeated Acts of legislation,
it is insisted and believed that manifold
evasions of the law have been practiced
which have led to blocking up the Federal
Courts in San Francisco with quasi
criminal cases, which have precedence
over other important business, and
have failed to meet the exigencies
which have called the laws into existence
Not only this, but the failure of the laws to
accomplish the design intended by their en-
actors and the continued immigration of
the Chinese laborers, despite restrictive
legislation, has precipitated conflict of
races among citizens of the Pacific slope,
which has eliminated in acts of violence
which. while they cannot for moment be
tolerated and are to be greatly deplore,i by
all lawabiding citizens, yet they cannot Sc
ignored, but should be prevented when j,
IS practicable, by wholesale legislation.
The main features of this Act, which differ
from those which have preceded it. are as
follows.
First-It provides that any Chinaman
going abroad and remaining for two wears
shall be presumed and taken to have aban-
doned his right to return to the United
States.
Second-That no Chinese laborer shall
have the right to immigrate to the United
States for term of twenty years
Third-It provides for a means OF identi-
tication by Photographic representation OF
any Chinaman who shall seek to go abroad
Fourth = 1t prescribes and limits the
number of Chinese according to the ton
mage that may be'brought over in any one
| ship or vessel.
| A careful examination of the Acts here
| tofore passed. and of the proposed amend
atory Act now submitted for the action OF
this body. has led your committee to believe
that the former Acts required very thor
ough revision to conform to the intent o
their trainers and the purposes of theil
enactors, and that it can not be better done
than by the passage of the Act which i:
now submitted for the favorable considera
ton of the House
MINORITY REPORT
The report of Mr. Rice, of the minorit,
subcommittee, is as follows:
The question before the committee is not as te
the policy of restriction or suspending the i'm
migration of Chinese laborers. That has beer
| settled by the action of the previous Congress
The question now is as to the expediency o
adding to legislation already enacted to accom-
| plish the desired purpose of preventing the i'm
| migration of Chinese laborers into the United
] States The undersigned believes that the ex
purpose. and that, consequently. the proposed
bill is unnecessary, and would rather embsrras:
| and hinder the United States officials than heir
them in accomplishing the desired end of ex
Guiding Chinese immigrants. In the first place
1t is proper to inquire what is the exigency
which calls forths additional legislation. Have
the Acts of 1882 and 1854 drafted with grea
skill and ingenuity TO accomplish the purpose:
sought, failed to do that which their author.
believed they would accomplish
Statistics, which cannot be questioned, be
cause they are Official prove that between June
,, 1882 the date when the first Restriction Ae
took effect, and October /, 1880 there was an e.
cess of departures of Chinese laborers from the
United States over the arrivals of a 394 ~ Thi
proves ineontrovertibly that there has been M
such increase of Chinese laborers in the United
| states as to exceed any apprehension in thu
minds of those earnestly opposed to such immi
grafton or that any danger is imminent from thi
source. The existing Acts rigidly prove that M
Chinese lab0rers, excepting those who were her,
at the date of the last treaty between the United
etates anu Siihe, W VIII, on tnc tn DAY OF No
vember 1881, can be allowed to enter the Unite,
States until the expiration of the terms of tn,
restrictive Act to wit. May 6, 1892 1t is guar
anteed by the treaty that all Chinese laborers il
the United States at the date of the treaty shal
be protected in all the rights and privileges be
| longing to citizens OF the most favored nations
which, of course, includes the right freely to q
and come between the United States and for
eign countries. The restrictive Acts provided
that this right should be exercised only ii
accordance with certain rules and reglI
lations prescribed therein, and provitiin,
system Of passports and certificate