New-York tribune., 1886-05-14
THE CHINESE INDEMNITY.
MEMBERS OF TIE HOUSE FAvoRING IT.
MR.. PnELPss SPIRITED sPEEcH-NO VOTE REACHED
ON

rBr TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE

rBY TELEGRAPH THE TRIBUNE
| WAsHINGrON May 13.-The Chinese In
demnty bill further discussed in the House to day.
An effort made to IT, but the time allotted foi
its discussion expired before vote could be reached
The bill takes Its place the calendar with poor
prospect OF being reached unless the session Is pro-
ged three months. In the discussion on the
subject remarks In favor OF tho bill were made by Mr.
Rice Of Massachusetts Mr. McCreary. OF Kentucky and
others Mr. Rice said the United states Itself nad
indemnity from China for violence done 10 us
citizens by mob and by the armament OF England DOM
harding Chinese cities and China had paid tho DIS
though Of the had been done by the armed
forces OF England. When England through her care
e.sness had let loose the cruisers which had driven
American commerce from the seas. the United States
had exacted indemnity and no trusted that there wouu
be arm long and voice strong TO exact IN
demnty England for the injuries her subjects were
now perpetratng and seeking to perpetrate upon
American fishermen. Applause
Mr. Clements, OF Georgia, thought that Congress
might well consider whether the time had not come
when the patriotism and wisdom OF Congress dictated
discrimination against another class Of immigrants as
well as against the Chinese
MI Phelps OF Jersey revie wed the details of the
massacre and added:
Their houses burned their goods were plllaged.
and the only. prov0catiOn was that thoy would
nSs nS5 0s the in oa..,sn slFRI IS rn" ar the ''
ng to do about it r. and the answer ought to be- and
msnds ard what this bIl provides for. and pay FOR
the property destroyed Not for Chaiitys sake. but
by the gentleman from illinois CMr. worthngtonJ; be-
cause 1t is single reciprocity for hundred cases
|'ii by his coieagns Gr Hit; and because 1t is
international Obligation as urged by the gentleman rom
have more property in China than China has In the
United States. We need millions To measure our prop
erty; thousands VIII measure theirs
q
considerations OF policy We ought 10 pay this inaem
in a score perhaps in an hundred casss similar
TO this, only less meritorlous. The Ills his
for nearly Hfy years has been only the history of
prompt and greedy claims for indemnity on our part.
and OF prompt and generous payment on It's part III
has paid for the rights Of every American
citizen when violated. 1t has paid for the violated
rights of Chinese subjects when they were connected
with ours. when they paid Ch nes" landlord whose
house was DESTROYED By a mob because an American
clothing OF native helpers which IN tie service
sf american ms'ion,rie, his is the % way pe pe
paid them in detail then she paid .loo them oon n
gave it to the United States Government and sad Take
this and pay your countrymen." We took Ii. we pad
the generosity OF chm. ample arrr i this
had left nearly one-thrd Of he original sum to re-
spirt IN which Christian countries pay their internt
tional bills. This ls the moral ob sation -,
CATION. The United States has treaties with the Empire
OF China In these treaties she promised to protect
II did not protect Chinese subjects AMI
it liable damages for broken contract. unless 1t
establish aud maintain a. doctrine OF Information
al law. that when nation makes treaty
with another nation and breaks one OF It's
covenants II shift its liability by saying that 1t was
the and. therefore. the liability OF one OF its
doctrine hut 1t seems impossible to establish ana ma-
tam it, All writers iutcrIatOnni law from Cr"tius to
Wosey examined and ctcd It We nave accepted
it in declaration, but have always rejected IL
III Practice. We have generally asserted this doctrine
most vehemently at the very moment we were To trans
Press II.
our habit has bad law aud practice good
We did this In the famous case at NewOrlrans mop
destroyed the property OF Spanish subjects Her
nil voice OF Daniel Webster heard In
reply. He declared this bad la. ana referred
spanish Majesty ignored all his cloquence IN decraton
of bad law. for the usual good practice. But
the Of state recommended Con sres TO vote
indemnify aud say nothing more or the states llaO-
More sgni cant yet the in China at the time
OF the Anglo-chnese war. China having the verbal
bad Ia and result She told Department OF
state mat tue VIcerOyalty OF Canton was the party
LIABLE In It, tribunals the American claimants
tnl redress Our secretary. Lewis taSs,
against bad law In the plea. How could cf But he
usual good practice. and China the Ma
to-. the Empire, pail the bill
And I'm European countries the uniformity Of
action prevails, accompanied still IN some cases with
the declaration q the bad law. that would relieve
prehensiye the claim ade yesterday by the
gentleman from Massachusetts tNr. Ricel that no text
book IN its summary of principles aud no civilized
in its prartce had ever followed this Dad law
believe it l. the truth.
H. then In this case put this bad law for the first
time practice against a semi barbaiots nalon pub
Ak and its rights aud the world VIII
compare the Pagan civilization of the Chinese Empire
with the Christian civilization of the great American he
public, and not TO our credit