The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-07-18
Why Harrison WAS for the Chinese.

We publish elsewhere an article from
the Alto California of San Francisco, which
throws good deal of light upon the mo-
tives that inspired Ben HARRIsoN's course
in the U. S. senate on the Chinese ques-
ton. The statement made by the Alta as
to the naturalization of Chinese in this
city in 1880, and their voting for the re-
publican ticket at the election that year,
are perfectly accurate. The facts are no
torious in this community, and will not be
denied by any responsible person because
they can be easily substantiated. When
Ben HARRISON went to the U. s. senate
he had behind him, in part, as asserted
by the'Ald, "a Chinese constituency"
He voted fourteen times in that body
against the restriction OF Chinese immi-
grafton. He voted to strike out the sec
ton OF the Miller bill prohibiting the
naturalization of the Chinese. Tie
voted to sustain President ARTHUR's
veto of that bill. He voted
against the substitute bill which received
the approval OF President ARTHUR, having
been so drawn as to obviate the objections
urged by him against the original meas
ure. His whole record in the senate, from
first to last, was ultra pro-Chinese, like
that of SHERMAN, HoAR and HAwLEY.
1t is claimed for Ben HARRISON that he
voted against these measures because they
conficted with the Chinese treaties then
in existence. This is an afterthought. 1t
is not true. We challenge Ben HARRISON
or any OF his organs to quote word from
the Congressional Record showing that he
ever put his opposition on this ground.
He never did SOL He made no set speech
in the senate on the question, but his
views are unquestionably reflected in. the
expressions of his organ, the Indianapolis
Journal, while this legislation was pend
ing in congress. The Journal was under
the same management then as to-day. 1t
had the same proprietors and the same
editor. On the 18th of March. 1882, the
Journal said, editorially:
Those who shout 1.-THE Chinese must go" are
as mistaken as the dweller on the Yazoo who
stands upon its banks and curses the father of
waters.
Again, in the same article, speaking of
John Chinaman, it said:
His virtues are sobriety, modesty, patience
| and economy, and he is q teacher 10 the labor of
| oil lands. Whatever his faults, his lesson must
| be learned by the strikers and gTunlbters eceyy-
| aCtere, for none has successfully met and
| triumphed over the harder conditions of life
He is a wonder and marvel, an establishment
and surprise, but warning and an admoni-
ton as well.
Six days after these utterances OF his or
gan, Ben HARRISON voted in the senate to
sustain President ARTHUR's veto of the
characterization bill. On the following
day the Journal said, editorially:
The presidents veto of the anti-Chinese bill
will command the approval of the best senti-
ment OF the country.
On the 18th of April 1882, the Journal
struck the keynote of HARRIsoN's oppo-
sition to Chinese restrictive legislation
when it said, editorially:
Gire he Chinese rotes, and there would be
change come oyer the spirit of the dream of
political parties in California and elsewhere.
BEN HARRISON be it remembered, voted
not only to admit the Chinese without any
restrictions, but he also voted TO natural
ize them-to make them citizens and
voters His theory was that by this
means the republican party could secure a
vast accession of voting strength. This
is not inference, but fact. HARRISON him
self took this ground in conversation re-
peatedly, and in paper read some time
after his pro-Chinese votes in the senate,
before a literary society in this city urged
that Chinese immigration should be en-
couraged rather than repelled.
If Ben HARRISON were not a political