Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-08-19
NATIONAL NEWS.
The Chinese Bill Again Put
Forward.
THE URGENCY OF THE MEASURE.
Facts Concerning Mr.. HarrisOn's
RecOrd-An Alleged Tariff
Reform Scare.
Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD

WASHINGTON, August 1S.-In the
House to-day Taulbee, of Kentucky, pre-
sented the Conference report upon the
bill for the relief OF the First National
Bank OF Portland, Oregon. Agreed to.
McCreary, of Kentucky, from the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported
for immediate consideration the Senate
bill to prevent the coming Of Chinese
laborers into the United States, with an
amendment repeating the acts of May 6,
1882, an the ratification of the pending
treaty. McCreary stated that owing to
the fact that the Senate amended the
treaty, it had to be returned to China for
the ratification OF that government, and
that it would probably be the first of next
year before the treaty could be agreed
upon. The object of the bill was to
carry out the provisions of the treaty as
soon as ratified by both countries. He
briefly reviewed the provisions of pre-
vious treaties between the United States
and China, and of the laws founded
thereon, in order to emphasize the neces-
sity for the adoption of the new treaty
and the passage Of the pending measure.
The subject of Chinese immigration was
important and deserved most careful
consideration. The pending treaty was
liberal, and the President and his able
Secretary of State were entitled to great
credit for having at last negotiated a
treaty which was to prevent the hordes
of Chinese from coming to this country.
The demand for the ratification of the
treaty and the passing of the bill came
| from the Pacific Coast in a manner which
must be needed and he only regretted that
action had been taken which would delay
giving effect to the treaty. The bill was
prepared in accordance with the treaty,
and was long step forward towards
meeting the evils which beset the people
of California. He was in favor OF
opening the ports of the United
States to worthy people from
every country, but he did not believe
that the Chinese with their habits, GUS
toms, tastes and religion, were worthy OF
coming into this country. They come
without wives or children and were en-
abled therefore to work for small wages,
and in California the question was not
the survival of the fittest, but the sur
vival Of the cheapest. He hoped the
House would pass the bill without OBJ
lection or division.
MORROW, OF CALIFORNIA,
Declared that the passage of the bill was
necessary in order to protect the people
of this country from the evils of Chinese
immigration. He discussed the pro-
visions of previous acts upon the subject
and pointed out wherein they proved
defective in prohibiting the immigration
OF Chinese. From 1852 to 1876,
before there had been any attempt
at restriction, the average number of
Chinese entering annually at San Fran
cisco was but little over 5000; during
1887, after several attempts at restriction,
the immigration at San Francisco
amounted to over II 900. 1t was there
fore necessary for the Government to
devise some treaty to carry out its policy.
1t had declared and placed on the statute
books the principle that it would exclude
the Chinese, and yet the laws were vio-
lated and these people came in. The
question confronting Congress was
whether it had the ability to form law
which would carry out the principle.
He considered the Senate amendments
to the treaty very important, as they
served to close the door which the orig
inal treaty left open to the incoming
of Chinese laborers. While the pend
ing bill was favored by the people
of the Pacific coast because they believed
it step in advance of the previous
statutory law, neither treaty nor bill met
with entire approval, because they be-
lieved the Government should reserve to
itself the right to legislate when occasion
occurred, against any foreign immigra-
ton which might be inimical, and not be
obliged to 60 to China for treaty when
ever it wished to prohibit the immigra-
ton of Chinese, but should be able to
prohibit it by statutory enactment. He
hoped the law would pass in time to 20
upon the statute books before the ratif-
cation of the treaty, in order that there
should be no hiatus between the treaty
and the law.
A PRO-CHINESE ARGUMENT.
O'Neill, of Missouri, said every two
years Congress passed Chinese bill as
an incident of the political campaign.
Passing laws wouldn't remedy the evils
unless public opinion backed them. In
California instead of being an element
which the people desired to have re-
moved, from the moment man reached
a hotel, until he left the State, he found
Chinese employed. The people seemed
to want them. They were servile and
docile. Wherever you turned you found
Chinese at work. The laboring people
did not want them, but the better class
of people in California did. It was a
question OF cheapness.
FELTON, interrupted to say that the Cali
fornians were obliged to employ Chinese
labor because they had no other.
O'Neill replied that they should adver-
tise in New York. Here, everywhere in
the East where there were great num-
bers of unemployed laborers, the House
had not answered the demands of labor.
Thousands of persons had petitioned for
protection against convict labor, and it
would not be sufficient for the members
to say that they had passed this Chinese
bill and the other labor bills already
passed.
HARRIsoN's CHINESE RECORD.
Bynum, of Indiana, attacked the Re-
publican party for their failure in years
past to stop the importation of contract
labor. 1t had favored opening the doors
to cheap labor, but wanted them closed
on cheap goods. He also attacked the
record of the Republican party in regard
to legislation on the question of Chinese