New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-07-03
GEN. HARRISON AND TIFF CHINESE
A CLEAR AND CONSISTENT RECORD.


cisco, was in Ncw-YorlS yesterday, and meeting
Tribune reporter took the occasion to express his
views of the political situation and In particular
10 state the precise record OF General Harrison
on the Chinese question. As strenuous oppo-
rent OF Chinese immi grafton, and the author OF
the Morrow bill, the Representative OF the WITH
California District is particularly qualified TO say
how the Republican candidate stands this sub
ject and how his votes and opinions are regarded
on the Pacific coast. Mr.. Morrow said:
9 notice that The TRIBUNE has several times
said that Senator Harrison voted for the Page
bill This is mistake you will readily see
on examining The Record The Page bill was
considered in the Senate in the early part of $50
and Senator Harrison voted against it. The bill,
however failed as a law to keep out Chinese immi-
grafton and was amended in 1884. There is no
record as TO Senator Harrisons position the
amended bill, but it is known that he favored
the additional legislation; but even the law as
amended proved Intellectual, and in the XLlAth
Congress introduced a bill which became known
the Morrow bill Ii was drawn with consider
able care, as was familiar with the subject, hav-
Ing been Assistant United States Attorney at San
Francisco and familiar with the Federal lurls-
diction. The bill approved by the Collector
Of the Port the United States Judges ana the
United States Attorney, and it was supposed that
it would accomplish everything that legislation
could do under the treaty. The bill was intro
duced in the Senate by Senator Fair, the Demo
cratic Senator from Nevada, and referred TO the
Committee on Foreign Relations, Of which Senator
Harrison was then member. had occasion TO
meet with members of that committee several
times while the bill was pending before the COM
mittee, and among others with Senator Harrison,
and know that he was in favor of excluding
Chinese immigration, either by suitable legisla-
ton under the treaty, or a new treaty that could
make exclusion absolute. l remember he and l
were members Of a small party that went to Phil
adelphia in the early part of $50 to attend
dinner given by tic Clover Club. During the trip
l had quite a talk with Senator Harrison on the
subject of Chinese immigration and l was graft
fed 10 find that he was not only in favor of
further legislation in restraint OF such immigra-
ton, but he in favor of a treaty that
would provide for absolute exclusion.
The bill introduced by Senator Fair con-
sdered by the Committee on Foreign Relations
OF the Senate and passed the committee unani-
mously. 1t was reported to the Senate by Sen
ator Sherman who said: The bill has been
carefully examined in the Committee on Foreign
Relations, and as far as know every provision
assented to with entire unanmity' This statement
Will be found on page ,95o Of The Congressional
Record Of the first session Of the XLIAth Congress.
IL is well known that Senator Mitchell, Of Oregon,
Is extremely radical against Chinese immigration.
In discussing this bill (which Harrison voted for
in the committee have just stated, Senator
Mitchell said: This bill l. a great Improvement,
permit me TO say in my judgment, upon any bill
that has ever heretofore at any time been reported
by any committee OF either branch OF Congress
upon this question The Senator's speech Will
be found on page 500 Of The Congressional
Record of the first session of tire ALlAth Con-
grcsS. The bill passed the Senate UNANIMOUSLY,
hut csanf hnts in m fee
Foreign Affairs, Of which Mr.. Perry Belmont was
chairman, and the only action the Democratic
House took IN iurtherance OF the action OIL the
Senate on the Chinese question was 10 pass the
Chinese Indemnity BILL providing for the payment
OF Sl47,0O0 To the Chinese for the Rock Springs
outrage. $500
But it is said that Senator Harrison. in sS2,
opposed legislation against Chinese immigration,
and that he voted against an amendment TO the
bill then pending. offered by Senator Farley, pro.
viding that hereafter no State Court or Court OF
the United States shall admit Chinese TO cltlzen-
ship; and repeating all laws ia conllct win the
act Senator Edmunds opposed tins form OF amend
mcnt. saying that the naturalization laws dld not
authorize naturalization Of Chinese. The Senator
was correct -Four years before, in 1915, Judge
Sawyer, the United States Circuit Judge for Gail
lorna. Oregon and Nevada, had decided on the
application Of Al Nup that native OF emma OF
the Monsollah race was not enuted 10 become
citizen OF the United States. On the authority Oh
this decision, Senator Edmunds proposed an
amendment in these words: Nothing IN the act
shall be construed 10 change the existing naturii-
citizenship senator Harrison NCtcd lOf Jlls
amendment in preference TO the one proposed by
Senator Farley. This Is all there IS III tins NOtc.
Senator Harrison undoubtedly opposed 10
the nbrocation Of a treaty by indirect legislation
lie was in favor OF IL clcar-cut proposition Tor
abrogating the existing treaty, with ITS annoying
limitations, and excluding the Chnhindn absolute
" and il is an interesting fact that tins IS pre-,
c;scfv the position occupied by the senators ana
REPRESENTATIVES, from the Pacific Coast. we nave
favored an abrOCati0n OF the present treaty, DC
cause of its limitations on the power OF Congress
,l.i. sff gA Nj
Harrison has occupied precisely this POSITION, ana
his votes on the amendments 10 the I&5e Dul
prove this fact beyond II doubt Furthermore,
Senator IIarfison's position has been Justiieu by
the fact that IA treaty has been nesoOateu
with the approval Of both parties, under whic en-
Chinese immigration will be stopped Inc DIIl
introduced bv Senator Fair IN the Senate Is lhe
hill which Senator Harrison voted Tor III COM
nittec and il is worthy OF note that thls pii! -
the framework Of the new treaty JUST hesOUi@Vcu
with China. H. ill m
Senator Harrison is all hight. lie WIZ en-
force tic treaty and whatever legislation may DC
had under it, The great question Is protection
10 American industries IN Whlch une OhIlie te
question is only a part. IL, under DemocrauIc
policv the tariff is TO be reduced so as 10 uesVroy
protection TO our home labor, OF what consequence
IS il that the Chinaman is excluded inc policy
OF excluding cheap labor OF the Chlhahah IL
based upon the principle of protection but II t he
nrinciple of protection fails, the exclusion Will
cease to be Of any value"