The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-09-04


Democratic ticket under Mr.. Arthurs adj
ministraiion. lie declared that this Demo-
cratic administration had treated the public
service not as public trust, but as pri-
yate snap.
Mr.. lioar sent to the clerks desk and
had read a letter received by him from
Charles Arpin, of Quebec, suggesting that
II several claims held by Canadians on
the Government OF the United States were
allowed and paid at this time the Republic
can party should be assured Of support
from Canada-thc claimants being willing
10 make a good allowance. Mr.. lloar re-
marked that such letters, he had no doubt,
were occasionally received. by senators
from men as ignorant as they are base but
the man who had written this letter had
been candidate for the Canadian Parlia-
ment and was man OF considerable III
teligcnce. ii seemed that the communl-
cation should he put on the files OF the
Senate so that when the claims 1t referred
TO were presented they might be attended
with the history OF this attempt nj corup-
ton. II was so ordered after remark by
Mr.. Riddlrbergcr, alluding TO the articles
in the English papers ms TO Canada having
British ronclads behind her, that We
have men behind ourguns and no slaves ="
The Senate then proceeded 10 the con-
sider,ion OF the bill for the admission OF
hesitate of Washington, and was engaged in
il when u message was received from the
House, with the bill Tor the absolute OK
clusi0n OF Chinese immigration.
Mr. Stewart moved that the hill for the
admission OF Washington be laid aside and
that the Chinese bin be taken up for i'm.
mediate action. Agreed to.
Mr. George moved that the bill he re-
ferred to the committee on foreign rela-
tons.
Mr. Stowart-The bill has been passed
unanimously by the House of Representa-
tives, and hope there will be objection
to its passage.
Mr. George stated the bill was possibly
unjust in excluding Chinese immigrants
returning 10 this country under the GER
tincatCs given 30 them ia compliance with
existing law, and who might now he
within sight Of the shores OF the United
States lie thought It should be amended
no rs 10 extend the time long enough
that these men on their way, and who
are entitled 10 admission. should not DO
excluded.
The reference was opposed by Senators
Mitchell, Dolph, and Teller, aud Mr.. Vest
declared that he did not believe ia tom
porEing on the subject and was ready 10
vote for the bill
Mr. George said, that. in view Of the
opposition TO hs motion by 30 many sen.
ators, he would withdraw it.
Mr.. Sherman gave a detailed statement
oil the course OF the committee on foreign
relations in regard 10 the treaty recently
ratified by the Senate with amendments,
including an interview with the Secretary
OF State. No one doubted the power Of
the United States government to make the
exclusion OF Chinese absolute, even with
out negotiating new treaty aud even In
violation Of the existing treaty. Every
nation had n right 10 provide by Law for
It's own safety. but IL had been the gen
cral desire OF the committee on foreign re-
iatinns to have the Chinese government
assent 10y treaty TO the absolute exclusion.
Ii the object could be- accomplished in
that way AMI without direct act OF Con
grcss mot la harmony with the treaty. the
committee preferred 10 have II done in
that way. 4 Subcommittee oi three had
talked the matter over in most friendly
manner with Secretary HayRrd, and the
Secretary had entered into negotiations
with the Chinese government IN view OF
the proposed notifications OF the treaty.
The new treaty had been negotiated aud
bad been ratified 10y the senate with
amendments TO make II clear and which
amendments, IL was supposed. the Chinese
minister would have agreed to. lie sup
posed from what the newspapers said that
The rejection II the treaty hy the Chinese
government WIS connected with the Aus
tralian complications and with the idea
that the Chinese government would have
90 couccde 10 Great britain ia reference to
it, Australian colonies thc same terms
which II conceded g. the United States.
lie, thcrriur. would not make any ohjcc.
ton 90 the passage oi the bill, and lac
hoped Il would pass but this was with the
distinct understanding uhai the llouso had
passed II with thc knowledge that tao now
urvaiy had been rejected 10y the Chinese
government II that should prove other
wise, the FAULT would not DO that ot the
senate.
Mr.. Butler II this bill should become n
Law would Il not h. In direct oOntraycn-
ton Of the treaty between the United
States aud China'
MIR Shcrman-l think tina, the bill Is
inconsistent with the inrity. but NJ the
Chincse government declines b make the
proposed changes We have the unqucs.
iioncd right 10 pus the bill.
Mr.. Butlcr-So that there IL treaty
nov existing between the United States
aud China With which tic bill comes in
conflict.
Air. sherman Undoubtedly. because
under 1t il Is provided that Tor q certain
time aud under ceftgin circumstances
Chinese laljorcrs who have been hcru have
n right b. cumc back, aud IL Is only br.
cause H. provisions have been violated by
fraud aud perjury tina, such a law ~ this
j. justiuallc.
MIR Buicf= Then you admit that this
hill Is violation OF the treaty. and there
fore violation Of the constitution oi the
United Slatos3
Mr.. shcrman-l deny the ergo.
NJ butlcr-l will take back the ergo
because ii is NOT a violation of the consli-
tuition, lut you admit that ID D. violation
vi ah existing trthty9
Mr.. Teller The term "yilaji0u" Is not
proper term where there b. q legislative
Cispncumcnt OF q treaty. Abrugatiun Is
tie term.
M. Butler Now. understand tho ron.
nior irum Ohio 90 state that this act will
bc a violation Of an existing treaty
Mr.. Shcman-l did not usn tho Wurl
"yiolaiiOn.'
Mr.. Bullcr-what n the Norl9
Mr.. sherman II is the abrogliion Of a
treaty Just o. Law may bp ahfugulcd
A treaty y law.
M. lullrt-lhiV j. an abrpgation then
OF the treaty between the United States
aud China2
Mr. sherman II is asubstlnlia change.
"a. "a 4