Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-09-04
CONGRESS-.
Interesting Colloquy in the
Senate.
THE CHINESE EXCLUSION BILL
The House Makes Short Work of it
The Senate Takes Time
to Consider.
Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALI

Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD
WASHINGTON, September g. The Sem
ate to-day passed the House bill for the
establishment of light houses for signals,
etc., at Ballast Point, San Diego on Roe
Island, Suisun Bay, CAL; at Hecate
Head, Winslow river, Oregon, and out
side the bar of the Columbia river.
The special House bill excluding Chi
nese immigration absolutely, having
come over from the House was taken up
for action. At first George moved its
reference to the Committee on Foreign
Relations, but that course was resisted
by Senators Stewart, Mitchell and Dolph.
Vest declared himself prepared to vote
for the bill Immediately. Under these
circumstances George withdrew his mo-
tion to refer.
SHERMAN ENTERS INTO DETAILS.
Sherman gave detailed statement of
the course Of the Committee on Foreign
Relations in regard to the treaty recently
ratified by the Senate, with amendments,
including an interview with the Secretary
Of State. No one doubted the power of
the the United States Government to
make the exclusion of the Chinese abso-
lutte, even without negotiating new
treaty, and even in violation of the ex-
listing treaty. Every nation had the right
to provide by law for its own safety, but
it had been the general desire of the
Committee on Foreign Relations to have
the Chinese Government assent by
treaty to absolute exclusion. If the
object could be accomplished in that
way, and without the direct action OF
Congress, the committee preferred
to have it done in that way.
The subcommittee of three had
talked the matter over in a
most friendly manner with Secretary
Bayard, and the Secretary had entered
into negotiations with the Chinese Gov
ernment. In view of the proposed modi-
tications OF the treaty, q new treaty had
been negotiated and had been ratified by
the Senate, with amendments to make it
clear, and which amendments it WAS
supposed the Chinese Minister would
have agreed to. 1t was supposed from
what the papers said that the rejection of
the treaty by the Chinese Government
was connected with the Australian COM
plications, and with the idea that the
Chinese Government would have to con-
cede to Great Britain in reference to its
Australian colonies, the same terms which
it conceded to the United States. He,
therefore, would not make any objection
to the passage of the bill, and he hoped it
would pass. But this was with the dis
tinct understanding that the House had
passed it with the knowledge that the
new treaty had been rejected by the
Chinese Government. If that should
prove otherwise, the fault would not be
that OF the Senate.
A CoLLOQUY WITH BUTLER.
Butler-If this bill should become a
law, would it not become direct contra
vention of the treaty between the United
States and China?
Sherman-I thing the bill is inconsist-
ent with the treaty. But as the Chinese
Government declines to make the pro.
posed changes, wehave the unquestioned
right to pass this bill.
Butler-So there is treaty now exist
ing between the United States and China
with which this bill comes in conflict?
Sherman Undoubtedly, because und.
OA ~, ~ 10 PIONlOCu ULldU lOI d C6Itdlu
time and under certain circumstances,
Chinese laborers who have been here
and have returned to China have right
to come back, and it is only because its
provisions have been violated by fraud
and perjury that such a law as this is
justifiable.
Butler-Then you admit that this bill
is violation of the treaty, and therefore
a violation of the Constitution of the
United States?
Sherman-I deny the ergo.
Butler-I will take back the ergo, be-
cause it is not violation of the Consti-
tuition, but you admit that it is violation
of the existing treaty.
Sherman-The term "violation" is not
the proper term where there is legisla-
tive displacement of a treaty; "abroga-
ton" is the term.
Butler-Now l understand the Senator
from Ohio to state that this act will be
violation of an existing treaty.
Sherman-I did not use the word
"violation.'
Butler-What is the word?
Sherman-It is an "abrogation" of the
treaty. Just as law may be abrogated.
A treaty is law.
Butler-This is an abrogation, then, of
the treaty between the United States and
China?
Sherman-It is substantial change.
Butler-Is this the form in which it is
provided that the treaty may be abro-
gated?
Sherman-It is not; but there is no
doubt of the power of Congress to repeal
a treaty if it choose to exercise that
power. Every nation has that right.
Butler-I understand that very we'll !;
but it seems to me that this whole Chi.
nese business has been matter of polit-
ical advantage, and that we have not
been governed by that deliberation which
the gravity of the question requires.
There is very important Presidential
election pending. One house of Congress
passes bill to drive these poor devils of
Cinnamon into the Pacific ocean, and
the other house comes up and says:
Eyes, we will drive them still farther
into the Pacific ocean, notwithstanding
the treaty between the two Govern
ments." l shall vote for the bill, but [
am sorry to be informed by the Senator
from Ohio that it is a violation of treaty.
Teller-Not violation of it.
Butler-Well, an abrogation OF the
treaty.
MITCHELL CHIPS IN.
Mitchell-Is the Senator from South
Carolina willing to vote for the bill
which will in his judgement contravene
the provisions of an existing treaty?