The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1888-09-08
Rejection of the Chinese Tr 4sty-
Another Great Blunder,

Baltimore Sun, SeptembersS.
The unnecessary amendments added to the
Chinese treaty by the Senate, after II had been
approved in its original form by the Chinese
government, have caused, it appears, the re-
lection of the entire treaty, This is result
much to be deplored. 1t is another case of
partisan laundering which can hardly fail to
exert an important influence during the pres
ent campaign in States where the people are
anxious to arrest the influx of the Chinese.
But for TIE unwillingness of the Republicans
of the Senate to permit Mr.. Bayard and the
administration of which he is a member to
enjoy the credit ofnegotiatinga popular treaty,
the convention with China would be in force
at this moment and great public object
would have been affected. Soon after the
beginning of the Cleveland administration
Mr.. Bayard entered upon negotiations with
the Chinese minister at Washington with a
view to obtaining China's assent to the total
exclusion of Chinese laborers from this coun-
try. After some months of discussion n treaty
was drafted which secured the desired end
Its first and essential article was in these
terms: "The high contracting parties agree
that for period of twenty years, beginning
with the date of the exchange of the ratihca-
tons of this convention, the coming, except
under the conditions hereinafter specified, of
Chinese laborers to the United States shall be
absolutely prohibited. This treaty was trans.
mitted to China in March last and was ratified
by the Chinese government. The Senate,
however, when the treaty came before 1t for
ratification, added these two clauses, which,
in the opinion of the administration, were un-
necessary: Sand no such Chinese laborer
shall be permitted to enter the United States
by land or sea without producing to the pro-
14, &c tho tho onrtitI-
cate herein required. And this prohibition
shall extend to the return of Chinese laborers
who are not now in the United States, whether
holding return certificates under existing laws
or not" These amendments, if desirable,
might have been reserved for another treaty,
but their addition to this one has, it appears,
caused the whole negotiation to come to
nought. In its original form the treaty was
satisfactory to the States most concerned.
Says Mr.. I. l.. Thompson, Representative
from California: ''ln my opinion, the origi-
nal treaty submitted to the Senate and ratified
by the Chinese government was ample to ex-
ciude the Chinese. 1t conceded to Congress
the power to enact whatever legislation was
necessary to do that, and the Senate amend
ments were unnecessary, and resulted in the
rejection of the treaty." Representative
Vandever, of the same State, assents that
''the Senate amendments have caused the re.
lection of the treaty, which had been ratified
lby the Chinese government before the amend
ments were attached These amendments,
according to Republican Senators, were "vi-
tai - but, having regard to the prompt arrest
of Chinese immigration which the treaty Sc
cured, they will probably strike the impatient
Pacific coast people as pettifogging and fool
ish. They were certainly not worth risklDg
valuable treaty for. The only information
our government had of the intention of the
Chinese government to resent the alteration
of the terms of treaty which had been for
mally accepted was an inquiry by cable from
| Pekin whether power still remained with the
Senate to further amend the treaty. The
Tsung-li- Y amen was evidently in doubt wheth-
err if the Senate's amendments were acceded
to, that would be an end of the matter.
While the treaty was thus in midair an event
occurred which made the Tsung-li- amen
congratulate itself that the Senate of the
| United States had not ratified the treaty
promptly, but had instead tinkered with 1t
with an eve to political advantages on the
Pacific coast. This event was the demand
made upon the British government by the
people of Australia for the exclusion OF Chi
nese from their country through a treaty like
that obtained from China by the United States.
| The British government was asked to obtain
| for Australia terms as favorable as Mr.. Bayard
had obtained. The Chinese government in
dealing with Mr.. Bayard had conceded, it was
contended, a principle, and this principle
China was now asked to apply to Australia,
and perhaps to other parts Of the British EN-
pire. Being unwilling to concede so much,
the Tsung- IL Yamen put an end to the ''prin-
ciple'' by rejecting the treaty, the Senate S
action in sending it back to Pekin having
given the desired opportunity. 1t has been
alleged that ''British influence" secured the
rejection of the treaty, but this is absurd.
| The British government wished to negotiate
a similar treaty, and could hope to do so only
on the basis of the principle of exclusion
established in the treaty with us. The British
interest was, therefore, to assist rather than
| to impede the ratification of our treaty. The
Senate's ill,judged ''smartness" has thus al
tered our position from one of advantage in
dealing with the exclusion of the Chinese to
one in which we are likely to have another
retaliation trouble on our hands. There are
| 62l Americans doing business in China. Ii
we now legisate with stringent severity fol-
the imposition of hard conditions upon China
men travelling between America and Asia,
what can we expect but that the Chinese
government will retaliate upon Americans
| travelling and doing business in the Empire
We shall legislate, no doubt, but we shall do
| it now under far less favorable circumstances
| than we should have done had the treaty been
ratified by the Senate in the precise form given
it by Secretary Bayard.