Omaha daily bee., 1888-07-29

The Chinese objected 10 this, as it operated
to include artisans in the class of laborers
whose immigration might be forbidden. The
Americans replied that they could not con-
sent that artisans should be excluded from
the class of Chinese laborers, for it is in this
very competition of skilled labor in the cities
where the Chinese labor Immigration concen-
trates, which has caused the embarrassment
and popular discomfort. In the subsequent
negotiations this definition dropped out, and
does not appear in the treaty. Article . of
the treaty %confers the rights, privileges, I'M
munities and exemptions which are accorded
to citizens and subjects of the most favored
nation upon Chinese subjects proceeding to
the United States as teachers, students, Ter-
chants, or from curiosity. The American
commissioners report that the Chinese gov
eminent claimed that in this article they did,
by exclusion, provide that nobody should be
entitled to claim the benefit of the general
provisions of the Burllngame treaty but
those who might go to the United States in
those capacities or for those purposes. l ac-
cept this as the definition Of the word labor
crs' as used in the treaty"
Mr.. Harrison said: Il only want to make
! q suggestion. In the treaty the word labor
ers' is used. 1 take it that it is not in the
power of congress to enlarge the meaning of
that word. Whatever it meant in the treaty
it would mean the same thing as used in the
law. We cannot make it mean more than
that; therefore why not let il stand in the
! law rs in the treaty, and let the use of that
word include what it will
Mr.. Grover objected to the proposition of
Mr.. Harrison for the reason he said, the
word can be defined in different ways, and if
it is left to be construed by those who ad-
minister the law, they will have to determine
it either one way or the other. Mr.. Harri-
son replied to this in the following:
1T is possible that the senate is right in
saying that the word may be construed diff
ferently; but can we enlarge the meaning of
it as it is used in the treatyl That is the
question l present. If we use the same word
| i'm the la ~ that iS uSpl in the treaty we are
going as far as we can go, for we cannot en-
l large the word as it is used in the treaty"
M. Grover proposed to put a legislative
Interpretation upon it and Mr.. Miller (Cal.)
remarked: ave start out with the presump-
tion that congress will not l~egislate to vic
late a treaty, so that in tact it is probable
that the words of the treaty would govern
unless there was a plain intent manifest that
congress intended to violate the treaty or
legislate in conflict with it. If any one can
show a good reason or apprehension that
skilled labor so-called would come into this
country under this bill unless this section
were adopted, l should certainly desire to
have it adopted"
MIR. Grover read an extract from the Daily
Record-U Union of California, of April %,
which discussed the amendment made by the
senate committee, criticising the effect of
leaving out the provision of the fifteenth
section.
Mr.. Harrison replied to Mr.. Grover as fol-
lows: Will the senator from Oregon allow
me 10 make a SuSgeSllOn 10 MIN lie READS
an article from a paper to the effect that the
word 'laborers' as used in the treaty or as
used in the law may be limited by meaning
applied to those who are unskilled. II the
court should so decide, giving that meaning
to the word 'laborers' as used in the treaty,
would the senator from Oregon be in favor
of going beyond what we are authorized to
do by our treatyi"
Mr.. Grover answered: "The commits
sioners on the part of the United States, who
negotiated this treaty. are unanimous in
their expression that this clause is properly
in the bill" 10 which Mr.. Harrison re-
piled:
SIT reminds me of a will case that l was
once trying, when tho lawyer who drew the
will was on the other side. There was a
great deal OF controversy about the meaning,
and he undertook to settle it by saying that
he wrote tho will and knew what it meant.
1t seems to me that Is u parallel case with
our commissioners undertaking to say what
the word means"
Mr.. Grover again answered.: "The presi-
dent of the United States. after considering
the protest of the Chinese ambassador and
reading what the American commissioner
said, decided that this clause was correctly
in the bill. If any court should decide that
there is "A conflict between the law and the
treaty, l think the treaty will go to the wal"
Mr.. Harrison-"That does not answer my
question. is the senator from Oregon in
favor of driving the treaty to the wall by
legislation hcre!'
MIR. Grover: 81 think l have answered
that sufficiently in stating that the commits
sioners and the president have given their
construction OF the treaty. That is the
American view of il, and follow that"
question Mt nil. The question 1 asked the
senator Is whether, if the taeaty and the law
in the section to which he has referred are
in conflict, he still believes IN passing the
law and driving the treaty to the wall: or,
in other words, trampling upon our treaty
obligations"
This branch Of the debate closed by MIR.
Grover declaring that he would stand by the
authorities he had cited, and the bill, after
the debate, went over for the day. (Record,
vol. IL, pit. 4, .. 1851 to l,360.)
April %, 1852, the senate again resumed
consideration, the pending question being
concurrence in striking out the fifteenth Sec
ton. Senators Morgan, Ball, Pendleton and
lamar all spoke in favor of the section being
stricken out. Senator Edmunds, in reply To
remarks of Senator Call, gave some exam
pies of questions of opinion in describing
crimes, stating that more mischief had been
done every where in civilized countries by
undertaking TO make over-definition in laws
about crimes than there is in using general
language.
After further debate q yea and nay vote
was ordered on concurring with the commit
tee of the whole in striking from the bill the
fifteenth section. The yeas were 90 and the
nays p; so that the amendment was nom
concurred in. Mr.. Harrison voted yea, in
favor OF concurring.
MIR. Edmunds then moved to amend the ff
tccnth section by striking out all the words
after ''that" and inserting: 1.-THE words
Chinese laborers, wherever used IN this act
shall oc construed TO mean persons usually
engaged in manual labor"
The yeas and nays were taken, which re
suited in IL yeas, % nays, and the amend
ment was rejected. MIR. Harrison voted fol
tho amendment.
Mr.. Edmunds again moved TO amend the
fourteenth section as follows; "Nothing In
this act shall be construed to change the ex
isting naturalization laws, so as to ADM
Chinese persons to citizenship"
The amendment was rejected by a yea and
| nay ~v0tc-ycas 10, nays Is, MIR. Harrison
voting yea, in favor of the amendment.
The bin was placed upon its passage, re
ceiving 81 yeas and Is nays, Mr.. Harrison
voting nay. So the bill passed.
A review Of this remarkable debate dis
: closes but one prominent feature Of opposl
! ton from the republican minority to tn,