The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-08-06
the beginning, ann asserted in the de-
cision of the Supreme Court of the United
States in May last, in the

States in May last, in the
CHAE CHANG PING CASE.
The United States formulates law with
direct reference to Chinese Immigration
and sets at rest all doubts as to the con-
stitutional right of Congress to legislate to
tect the people of the United States
against this threatened Asiatic invasion.
This decision, declaring as it does, princi-
pies that have always been affirmed by our
Judiciary. relieves the Chinese question
from diplomatic perDlexities, and places it
relations to the public welfare. 1t is no
longer a matter of concern that incoming
Chinese
ALLEGE PRIOR RESIDENCE
In the British colony of Hong-Koug. or in
contiguous British or Mexican territory.
The exclusion rests not upon the provls-
ions of treaty. but upon the sovereign act
of the general Government. The question
whether public policy demands the eXclu-
sion Of Chinese has already been definately
decided by the acts of 1882 and 1854 anu
1888, and can hardly be considered the sub
ject of a serious controversy.
There is, however, some evidence OF
disposition to reopen the discussion by as
Serting that the Chinese people in the
United States are never found in the pris-
onS or pnorhouses of the country; that they
are inoffenSive, temPerate and law-abiding,
and peculiarly subject TO the influences of
Christian salvation.
A FALSE IMPRESSION.
There are doubtless many individal cases
tending to justify such partial estimate of
the Chinese character, but II is a mistake
to suppose that such individuals are of a
class, or that they represent in demeanor or
moral worth, any considerable number of
those who are seeking admission into this
country as laborers. 1t is not proposed to
discuss this question now.
The policy of exclusion having been
adopted by the people of the United States
after n full discussion and mature delibera-
tiOn there is no reason now for review Of
the reasons for such policy in processing
methods for its execution. 1t is enough to say
at present that the reasons for exclusion
are many and far-reaching, but 1t may not
be amisS, in this connection, in the briefest
possible manner, to notice some of the evil
dence tending TO show the actual relation
OF our Chinese population to the criminal
laws of the country. For example, we Will
take the city of San Francisco. The Chi
nese population of that city, as reported in
the census of 1880, was 81, 132.
FACTS AND FIGURES.
A preliminary estimate made from the
census returns of 1890 shows that the pOpu-
lation is now about 25,000. The Chief of
Police of that city reports the followi ng
lumber of arrests uf Cinnamon for off enSes
=
period commencing July !, 1879, TO Ju ly Is
1882 viz: y, l65.
q AInformation as the number of convictions
had III the above cases is not at hand, and
Though they are known to be large they do
not Indicate the number of actual crimes
committed, since the Chinese are accuS
toned 10 shield each other from criminal
prosecution.
The number Of Chinese convicts serving
terms of imprisonment in the State prisons
of California on June Is, 1890, was 172. Ii
addition to these criminals in the custody
of the State, there were a lArge number
imprisoned
IN THE COUNTY JAILs
For less serious offenses against the laws
These facts, which fnd confederation
wherever any number OF these people are
d0micied, diSprOVe the assertion that they
are an inoffensiVe and law-ahiding class.
The law excluding Chinese Immigration
will expire by limitation on August 5, 1892,
unless there is an extension of the period
of exclusion by the amendatory act OF
July 8, 1884, to ten years from the
date of that act In any event 1t is
| time some action was being taken by TIN
| United States in determining and declaring
the permanent future policy of this country
| regarding Chinese immigration. The bill
now under consideration proposes to SETTLE
| that question.
THE BILL RECOMMENDED.
1t makes exclusion permanent and thor
oughly effective. The purpose of the bill is Il
make the terms OF exclusion more extended
so as to prevent the pretense and frauC
now pTaetieed of belonging to the privileged
class, under which immigration is now con-
tinued under the claim that the Immigrant
is a merchant, travelling for curiosity or in
transit across the territory of the United
States to some other country.
The committee recommends the passage
Of the bill.