The morning call., 1893-06-23
THE REASONS WHY.

The editors of the Forum are apparent ly
impressed with the importance of giving
the anti-American side of current issues.
In the June number Judge Cooley presents
the negative argument on the propositio Ms
to acquire the Hawaiian Islands and
Gilbert Reid makes an elaborate assertion
of the right of China to send to this
country as many of her people as may
seem desirable. Mr.. Reid says:
There is no doubt in China that the acts Of
Congress do constitute a fragrant violation o.
our treaties. The Supreme Court OF the United
States in May, 1883 itself conceded that the
Chinese exclusion act of October. 1888, known
as the Scott law, was 'in c0ntravention OF The
express stipulations Of the treaty OF 1868 and
OF the supplementary treaty OF 1880" As thai
act is continued In force ten years from May
1892, IL is still true that there is a contraven
tion of the treaties made by the United States
with China.
Mr. Reid is correct in his statements
He does not, however. even hint of the
justification which has been pleaded by the
advocates of Chinese restriction. He
gives the Chinese view of the case and
leaves readers of his article to infer that
the United States has been guilty of bad
faith without reason for so doing. As Mr..
Reid has passed many years in China he is
probably more in sympathy with that
country than with the United S ,ates.
The American side in brief Is this: The
treaty of 1868 was made in utter Ignorance
of Chinese civilization. The American
Government did not know the character
istics of the race that treaty in vited 10 enter
into the country. By 1880 we bad become sat
sfied that Chinese laborers were not wanted
and a treaty was entered into giving US the
right to restrict the immigration of Chinese
iaborers TO those who had once been in the
United States. All others might be ex-
cluded for a reasonable period of time. In
1882 Congress enacted a law to carry the
new treaty into effect. The purpose of
that law was defeated by Chinese trckery.
The fact had been made apparent that a
Chinaman had no regard for an oath. This
fact so impaired the value of the law of
1882 as restriction law that an amend
menU was demanded. This came in 1884.
Congress, with the experience obtained in
the last two years, tried to enact law that
would not conflict with the treaty and yet
would restrict immigration. But 1t was
soon found that the amended act was not
much more effective than the original act.
Chinese, aided by American sympa thiz-
ers, swore their way in. The only effect o f
this amended act was to make the cost of
getting a Chinese laborer into an Ameri-
can port greater than it would be If there
had been no restriction act. Four years
later the Scott exclusion bill was passed.
That it was violation Of the come and
go" clause In the treaty of 1880 has never
been denied. The Supreme Court in con-
sidering the constltutionality of the Scott
law said:
Although it must be conceded that the act
is in contravention OF express stpulations OF
the treaty Of 1868 and Of the supplementary
treaty of 1880, II is not on that account invalid
or to be restricted in its enforcement By the
constitution, laws made in pursuance thereof
and tire ties made under The authority OF the
United States are both declared 10 be the SUI
preme law of the land and no paramount au.
thority is given to one over the other. In either
case the last expression OF the will must con-
troll.
Mr.. Reid's quarrel. therefore, is with the
Supreme Court of the United States. The
act of 1888 and the later act of 1892 were
passed in full knowledge that China pos
sessed certain right IF redress which, up
to the present time, that nation has not
availed itself of.