The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-04-15
CHINESE EXCLUSION BILL.
Foraker and McLaurin Strongly Op-
posed to The Measure.
WILL CUT orr OUR TRADE WITH CHINA.
Ohio Senator Maintained that the Bill
Would Wreck the Cotton Trade Of
the South


clusion hin occupied the attention Of the
scuutc throughout today, senators Foraker
and NlcLaulln IS. c. making extended
speeches IN opposition Mr.. Foraker con
tended that the pending measure was yio-
latlvc Of our treaty with China and was
calculated to prevent our commercial tx
pansion In the far East. While strongly
supporting the policy OF the government to
exclude Chinese nborcrs, the Ohio scnntor
maintained that this could be- best accom-
pHshpd los am extension OF tine present luw,
holding that the drastic provisions Of the
pending bin would cot OF trade with China
aud thus wrcct Che cotton trade of tine
south.
Mr. Teller briefly responded TO Mr. For
oker holding lhut the right 90 ohrognte
treaties was fully recognized.
M Lodge Massl gave notice Of an
amendment striking out Che much discussed
clause prohibiting the employment Of chi
uc.c suilors on American vessels.
The Chinese exclusion bin was taken
up uy the senate after the disposal of
routine uslncss today and Mr.. MeLuuriu
IS. CD spoke n support Of am extension
OF the present lNu Mr. NcLaurlu said
10 WAS ucpuccNublc THAT amy honorable
nation, least Of uiI the luuud States,
should surrender ITS Integrity by dciDc-
atrlN adopting AND cuAuIlu- luW9 Zoo lIu.a-
lion "I ila own sworn compact Wl treaty
with any other puWrr and tnut, iIu, du,lns
~ pritd OF profound prd"e, without aN
PI"'.NmE '"nse nom tne "ihrr nation.
cucuWtrd tu kIl out tu1p with China
lhls Wa, % consideration at vital impur
uure to South Carolina with its vast r"J
ton production and Tine growing shipments
"i cotton goods Go China.
US ll iuir 90 TrrtItr of ~Nufl..
/. h'N senator N'i"llliu' Ju@l lr ih'' 't,
N'HlnN'u- lp prosper ln u'udlJlluluE ald
commercial enterprises atrr long ycan
't N'I''N'M 10 CRUSH h'WN jh'iI new 'N
INlFil''~ un In' assumption mat -1ru %
IN.N9uS pg'gA Us hn'r~-uN lu order 9" no'p
Out 'I' hlut7' War~ tn p'lnl of iui. 10
vs. hvl Al aH n'''NSl'A 'Wl tine 'hWD>o
IIir '|WL "p, our ny 'N' existing law
may Us 'N' p.hH BUSINESS proposition Hl
Ii, h".'N 9l iut W'u.D question:
Nr iof'Ngr iVh" followed ln "a sprr"a
AZ ln' outset 1e e1ia b" desired tu cn
W"5'H' 'A' I''' JhIi no was non opposed
Z" IN' .h,lAi p'"nn~'ll"n lMi 'ulno.r lI
ho'rrs' 7s.i'd or nnSNiIod. should 10" Gas
/ Guided Iii' opposition Wac not nu account
or the p""hl"t"l policy, but WAS 900 .r
'Hun, or 'iN'' ''hluics "f iHr NrnuInE oII
/ 'n''uh in"e' iHIa''nG TO exempted rIH--eS,
Whlrh, rue s'u1i"r Declared N"rv loo vln-
/ laI|un of treaty Nights nul calculated 90
I work borm aud injury 90 tine people "t
1 tbs r"on'r especially to the Wage fap
/ rrs
/ Replying to question from Mr. rhtt
] ttoun b. Nj. ior7A'r ,ula chat VI Hang
/ Chang would hive been excluded from la>
/ county Wd.r itn u"u' ls"uS or the pend.
. ing hlis and CHINA could rociproc3liy eN-
gl"ie 'ur missionaries. engineers and stu.
druts.
/ of treaty and as iuJugmntug au unvise
/ policy
/ Mr. Qu1rics Njsl asked n the new Chi
ucsr policy of sending youths 10 American
OBJ .flt.I Do.