The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-10
EXCLUSION BILL DEBATE
SPEECHES AGAINST 1T BY TWO NEW
ENGLAND SENATOR'S.
Messrs. GaIIinger and Dillingham;
strongly Opposed tn the Bill
Views of Mr.. Turner.

WASHINGTON, April 9.-When the Sen
ate convened to-day Mr.. Fairbanks, of In
diana. reported favoraby from the commit
tee immig ra ton the Chinese exclusion
bill passed by the House of Representa-
tives. 1t was placed on the calendar.
Mr.. Patterson offered resolution. which
was adopted calling on the secretary Of
the treasury for certain regulations which
regulated the exclusion Of Chinese.
At the conclusion of routine business con-
sideration of the Chinese exclusion bill was
resumed. Mr.. Gallinger addressing the Sem
ate in opposition TO the bill. die declared the
bill was uncalled for. unnecessary, unwise
and un-American. 1t is harsh in its provis-
ions, unjust in its definiteness and clearly
in cOntravention of our solemn treaty obli-
cations. He said the proposed legislation
was narrow, bigOted and indefensible. We
are asked TO support it, said he, because
of certain alleged abuses in California and
on the Pacific coast" He added that had
not the senators from the Pacific States
fathered the measure it might we'll be at
tributed to the fertile brain of some sand
lot agitatOr.' Mr.. Gallinger maintained that
the pending subject was matter for
diplomatic negotiation and not for con-
gressiOnai action. In this connection he
read Minister Wu's recent letter to Secre-
tary of State Hay. in which he protested
against the enactment of the bill. declaring
that il would disturb the friendly relations
between the United States and China.
Mr. Mitchell, of oregon, inquired of Mr..
GaIlinger what he thought of the propriety.
of A foreign minister criticisng measures
pending before Congress.
Mr. Gallinger replied that the secretary
of state evidently though it quite proper.
Mr.. Foraker interrupted to say that the
Chinese minister clearly was i'm his rights
i'm writing the letter, as the treaty express
iy reserved that right to China.
In conclusion, Mr.. Gallinger urged that
Congress be just in dealing with China and
extend to that empire the same proper
treatment il extends to other nations.
Mr.. Turner followed Mr.. Galinger with a
speech in support of the pending bill He
maintained that American labor ought not
to be pauperiZed and paganized by the ad-
mission of Chinese, and any experiment
looking to their admission would be need
less and wicked Mr.. Turner, i'm reply to
Mr.. Gallinger. cOntended that the pending
the restriction of Chinese immigration; in
deed. he asserted that the bill is practically
a re-enactment of existing law, except that
il is more liberal in its admission of Chi
nese merchants. He also asserted that the
most stringent provisions of the bill had
been drawn by treasury officials and were
made necessary by the craft and guile of
the Chinese in evading treaty obligations
He also declared that every provision of
the bill is in conformity with the treaty
with China and declared that well-meaning
Cinnamon could take no exception to its
provisions. He defended the provision pro-
hibiting the employment of Chinese crews
on vessels going TO sea and said that criti-
cism of it is inconsistent with the recent
action of the Senate in voting the ship sub
sidy bill for the purpose of enabling Amer
lean ship owners to pay extra wages to
American sailors. Mr.. Turner urged the
incorporation into any law enacted of the
treasury regulations on Chinese exclusion,
declaring that the fact that Cinnamon. the
Pacific steamship companies and the trans
continental railway companies were op-
posed 10 these regulations was an argiI-
ment i'm support of them.
The Senate insisted on it's amendments to
the Indian appropriation bill and Messrs
Stewart Platt of Connecticut and Rawlins
were named as the Senate conferees.
Mr.. Dillingham; addressed the Senate in
opposition 10 the Chinese bill. He said he
was heartily in favor of a law which would
exclude Chinese laborers i'm accordance
with the treaty Of 1894. He would vote. he
said, for a substitute for the proposed bill
which in effect would continue i'm force or
re-enact the present Geary law. That had
served an excellent purpose and was with
out serious Objectionable features He
thought that with two or three minor
amendments the present law would satisfy
any reasonable advocate of Chinese exclu-
sion He believed that the real question
presented to Congress was how best to pro-
tect American laws or American citizenship
and American progress and prosperity. All
be afforded. The dangers of the admission
of Chinese. he thought. had been ex
aggerated and were not so serious : had
been pictured. All had agreed that the
operation of the existing law was salts
factory. No good reason had been ad-
vanced for change, which. he asserted,
would be enormously expensive, as an en-
tirely new set of machinery for the enact
ment of the law would have TO be put in
notion
After brief executive session the SEN
ate at SOS p. m adjourned