New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-04-05
MAY DELAY CONGRESS-.
Further Chinese Exclusion LegiSla-
ton Thought Necessary.

Washington. April 4-As result Of the denun-
citation by China OF the treaty with the United
States Of December T. 1884, some further legislation
IS necessary In order to validate the existing Chin
csc Exclusion laws OF this country after December.
l9Oi according to the view Of Senator Patterson.
and his proposition is receiving serious consdera
ton from the Senate leaders II further IegIsla-
ton is found to be necessary. while simple enact
ment would prove effectual. consideration and
adoption OF Il might. TO some extent, delay the
early adjournment now anticipated.
According to Senator Patterson. the fact that
the Chinese Exclusion law. re-enacted in 1902.
contains the provision mot inconsistent with ex-
listing treaties" which was inserted in conference
will render that law imperative after the expira-
ton Of the present treaty on December 7. 1904
Mr.. Patterson maintains that with the expiration
Of the treaty OF 1884 the immigration provisions OF
the treaties OF 1850 and 1865 revived. The treaty
OF 1880 provides only that the United States shall
be authorized to regulate limit and suspend tho
coming OF Chinese To this country As the exist
ing exclusion act cannot be said to regulate
mat or suspend the coming OF chinese. Tor the
reason that II perpetually prohibits Chinese immi-
obtain, and they liberal in the extreme virtu-
ally allowing unrestricted admission OF Chinese
has Consulted they Insisting that no law can do
period not to exceed ten years without becoming
Inconsistent with existing treaties"
IN support Of his contention mat the provisions
OF the treaty Of 1905 wiz be revived by the expra
Secretary Foster as saying. at hearing before the
senate Committee immigration. But the
p!ration OF that treaty IsJD does leave the
two governments without any provision on the sub
jet Of immigration. Tie stlpulations contained in
Articles and VI OF the treaty Of 1865 revived
and come into full force and effect" And again:
Hence 10 follows that the termination OF the
treaty OF 1884 reytves in full force the provisions
-iSsod puB lu9ulLBd5Q owns sul QlIa AIslgIpSu
lInsuOO UlA h5ul puB Z5I 20 sgl 10 sUCIsIh
-oLd UoisuloXo SJl 20 sssusA lOsu5 SUl on lQUOp
LoI JuooI 81 eI9Ql 4Eql lIupB ASQl QJnoQIB sUop
-uJluoo s.uosIsllBd LV 20 sssul05IIoJ SV1 spsouo0
o. PSISd'Id 1ou SLV slBues eql 20 sL9PssI eVL
..F6sL 10 hlBSIl Sul AZ pspu3d
-srS puB pSUIpou s5Uo AluO sql clam \ pup A sop
-IlLY 1881 20 AlT9Il Sql 20 ~ puB ~ s5l0HLV 20
TO Rscertaining beyond peradyenture the precise
effect and value OF the existing law, after the
treaty OF 1894 expires under China's recent denun-
citation.
Senator Patterson has already prepared a meas
which merely eliminates from the existing law
the words mot Inconsistent with existing treaties
which he believes will avoid all possibility
carriage Of the intent OF the exclusion statute.
In his advocacy OF this proposition Mr.. Patterson
has the support of President Gompers Of the Amer
lean Federation OF Labor, and other la Dor
leaders But Il IS question with the Sena 70
leaders as 70 whether this bill would prove the
most advisable form or enactment, Il would
mean that the law to be enforced in violation
the new commercial treaty with China. 1t is not
impossible should the Senate leaders satisfy them
selves that Mr.. Patterson point Is well taken, that
they would prefer to amend the existing law by the
thus bringing the statute within the stipulation OF
the treaty OF 1850, which authorizes the United
States ito regulate, limit suspend" the coming
OF Chinese to the United States. Such suspension
year periods indefinitely. and would in the opinion
OF some Senators, provide q more diplomatic way
out OF anv possible dilemma than the direct
and blunt proposition of the Senator from Colorado.