New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-04-09
EXCLUSION OF CHINESE.
cabinet Considers the Problem Serl-
oue-Mr. PGtterS0n'S VicScS.

,,z,,,,.o, a--sl s-PracticaIly the entire ses-
rfon OF the Cabinet to-day was consumed IA T"
sho-ough discussion OF the Chinese exclusion G-es
sion. China has denounced the existing uea'y'
which viii expire by limitation next December, II
ss, beeu the hope Z not the expectation, OF emma
50 negotiate a favorable treaty tAah 'Ae o--s
now "a force but intimaton has been CUM 9 GU
30 the Picking government that treaty -1io-9
Favorable TO the Chinese than the existing one
would not be ratified By the Senate The discussion
to-day developed the fact that the whole sltuauon
as olouaed IN doubt II is possible that Chnas &C.
sunciation OF the treaty may be WithoraNI' pUI no
fncial intimation OF such action has heen recel1
nv this government The suggestion IS mace Nle'
r-,4ber treaty. may be negotiated, but the terms
are not indicated beyond the fact that 'he oaS'S
viii be the existing treaty. No concluslo" "oS
reached at to-cay's meeting secretary Col0e's-
s-ho has had the subject under consideration was
not present Serious consideration VIII De sl'e ~
she ez,bsect IN the next few months. n the event
of failure 70 negotiate another treaty me Oc'is
Exclusion law viii be enforced. This IS lar HiOIe
drastic than the treaty.
Mr.. Patterson addressed the senate 'o-o"!
she Remuneration Of the Chinese exclusion treaty
de announced lis conviction that unless adol-
sionaI legislation IS had before Congress ao9oaIls
every barrier against Chinese immigration 'li'tl
has been built viii be removed on December .
next and the ports Of The country thrown open
80 the rnrestricted coming OF the Chinese hordes
whose invasion Of the United States was arrested
twenty-five years ago" lie traced the prospective
trouble 10 the failure OF Concress IN its vote O.
aeo2 10 duplicate the act 1882 continuing in torce
Tor years the exclusion act OF lss- t1ad 14l5
not denounced the treaty" he said mere Nogie
be no trouble with the exclusion avs, LOT
she act OF 1892 would have kept them all IN force;
but with the 1854 treaty out OF the way tnoeC ne
act OF 1902 exclusion laws VIII al Ial4 10 the
ground the coming of December Z, me cause use
of this Is the wording OF She act or BlZ For the
sirst zine IN .hs Chinese legislation the validity
of exclusion laws vas made 10 depend on the
forms o. treaties with China"
lie said the treaty OF 1894 the only treaty
mat Absolutely prohibited the coming OF Chinese
20 his country. ITe admitted that The treaty OF
$50 pro-l5ed for Chinese exclusion, but called at
seuton 10 the TACT tGsr under that agreement the
T-ritad states could only suspend, regulate and
airnit' Chinese immigration
Senators Mitchell. Gallon and SpConer asked Mr..
Patterson % 70 whether the treaty OF 1894 had not
entirely superredeG and repealed the treaty or
1850 cat NJ Patterson contended that such was
sot the case NJ. Spcorer made the point that Il
fe treaty of 1894 repealed the treaty q 1850 the
latter treaty must have superseded the treaty OF
1858 5fr. Patterson. however, did not yield the
point
Nr. spconsr suggested that the treaty between
fhe United States and China would hold in force
the other treaties existing st the time. including
ahe treaty OF 1898. hut Mr. Patterson did not ac-
cept this consrucson. lie contended that the only
safe method 20 make an explicit declaration
81 the form 81 legal enactment and he predicted
that unless this course pursued serious agita-
sion wolld egsue.