New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-01-15

Chapter in the OF Our Diplomatic Relations
China.
BY MAX j. KOHLER-


STUDY Or curiosity. shall enjoy In the respective
countries all the rights privileges. immunities and
exemptions which sranted by either country 10
the citizens and subjects OF the most favored ma
tons" With respect to this provision the Chinese
commissioners commented in writing: This is in
exact accord with the treaties now in force, and
there TO be occasion for re-enactrert
OF this section" Mr.. Prescott. behalf OF the
American commissioners. replied that at was
the Chinese commissioners said only a summary.
or recapitUlaton. Of the provisions OF existing
treaties the subject Of the emigration and resi-
dence Of the citizens OF either country in the other
The article was suggested simply under the i'm
preston that as the object Of the present negota
ton was one branch OF immigration It would be
well 10 make any treaty negotiated complete
treatment Of the whole subject But If the Chinese
government preferred to leave the provisions stand
ing as they do in several treaties and confne
this negotiation to the immigration of Chinese
labor. the United States commissioners would not
object, and would not, of press any further
consideration OF the first article AS TO the Of
the former treaties thus summarized. the American
commissioners themselves said: THE Burlingane
Treaty gives the subjects of China the right of
unrestricted immigration into the United States at
least the government Of the United States has hith
erto acquiesced In that construction OF the treaty
Thus find that instead OF being revolutionary
enactment. prohibiting classes from entering. pre-
vtousIy unlimited and unrestricted, both sides
agreed that this new proposed article was mere
summary. recapitulation. OF the provisions OF
existing treaties heretofore concededly granting
right OF entry all classes The design to include
all classes of uon-laborers as privileged appears
still more clearly from some recent comments OF
Mr. Holcombe explaining this choice Of terms.
which will be presently considered.
The American commissioners IN their first draft
also suggested a second article, which.
terially modified became Article 7 of the treaty
as signed. Onitting phrases not here relevant, it
authorized legislation by the United States pro-
hibiting the coming Of Chinese laborers to the
United States. and contained a most significant
definition clause, reading: The words Chinese
ton other than for teaching trade travel, study
and curiosity herenbefore referred 70. and
thortzed and provided for in existing treaties
CHINESE CRITICISED CLAUSE
The Chinese commissioners criticised this pro-
vision in writing on October q. stating: THE
separation Of this class from the mass Of the
subjects Of China in this manner Is not IN strict
accord with the spirit Of our treaties. and in prao-
teal operation would meet with many difficulties
But bearing in mind the deep friendship between
the two governments. in the event of ernharrass-
ments either part solution must be found in
spirit Of mutual concession" Considerable dis
cussion thereupon TO the status Of ar
t!sans" China desiring specifically to authorize
their entry. while the United States commissioners
stated that this insdnissible. IN written
memorandum the United States commissioners
said: Tho United States commissioners feel IT
their duty to insist upon their definition OF Chinese
laborers They cannot consent that artisans shall
be excluded from the class OF Chinese laboreTs,
for It is this very competition OF skilled labor in
the cities where the Chinese labor immigration
concentrated which has caused the embarrassment
and popular discomfort they wish TO avoid Four
DAYS later an agreement was reached the treaty
which was signed on November II. 1880, being
then agreed upon mutual concessions being made
the definition of 'laborers'' previously insisted
upon by the United States being dropped and
Article being remodelled to insert the sug-
gestive words hereinbefore quoted that the leg1s-
lation authorized shall apply only to Chinese who
may go to the United States laborers. other
classes not being included in the limitation; on
the other hand. the exception to artisans"
which China had urged was abandoned Unfortu-
nately, the documents in our Foreign Relations"
do not give the details of the negotiations which
interviewed between November and the agree
ment and we have no "precis Of the conversa-
tons" such as are furnished for the earlier con-
ferences-
NO FULL, ACCOUNT SUBMITTED
The promise made by the commissioners to the
Secretary Of State in their letter OF November s.
that I'VE will by the next mall send you full &C
count Of the negotiations from the period or our
last dispatch, No Il. OF date Of November D. does
not seem 10 have been complied with, their next
letter dated November Il merely saying that our
former dispatches will have given you a sufficient
history Of the negotiations. but we deem 1t our
duty TO conclude with review OF the points Wnlcn
came under discussion and uses such language
as without going into detailed history Of the ne
potiettons which has been furnished to the depart
rnent from time TO time In the letter Of Novem-
her & In which a full account Of the intervening
negotiations was promised for the next mail, the
commissioners give their own differences and con-
clusions merely. as follows:
We desired will see By the PE7ees Of the
what all the negotiators on both sizes UNDERSTOOD
by Chinese laborers" But the Cninese govern .I
rent very unwilling TO pc more precise Enaii
the absolute necessity called for, and they claimed
in ATs II f Be yyn ad Claims
of the general provisions OF the BurIingarn treaty
poses Of teaching study. mercantile transactions
travel or curiosity. We have no doubt that an act
the words of the treaty, would be fully warranted
by its provisions and as this was clear and SIfn-
lingane treaty we did not feel authorized to risk
such conGeSgon oy 1ooTe sd Which, as entire
ly unacceptable to the Chinese commissioners.
Without stopping to show that the term C''ner-
chants in the treaty is narrower than "trmigra-
ton for trade" and persons going for mercantile
transactions" It may properly be noted that what
warrant there could have been for the claim that
Article II was regarded by the Chinese government
as an exclusive enumeration does not appear from
any published document. Such inference. seen,
is Inconsistent with the avowed purposes of both
sides to the meaning Of the summary OF ex-
listing provisions of Article II and the history OF
the negotiations The United States commission
ers cannot have closed their eyes the fact that
both sides had made concessions. and that the
ports show that China would not acquiesce IN the
exclusive enumeration and definition theory. and
even the communication just quoted comedies that
China would not be precise. Nor is it an ad-
Missile theory that the trained diplomats repre-
senting US could have believed that China pro-
posing to bind herself by what her negotiators
claimed to have said. declined insert in the
treaty or that they had any authority to bind
China by such alleged admissions The real
rl,