Year: 1870

.


As this may be considered the opening o.
a very important debate, we give an alb
, stract of the proceedings. The Naturali-
zation bill was under consideration. Mr.


Summers amendment, striking the word
white from the naturalization laws hav-
ing been adopted, the question REQUIRED
on Mr.. Williams amendment to exclude


the Chinese from the benefit of the pend


ing legislation


Mr. Stewart (Rep.) of Nevada, continu-


ed his remarks against the admission ot
Chinese naturalization upon an equal foot
ing with all other foreigners. While he
would protect the Chinese in their person
al rights, he would never sanction the in


PRODUCTION Of a system of slave labor in
competition with white labor in the coun-
try, which was the question at issue IN the
amendment He would not interfere to
/ prevent the immigration of Chinese who
came voluntarily, but would never agree
to invest withpolitical power imported COO
| lie slaves, brought here under contracts,
and who, as Pagans, could not take our
oaths There was no necessity for the leg
islation, as the bill to enforce the Fifteenth
Amendment had secured the Chinese in
every right to which they were entitled.
| Mr.. Conklin (Rep.) of New York, ap-
pealed to Mr. Sumner to, withdraw his
amendment, which could be done by unan-
| imous consent. He regarded it as jeopar-
dizing the whole bill, the Importance of
which to the country in preventing natu-
ralization frauds IN any city and elsewhere
could not be oVerestimated.


Mr. TrumbuIl (Rep.) of Ill, said if the
Chinese were to come here at all they
should not come as slaves but incorpora-
ted with the body polite. The policy Of
| the Republican party having been to
make freemeni he could not understand
how that party could refuse to admit them
to citizenship.


Mr.. Sumner declined to withdraw his
amendment. He read a number of letters
from residents of the United States from
| abroad, complaining of their exclusion
| from naturalization. He argued that his
amendment was to cover these cases as
well as the Chinese. He argued that the
restriction of the privilege Of naturaliza-
ton to white men was in derogation with
the principle of the Declaration of Inde-
pendenee, that all men are created equal.
He then read from the New Testament,
relative to Peters denial of his Master,
and remarked that a Republican Senator
(meaning Mr.. Stewart) had thrice denied
the principles Of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, and that, ike Peter, he might
weep bitterly.


Mr. Stewart replied that the charge of
apostacy applied with much greater force
to the Senator from Massachusetts, as he
had read from the Christian Bible in sup
port of his proposition to commit our in
shtutions to the control of pagans, the en-
emies of Christianity, who could not be
bound by Christian obligation or oath.


Mr. Williams contended that the Dec
1e Id 4 oof
that the wild man of South America, the
heather and the cannibal were to be al
lowed equal political rights under the gov
ernment with the citizen of the United
States. He regarded Mr.. Summers inter
probation of that instrument as foolish and
absurd It's authors had declared all men
created equal, but they had also declared
that it was the right and duty of a nation
so to organize the powers of the govern
ment as should seem most likely to effect
its safety and happiness. If it was the
judgment of the American people that it
was in their safety to exclude Chinese from
participation IN our government 1t was
their duty so to decide. The trainers of
the Constitution had created a political
distinction among citizens by preventing
foreigner from becoming President, and
in regard to eligibility as Congressman,
and would the Senator from Massachu-
setts that that distinction was violation
of the principles of the Declaration of In
dependence? Did not every man know
that If the government was to destroy ev-
cry political distinction between native
and foreign born citizens, it would be over
thrown by absorption of political power
in the hands of its enemies, the subjects of
foreign governments


hIv- n1yr fo an
the point, admitted Congress could refuse
to pass any naturalization law, but insist
ed that such law, if passed, might be in
harmony with the Declaration of Indepen-
dence, that there could be no distinction
of color


Mr. Williams said he understood the
Senator to admit that Congress had juris-
diction over the question of naturalization,
but that the Declaration Of Independence
came in and controlled the Judgment of
Congress, and therefore left no discretion


Mr.. Sumner explained that he meant no
distinction on account of color. He was
not prepared to say Congress might not
shut down the gates and refuse to natural
iZe anybody, but if it did naturalize, then
the law must be in harmony with the
Declaration of Independence. He consid-
cred that instrument as paramount to the
law, not to be set aside or questioned in
any respect, but irreYersible, and one
which all the Senate was bound to respect.


Mr. Williams argued that Mr.. Summers
position was inconsistent with itself The
argument of the Senator when upon the
floor had been that all men were equal,
and therefore all were entitled to equal po-
litical rights and privileges, but now he
conceded that Congress had the power to
ID
born IN a foreign country. Mr.. Williams
maintained the power of Congress in this
respect sets the right TO discriminate for
the best interests of the government in
admitting foreigners to political rights
He said when the Burlinghame treaty
was made with China, it was amended on
his own motion to provide nothing there
in contained should be held to confer nat
uralization upon Chinese in the United
States The Chinese were not a desirable
population. The Mongolian, never would
amalgamate with the races of European
| descent. He never would lose his identi-
| ty, and he would have separate, distinct
people among us-an empire of China
within republican America-confict and
| bloodshed between races having no affini-
| ty, and, as in the case of the Indian, grad
ual determination would be the fate Of one
of the contending parties. With what
propriety cofild we talk about liberty, vir-
tue and intelligence as the palladium of
our liberties while opening the door to an
overwhelming tide of pollution and pagan
ism? The proposition of Mr. Sumner to
invite here a mighty mass of ignorance
was but but mere stuff and nonsense, and
deserved the contempt it had received
He sympathized with the efforts of the
workingmen of the country to stay this
tide Of penury and degradation now be-
ginning to pour in upon US from across
the Pacific. He would have the working
men of Massachusetts, understand that
their Senator (Mr Sumner) was propo-
sing to issue a proclamation to the Chinese
hordes to come here and drive them ont
of employment. He (Sumer) was content
to dream of the triumph of his theory, al
though the workingmen of his State were
being reduced by it to beggary and star
walton. When told that his theory would
overrun the country with a bigoted and
degraded race, his answer was, no matter
L