THE FIRST RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION, THE FIFTEEN PASSENGER BILL.

The report of the joint committee prepared the way for congressional action for a restriction of the immigration, and the violent agitation against the Chinese by the Workingmen's Party of California1 made the need seem more urgent. A number of bills were brought in at the next session of Congress proposing varied plans for dealing with the question. In the House Davis2o from San Francisco, and Luttrell from Santa Rosa, considered it their duty as representatives of California interests to present bills restricting the immigration of the Chinese or preventing their employment and naturalization. The Nevada Representative had a bill ready,22 and Shelley from Alabama proposed a plan which not only prohibited further immigration,23 but undertook to transport and colonize the Chinese already here.24 The California Senators also busied themselves with the Chinese legislation. Sargent presented a bill for the restriction of immigration,25 but he and Booth devoted their efforts chiefly to procuring the passage of a concurrent resolution again calling on the President to open correspondence with China and Great Britain20 for the abrogation of the treaty provisions permitting unlimited immigration of the Chinese.

The House Committee on Education and Commerce sent in a prompt and unanimous endorsement of the resolution calling for the opening of correspondence for the purpose of securing a restriction of immigration. Willis, the chairman of this committee, was a Kentuckian who had a strong sympathy for the Californians in their efforts to solve the difficult race problem of the Pacific Coast. The report which he presented pointed

19 See above, pp. 30, 150.

20 Congressional Record, VII, 45th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 383.

21 Ibid., pp. 98, 271.

22 Ibid., p. 318.

23 Ibid., p. 68.

24 Ibid., p. 320.

25 Ibid., p. 81.

26 This was necessary because the Chinese coming from Hong Kong

were subjects of Great Britain.

out that during the twenty years of Chinese immigration the rate of increase was fifty per cent. in each succeeding five years, that at such a rate the Chinese would soon outnumber the whites, and that they already closely approximated the voting population in numbers.27 Once more Congress deferred action, waiting for the President to prepare the way by securing a modification of the treaty. But as with the previous resolution, there were no results; the President was either unwilling or unable to meet the wishes of Congress. In a speech at a later date, Senator Miller indicated that the President made some advances in the matter, but that they met with an unfavorable response from China and were not pressed.28

At the next session of Congress, the House, impatient with the long delay, showed a determination to take some action even though it meant the repudiation of the treaty with China. The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom the numerous resolutions, memorials, petitions, and bills on the Chinese had been referred, recommended a bill providing that no master of a vessel should be permitted to take aboard more than fifteen Chinese passengers bound for a United States port. In presenting this bill the committee reviewed the previous efforts to secure restrictive legislation, referring to the numerous petitions urging such legislation, that the people of the Pacific Coast had sent to Congress since 1868, and calling attention to the fact that the President had twice been presented with joint resolutions urging him to seek a modification of the treaty. The committee discussed the question of the power of Congress to pass laws which would supersede a treaty, maintaining that, "To refuse to execute a treaty for reasons which approve themselves to the conscientious judgment of a nation is a matter of the utmost gravity, but the power to do so is a prerogative of which no nation can be deprived without deeply affecting its independence. ''29

An

27 House Report No. 240, 45th Cong., 2d Sess., Serial No. 1822. adverse report by Kennaday, a lobbyist for the Chinese, was published, Sen. Misc. Doc. No. 36, Serial No. 1786.

28 Congressional Record, XIII, p. 1481.

29 H. of R. Report No. 62, 45th Cong., 3d Sess., Serial No. 1866.

Willis, the chairman of the committee recommending the bill, was one of the ablest advocates of the measure on the floor of the House. In his speech in its support he stated, "There are today in the hands of our committee the joint resolutions of four state legislatures, the memorial of the Constitutional Convention of California, passed only a few days ago without a single dissenting voice, together with the proceedings of innumerable societies, religious bodies, labor conventions, and the petitions of over one hundred thousand private citizens, setting forth from different standpoints the evils of Chinese immigration, and urging upon Congress the necessity for prompt and vigorous measures of relief. ''30 The bill restricting the number of Chinese passengers passed the House on January 28th, 1879, the vote standing, yeas 155, nays 72, not voting 61.31

The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom the various anti-Chinese measures were referred, was unwilling to promote this restrictive legislation. Hamlin, the chairman of the committee, was one of the New Englanders who had persistently opposed all such measures, both because they feared that the commercial interests of their constituents would be jeopardized, and because such a policy was in violation of the theories of political equality which were being so fully recognized in all the legislation dealing with the recently emancipated negroes. On behalf of the committee Hamlin reported the House bill with the request that they be discharged from its further consideration, thus sending the bill restricting the number of Chinese passengers to the Senate calendar without recommendation.32

In the debates33 on the bill the Senators from California, Oregon, and Nevada were assisted by the southern members, who not only sympathized with the point of view of the people of the Pacific Coast, but also found in this discussion an opportunity to protest against the legislation dealing with their own

30 Congressional Record, VIII, 45th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 799.

31 Ibid., pp. 791-2, 793, 793-800.

32 Ibid., p. 1072.

33 Ibid., pp. 1299 ff.

race problems. Blaine was one of the most influential supporters of the measure, his enemies pointed out his inconsistency, since he had been an advocate of negro rights, and declared that his judgment was biased by his presidential aspirations. The most bitter opponents of the bill were the Senators from New England, Hamlin, Dawes, Hoar, Matthews, Wadleigh, and Edmunds. Of these Senators, Edmunds was particularly vigorous in his denunciation of this type of legislation. He declared that he wished to voice his utter abhorrence of the principles upon which the bill was founded, and expressed the hope that the Constitution had yet provided some means by which the measure so odious to him would fail to become a law. The Democrats, who also had an eye to the next presidential campaign, lobbied quite energetically for the passage of the bill. By a vote of 39 to 27 the measure passed the Senate.

Judging by an extract from a letter quoted by Senator Sargent, the rejoicing in San Francisco over the passage of this bill was quite hysterical in its intensity. His correspondent declared that men,-strangers to each other, embraced upon the streets and wept for joy when they received the news.34 But their joy was short-lived for it was soon rumored that the President would veto the bill. Everything possible was done to prevent such action. The chambers of commerce of the Coast cities, and the constitutional convention sent telegrams urging the signature of the bill. The merchants of San Francisco closed their places of business so that their employees might swell the numbers of the great mass meetings held under the auspices of the city and state officials.36 The Pacific Coast. representatives called on the President and his Cabinet with additional arguments and evidences of the urgent demands for the approval of the measure.

But no amount of pressure would induce President IIayes to sign the bill. In his veto message he said that, while he recognized the right of Congress to terminate a treaty, such a

34 Alta, February 26, 1879 (report of Sargent's speech).

35 Ibid., February 25.

36 San Francisco daily papers of February 27 and 28, 1879. The Alta publishes a list of 82 merchants who closed their places of business during the meetings.

denunciation was justified only by a great necessity. He also pointed out that the abrogation of a part of the treaty might invalidate the whole and thus leave American interests in China unprotected.37

BITTER RESENTMENT OF THE VETO OF THE BILL.

Of course the veto brought bitter disappointment to the people of the Pacific Coast. A Salt Lake paper, in commenting on the California press notices, declared that the stock of denunciatory words in Webster's Unabridged was exhausted by the editors of the state in their efforts to give adequate expression to the indignation aroused by the President's action. The strong influence of the Chinese question was clearly shown in the presidential elections of this period. In 1880 six of the seven California electors cast their votes for the Democratic candidate, though the state legislature of the same year had a strong Republican majority. In the election of 1884 the whole. electoral vote of California was cast for Blaine in appreciation of his efforts on behalf of Chinese exclusion.

The situation in San Francisco was becoming quite strained. The meetings and processions of the unemployed still continued, and these desperate men had long been threatening to take matters in their own hands if Congress gave no relief. Other smaller cities on the Coast had already succeeded in expelling the Chinese by popular uprisings. The repeated threats, together with the efforts to drill and arm some of the men, caused much uneasiness, and fears of an outbreak of violence against the Chinese. An organization known as the Citizens' Protective Union was formed for the purpose of suppressing disorder and guarding against an outbreak, An address to the public was issued in which it was declared that, "The drills in secret places, the nightly tramp in the streets of irregular armed forces, accompanied by the arrogant threats of violence by their leaders, are an intolerable menace to the peace and well-being of society.' 38 All good citizens were called upon to assist in restoring order, and to be prepared to prevent any outbreak of violence.

37 Congressional Record, 45ta Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 2275-6. 38 Alta, March 9, 1880.