pension of Chinese immigration, at the same time insisting on the necessity of amending the proposed bill so that it would conform to the terms of the recently negotiated treaty.52

The last two sections of the bill were added as amendments, after its introduction. Senator Farley proposed the section prohibiting the naturalization of the Chinese;53 Senator Grover added the definition of "laborers" as including both skilled and unskilled workers.54 Various attempts were made to pass other amendments that would have weakened the bill, but these were defeated. In both the Senate and the House objections were raised to the section which included the skilled laborers in the prohibited class, and to the length of the time specified. It was repeatedly pointed out that twenty years was a much longer time than had been contemplated in the negotiations of the recent agreement with the Chinese government, but all amendments reducing the time were voted down. It was evident that the friends of the measure had good majorities in both houses and were determined to make no concessions. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 29 to 15.55 The arguments with which we have already become familiar were repeated in the House of Representatives, which finally approved the bill by a vote of 167 to 66.56

57

While the debates were in progress, every effort was made to impress Congress with the extent of the popular demand for legislation of this kind. A legal holiday was proclaimed in California for the purpose of holding mass meetings. Needless to say, the people availed themselves of the opportunity to express their wishes. Four meetings were held in San Francisco, one of which claimed an attendance of thirty thousand. In Oakland, Los Angeles, Stockton, Sacramento, Fresno, and a long list of other California cities, similar meetings were held, and resolutions adopted endorsing the bill. These were telegraphed

52 Congressional Record, XIII, pp. 1638-1644.

53 Ibid., p. 1481.

54 Ibid., p. 1480.

55 Ibid., p. 1753.

56 Ibid., pp. 2227-8.

57 Ibid., pp. 1667-8. See also the California papers, March 4-7, 1882.

to Washington to be used in the debates as evidence of the demands of the people. By this time the labor organizations all over the country were thoroughly enlisted. Petitions and memorials expressing the wishes of hundreds of thousands of workingmen were presented from New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, Alabama, Maryland, and California. As was frequently pointed out in the debates, the bill marked a radical departure from the national policy which had hitherto welcomed the foreign immigrant of every country, but it is impossible to question the full endorsement of this legislation by the American people.

Once more the President refused his sanction to the Congressional plan for solving the long-discussed problem. In his veto message, President Arthur said, "I am persuaded that if Congress can feel that this act violates the faith of the nation as pledged to China, it will concur with me in rejecting this particular mode of regulating Chinese immigration, and will endeavor to find another which will meet the expectations of the people of the United States without coming in conflict with the rights of China." He pointed out that the new treaty with China provided that, while the immigration might be limited or suspended, it was not to be absolutely prohibited. Neither contracting party had contemplated so long a suspension as twenty years, or would have considered such a period a "reasonable" suspension or limitation. The President declared that he regarded this provision as a breach of our national faith; and being unable to bring himself into harmony with the views of Congress on this vital point, the honor of the country constrained him to return the act with this objection to its passage. He also thought the registration provision futile and irritating, and pointed out the failure to provide for travelers in transit from other countries. With his message, the President transmitted the correspondence of the commissioners who had negotiated the treaty. This clearly showed that so long a period of suspension had not been contemplated by those negotiating the treaty.5

58

58 Sen. Exec. Doc. No. 148, 47th Cong., 1st Sess., Serial No. 1990.

The President's veto came near the end of the session, so that it was feared that there would not be time to secure any restrictive measure. It was not possible to pass the bill over the veto, so the changes suggested were hurriedly made, and the amended bill rushed through both houses, under a suspension of rules, without debate. The bill was finally passed May 6, 1882, its restrictions to take effect in the following August.

60

During the period when Congress had the subject under discussion, the San Francisco Trades Assembly was particularly active in the efforts to encourage this legislation. A mass meeting was held in February for the purpose of expressing appreciation of the efforts of the California Congressmen,5" and another convention was called in April to protest against the action of President Arthur in vetoing the bill. At both of these meetings emphasis was laid upon the duty of the working people of the Pacific Coast to take matters in their own hands in case Congress failed to give relief. The first of these meetings adopted a resolution to the effect, "That if Congress cannot or will not act in this matter, it is both the right and duty of the people of this Coast to attend to it themselves, living as they do at the outpost of American civilization against Asiatic. barbarism." At the second of these meetings ten anti-Chinese leagues and many labor organizations of California and also from Nevada were represented. It was said that the miners' delegation from Virginia City came with instructions to report that if physical as well as moral support was necessary to accomplish the purpose of the convention, the members of the Miners' Union could be depended on to come down to San Francisco and give their help. At this time it was declared that, "The executive body created by this convention will when they have perfected the measures necessary for such action prevent the landing of that people on our shores at all hazards. This resolve we have made after mature deliberation because the further immigration of Chinese to this country means death to American labor. Resistance is now our duty." The Trades Assembly also made an unsuccessful attempt to organize an

59 Bulletin, February 16 and 17, 1882.

60 Ibid., April 25, 1882.

61

extensive boycott of Chinese-made goods. After the passage of the exclusion law which took away the chief reason for their existence, both the special anti-Chinese organization known as the League of Deliverance, and the San Francisco Trades Assembly fell to pieces.

AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW OF 1882.

When put into operation, the exclusion law of 1882 did not prove entirely satisfactory to the people of the Pacific Coast. The first important defect complained of was its failure to establish clearly the status of the Chinese who, by virtue of their residence in territory ceded to Great Britain, were no longer subjects of the Chinese Emperor. In 1883 there were two cases where the right of these immigrants from Hong Kong to enter the United States was contested. The case growing out of such an attempted landing at Boston was tried before Justices Lowell and Nelson of the United States District Court in Massachusetts. They decided that, since the exclusion law was in execution of a treaty with China, it did not apply to persons of the Chinese race who were subjects of other countries, and permitted the man to land."2 When a similar case came before a court of the same rank in California, Justice Field reached an opposite conclusion.63 He maintained that it had not been deemed necessary to negotiate treaties with other governments with respect to the Chinese, because it was believed that they would have no objections to the exclusion law. He claimed that the act of 1882 applied not only to laborers coming from China, but also to laborers of the Chinese race coming from any part of the world. The second section of the act made it a misdemeanor to land "any Chinese laborer from any foreign port or place." The whole purpose of the law would be defeated by any other construction.

It was maintained that some of the rulings of officers charged with the administration of the law had also opened the way for

61 San Francisco Daily Report, December 7, 1885, speech of Haskell. 62 U. S. v. Douglass, 17 Fed. Rep. 634.

63 In re Ah Lung, 18 Fed. Rep. 28.

its wholesale evasion. Acting Secretary of the Treasury French decided that the Chinese who had left the country between the date of the ratification of the treaty with China and the time when the exclusion law took effect were entitled to return, and, in the absence of certificates, could establish their prior residence in the courts." 64 Another of these rulings was that of the Attorney-General who declared that Chinese laborers who came to this country in transit to some other place were not within the prohibition of the law and need not have certificates. The California newspapers complained bitterly of what was characterized as the "process of nullification" of the exclusion law.66

65

Once more Congress was confronted with this perennial question. The Pacific Coast delegation, which included the representatives from California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington Territory, held a conference at which they agreed upon the amendments necessary to make the law of 1882 effective. Section 1 of the former act was changed so that it would read, "during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come from any foreign port or place, or having so come to remain within the United States. ''67 It was also proposed that the certificates issued by the Customs officials should be the only evidence permissible for establishing the right of reentry of Chinese laborers. As the Chinese government had grown somewhat careless in the matter of issuing certificates to merchants, provisions were made for a more complete description, and it was also required that such certificates be endorsed by the consular or diplomatic representative of the United States, who was held responsible for an investigation of the truth of its statements. Hucksters, peddlers, and those engaged in taking, drying, or preserving fish, were excluded from the privileges of merchants. The most important addition was that in Section 15, which declared that "the provisions of this act

64 In re Leong Yick Dew, 19 Fed. Rep. 490. In re Chin A On, 18 Fed. Rep. 506. In re Tung Yeong, 19 Fed. Rep. 184.

65 17 Op. Atty. Gen. 483. House Ex. Doc. 214, 48th Cong., 2d Sess.

66 See editorials, Bulletin, August 23, 1883.

67 Congressional Record, XV, 3752-3777, passed Senate, 5937-8. House Report No. 614, 48th Cong., 1st Sess., Serial Ño. 2254.