was heralded as a marked evidence of American influence in the East, and the President, in communicating its negotiation to Congress, spoke of it as a "liberal and auspicious treaty." Some delay, however, occurred in its ratification by the Chinese government, and serious uneasiness was felt in the United States lest it should fail to be carried into effect. Under President Grant's direction, Secretary Fish instructed the American minister in Peking to exert his influence with the Chinese authorities to bring about its early ratification. He wrote: "Many considerations call for this besides those which may be deduced from what has gone before in this instruction. Every month brings thousands of Chinese immigrants to the Pacific coast. Already they have crossed the great mountains and are beginning to be found in the interior of the continent. By their assiduity, patience, and fidelity, and by their intelligence, they earn the good-will and confidence of those who employ them. We have good reason to think this thing will continue and increase;" and the Secretary said it was welcomed by the country.

The treaty was finally ratified by China, and the government of the United States congratulated itself on being instrumental in bringing China out of her seclusion and inducing her "to march forward," as Secretary Fish expressed it. Ten years after this treaty was signed, President Hayes, in a message to Congress, thus spoke of its leading provision: "Unquestionably the adhesion of the government of China to these liberal principles of freedom in emigration, with which we were so familiar and with which we were so well satis

fied, was a great advance towards opening that empire to our civilization and religion, and gave promise in the future of greater and greater practical results in the diffusion throughout that great population of our arts and industries, our manufactures, our material improvements, and the sentiments of government and religion which seem to us so important to the welfare of mankind." 1

But within a few years after the treaty went into operation a change in public sentiment respecting it began to take place, especially on the Pacific coast, where the Chinese population was principally located. By their diligence and frugal habits they were able to successfully compete with the white laborers in the mining camps, in the fields, in the shops, as domestics, and in all common manual labor. The trades unions joined in sounding an alarm that the myriads of people from the crowded and half-starved homes of China were likely to come to the country in such numbers as to drive out entirely the white laborers. The Chinese in California and adjacent sections segregated themselves from the other inhabitants, living together in cheap, ill-constructed, and uncleanly houses, took no part in local or public affairs, did not assimilate with the mass of the people, and observed their pagan or superstitious rites. It was argued that they were an undesirable population, and that if continued to be allowed free access to the country, they would in time endanger its institutions and change entirely its distinctive characteristics.

16 Presidents' Messages, 690; 7 Ib. 516; U. S. For. Rel. 1870, p. 307.

The opposition to this emigration first manifested itself in individual acts of hostility, personal abuse of Chinamen, and injury to their property. To this succeeded state laws restricting their rights and seeking to limit the immigration. But when tested in the courts this state legislation was declared to be in violation of the treaty or of the federal Constitution. The element opposed to the coming of the Chinese, which had now grown so strong in California as to dominate state politics, appealed to Congress for an abrogation or modification of the Burlingame treaty of 1868. This appeal was so effective as to procure the appointment, in 1876, of a joint committee of the two houses to visit the Pacific coast and to investigate the character, extent, and effect of Chinese immigration.

The committee, at the head of which was Senator Oliver P. Morton, of Indiana, one of the ablest and most influential members of Congress, held a number of sessions at San Francisco, examined a large number of witnesses, received a mass of documentary evidence, and made a thorough investigation. The report which the committee submitted to Congress at its next session constitutes, with the testimony, a volume of over twelve hundred pages. The chairman, Senator Morton, attended the sessions of the committee in San Francisco, but having fallen ill on his return journey to the East and died before Congress convened, the report was presented by Senator Sargent, of California. As the majority and minority reports of this committee set forth the arguments advanced during the discussion, in the United States through twenty-five years, of the much

agitated question of Chinese immigration, it is well to give an epitome of them.

The report submitted for the committee by Senator Sargent stated that the investigation established the fact that so far as material prosperity was concerned, the Pacific coast had been a great gainer by Chinese immigration, and, if inquiry was not to be made into the present and future moral or political welfare of the Pacific States, it must be conceded that their general resources were being rapidly developed by Chinese labor. Opposition to any restriction on Chinese immigration was manifested by the capitalistic classes and those interested in transportation; also by religious teachers, who found in the presence of the Chinese an opportunity of Christianizing them.

On the other hand, the laboring men and artisans were opposed to the influx of Chinese; and the same view was entertained by many professional men, merchants, divines, and judges, who regarded the prosperity derived from the Chinese as deceptive and unwholesome, ruinous to the laboring classes, promotive of caste, and dangerous to free institutions.

The committee reported the evidence as showing that the Chinese lived in filthy dwellings, upon poor food, crowded in narrow quarters, disregarding health and fire ordinances, and that their vices were corrupting the morals especially of the young. It also showed that the Chinese had reduced wages to starvation prices for white men and women, that the hardships bore with special severity upon women, and that the tendency was to degrade all white working people to the abject

condition of a servile class. From this cause there had sprung up a bitterly hostile feeling to the Chinese, sometimes exhibited in laws and ordinances of doubtful propriety, in the abuse of individual Chinese, and in cases of mob violence.

The committee held that an indigestible mass in the community, distinct in language, pagan in religion, inferior in mental and moral qualities, was an undesirable element in a republic, and especially so if political power should be placed in its hands; that the safety of the state demanded that such power should not be so placed, and the safety of the immigrant depended upon that power.

It was painfully evident from the testimony that the Pacific coast must in time become either American or Mongolian; that while conditions were favorable to the growth and occupancy of the Pacific States by Americans, the Chinese had advantages which would put them far in advance in the race for possession; and that the presence of Chinese discouraged and retarded white immigration.

By the judges of the criminal courts it was shown that there was a great want of veracity among Chinese witnesses, and that they had little regard for the sanctity of an oath. It was shown that they were nonassimilative with the whites, had no social intercourse and did not intermarry with them, and in a residence of twenty-five years had made no progress in that direction. They did not bring their families with them; all expected to return to China; and prostitutes were imported and held as slaves. It was claimed that in