« PreviousContinue »
Congress will continue that military order in force by its reenactment in legislation.
It is hardly necessary to assert that under no state of circumstances could the Chinese Government have been persuaded to sign a convention which could be interpreted to authorize the exclusion of Chinese subjects from the Philippine Islands, where they had found a welcome and a home, and with which islands as their nearest neighbors its people for centuries had carried on an extensive and profitable commerce. And it is worthy of consideration by the President, who is so justly distinguished for his high standard of right, and by the Congress of a great and enlightened nation, to inquire whether the Chinese, who have lived in and traded with those islands for centuries before the United States had an existence even as colonies of Great Britain, have not acquired vested rights of which they ought not to be deprived even by the legislation of Congress, much less by the mere order of a military commander. Attention is called to the fact that for nearly forty years unrestricted commerce with the Philippine Islands has been guaranteed to the Chinese under the stipulation of article 47 of the treaty of commerce between Spain and the Chinese Government. Under the protection of this treaty a large commerce had been established, and it can hardly be regarded as an act of comity toward China to destroy the commerce built up under the solemn guarantees of the Spanish Government. The order of the military commander, or kindied legislation if enacted, means the destruction or impairment of a large and lucrative trade to and from the seaports of China. It means the cutting off of many thousands and tens of thousands of Chinese and mestizos from their kinsmen in China. It means a radical change in the industries and occupations of these people, and great hardships and impoverishment in many cases. Certainly before an intelligent and right-minded body of legislators shall take such a course they will carefully examine the situation of affairs.
What has been the influence of the Chinese in the past centuries and what is it to-day in the Philippines? I must not weary you, as I might, with long citations from recognized authorities in the past and present. I cite only three from many travelers and officials who testify that the Chinese have largely contributed to the prosperity of these islands. Dr. Antonio Morga, in his work on the Philippines, written in the sixteenth century, says of Manila:
It is true the town can not exist without the Chinese, as they are workers in all trades and business, and are very industrious.
Juan de la Concepcion, a writer and traveler in the seventeenth century, sums up the situation as follows:
Without the trade and commerce of the Chinese these dominions could not have subsisted.
The testimony of writers of the present day might be reproduced in great number, but it will probably suffice to cite the official report of the nearest commercial representative of the United States, ConsulGeneral Wildman, of Hongkong, who was on duty throughout the Spanish war and the subsequent insurrection, and, no doubt, was well informed on the subject of which he wrote. In his report to the Secretary of State of November 22, 1898, a short time after the promulgation of the Otis order, he wrote:
Broadly speaking, there is not an industry in the islands (Philippines) that will not be ruined if Chinese labor is not permitted.
And in a report the following year, speaking of the possibility of competing at Manila with the extensive manufactories at Hongkong, he says it “would only be possible if Chinese labor were admitted freely.” (Consular Reports, November, 1899, p. 421.)
The unwisdom of the Otis order is demonstrated by the situation of affairs in the possessions of other nations in the same quarter of the world. The British are reputed to be the most successful in governing colonies, and are usually controlled in their conduct by the best interests of the people over whom they exercise government. In the nearby colony of Hongkong, in the Straits Settlements, and in the Malay Peninsula the British Government welcomes and encourages the immigration of Chinese and admits them to all the rights of citizenship. The result is that Hongkong, Singapore, Penang, and Malakka are in a flourishing condition and peace and contentment prevail. If Congress should, before taking action, send a commission to the Philippines and to the British, French, and other colonies in the Far East, I have no doubt such a report would be made as would lead to the reestablishment of Chinese immigration in the Philippines.
Why should the Chinese be excluded from the Philippines, when free entrance is granted to all the other races of the East? While the immigration of the Japanese, the Siamese, the Malay, the Singalese, and the Hindoo coolies is properly permitted, is it a just and fair discrimination to exclude the Chinese?
Since the acquisition of the Philippines by the United States it has been correctly stated in this country that their possession would constitute a convenient base of operations for the extension and maintenance of a large commerce between China and the United States. When, by the fortunes of war, these islands were brought into the American union, my Government saw in this proximity an additional reason why the friendly relations which had so long existed between the two nations should become more intimate and harmonious. And it welcomes your efforts with the other great powers to maintain an open
door to the commerce of the Chinese Empire. But how can these expectations be realized if the Congress of your country shall ratify the action of the authorities in the Philippines in cutting off access of the Chinese to the islands with which for ages they have maintained intercourse, and in destroying the commerce of important cities with them?
From what I have above stated, it will be seen that the treaties of 1880 and 1894, which relate to the immigration of Chinese solely to the then existing territory of the United States, do not include the Hawaiian Islands or the Philippine Archipelago within their purview. I am aware that the honorable Congress of the United States has full power to legislate for these newly acquired possessions. Before the enactment of the present exclusion laws, the United States Government deemed it necessary to send a special commission to China to negotiate a convention for the modification of the existing treaties between the two countries, which was concluded in November, 1880. This clearly shows the desirability of consulting the wishes of both Governments in a matter that affects their mutual relations. In view of the vast interests involved and the commercial and friendly relations between China and the United States, I earnestly hope that no hasty step will be taken looking to the reenactment of the exclusion laws, in deference to clamor from any quarter, until every effort has been made to obtain a broad and comprehensive view of the question.
It will be seen also from what has been said that the Imperial Government of China does not consider the reenactment of the exclusion laws by the American Congress necessary. But if the honorable Congress should, after proper investigation, still hold to the opinion that the demands of national policy require the retention of some such measure on the statute books, I beg to point out a course which is not open to so many serious objections and which leads to the same results. Why can not the general immigration laws of the United States be so modified and broadened in their scope as to include the immigration of Chinese in their provisions? Why can not the test be made such as to exclude the undesirable elements of all countries from the American shores irrespective of race or nationality? If such a course should be followed it would serve the purpose as effectively as the most drastic law could do. In that case there would be no invidious discrimination so long as the law were made applicable, without distinction, to Europeans, Asiaties, and Africans alike. The most objectionable feature of the present exclusion laws is that they single out the Chinese people alone for unjust exclusion.
I regret that the importance of the question and the urgency of the situation have made it necessary that I should ask so much of your valuable time, and that I should dwell at so great a length upon the topic in hand. From what I have said you will have noticed that, appealing to the provisions of Article IV of the treaty of 1880, already cited, I think it proper and incumbent upon Congress, before acting upon the question of new legislation, to examine with care into the hardships suffered by the Chinese subjects, and that this examination can best be made by a commission, who will visit the localities in the United States where the Chinese most largely congregate, and the Hawaiian and Philippine Islands, and by a personal investigation ascertain how the present laws and regulations affect the Chinese and how their exclusion affects the localities in question. I think such an investigation is due from Congress, in view of the treaty stipulations, of the desire of the Imperial Chinese Government, and of the great interests involved. I trust, therefore, that the President of the United States may see proper to send this proposition for a commission to Congress with his favorable recommendation.
If such a commission is appointed, I should hope that their report would satisfy Congress that further exclusion of Chinese from the United States is unnecessary; but if that should not occur, it ought to make plain to Congress that the present laws are in violation of justice and humanity, inflict on the Chinese unnecessary hardships and indignities, that they are not in harmony with the treaties, that they work injury to the interests of both countries, and should be materially modified.
I entertain the further hope that the investigation will lead to the conclusion that the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippine Archipelago stand on an entirely different footing and should be open to the ingress and egress of Chinese in common with other Asiatics who may resort there for purposes of labor, trade, travel, or residence.
I beg to add that I have by no means exhausted the subject. But this paper is already too long, and I feel that I ought not to exhaust your patience. In case, however, the commission should be appointed, as I have suggested, to inquire into the wording of the Chinese exclusion laws I shall be pleased to furnish to the commission further information bearing upon the subject.
In conclusion, 1 venture to express the belief that the honorable Congress of the United States will deal with the important question at hand in a spirit of fairness and equity and accord to Chinese subjects who wish to come to the United States for all legitimate purposes the same treatment as is accorded to the people of other countries and demanded and secured by this Government for American citizens in China-an open door and a fair field. Accept, etc.,
Mr. Hay to Mr. Wu.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, December 18, 1901. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 10th instant, with inclosures, reviewing the treaties and laws regulating Chinese immigration in this country, and requesting that before opening the question of new legislation, Congress will provide for a commission to visit the localities in the United States and in the Philippine and Hawaiian islands, where the Chinese most largely congregate, and by a personal investigation ascertain how the present laws and regulations affect the Chinese, and how the exclusion of Chinese affects the localities in question.
I have communicated copies of your note and its inclosures to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. Accept, etc.,
CLAIMS OF MISSIONARIES-DIRECT SETTLEMENT WITH CHINESE
Mr. Squiers to Mr. Hay. No. 640.]
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Pekin, May 28, 1901. Sir: I have the honor to hand you herewith a copy of an inclosure transmitted here in a dispatch from the United States consul at Chefoo (No. 416, May 20, 1901).
It shows claims presented by Messrs. Crawford & Hudson, which it appears the governor of Shantung, in the desire to appease the missionaries, has agreed to pay. It seems to me unfortunate that the missionary, owing to his peculiar status, can present and recover damages that an ordinary resident of the country will be precluded from deing under the rules recently adopted by the foreign representatives. (See Mr. Rockhill's dispatch No. 42, March 14, 1901). I have reference to traveling expenses to and from the United States, and extra living expenses while there.
Their settlement of the claims of native Christians has caused no end of criticism and ill-feeling, especially in this province, and among foreigners as well as Chinese. They have themselves gone into the country and assessed damages on the various villages where Christians
* See appendix to this volume, page 104. FR 1901-7
had been killed or their property destroyed. As they have generally been accompanied by soldiers, such settlements were in fact forcibly made, the presence of the soldiers making them such whether they accompanied the missionaries simply as a guard or not.
In Shansi, the governor has set aside 200,000 taels to be fairly divided between the Protestants and Catholics, thus preventing the cer quarrels and strife that will surely follow direct settlements made by the missionaries themselves. So far as I know, this course has been followed in the province of Shansi only.
While it might be at times a source of great annoyance and trouble to our consuls and the legation, I think in the end it would prove to the best interests of the missionaries and their work if they were precluded from any official intercourse whatever with the local officials on matters pertaining to their native Christians. A reference to the records of the legation will show that the Chinese Government finds such interference with their people most repugnant, while in some cases unjust treatment or actual persecution of native Christians on the part of petty officials may have been prevented; as a rule, I believe most foreigners who have lived in China for a number of years will agree that it brought down on the Christian all the hatred and animosity this people now seem to be capable of. I have, etc.,
H. G. SQUIERS.
TAIAN FU, SAANTUNG, April 22, 1901,
(Kuang Hsu, 27th year, 3d Moon, 14th day.) I, Mao Shu-yun, agree to pay to Messrs. Bostick and Verity, Dr. Barrow, and Miss Sture the sum of taels two thousand nine hundred and cents eighty-one (taels 2,900.81), Taian K’uping, compensation in full for all losses sustained on their respective mission places in Taian City by theft and robbery during 1900. I agree to pay taels five hundred eighty-six and cents sixteen (taels 586.16) to-day and the balance not later than the 8th Moon of this year (Kuang Hsu, 27th year).
For extra expenses in living and moving incurred by the Boxer troubles, we with our colaborers look either to the governor or to the General Government of China.
Claim made by Dr. T. B. Crawford.
$2,002. 55 · Rent, Greenvillu, S. C., eight months, at $6..
2, 050. 55
T. J. Hudson's claim.
Traveling expenses from Taianfu to Demossville, Ky.....
$900.00 C. P. BOSTICK.
Trianfu, May 4, 1901.
Mr. Hay to Mr. Squiers. No. 355.]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, July 17, 1901. Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch, No. 640, of May 28 last, reporting that the governor of Shantung, in his desire to appease the missionaries, has agreed to pay a claim presented by Messrs. Crawford & Hudson.