responsible for the cruel and unjustifiable outrages that were perpetrated upon the Chinese.

The Republications drew up a resolution criticising the Burlingame treaty just negotiated, while the Democrats held a mass meeting by way of directing the wrath of the people toward the unfortunate Chinese. As a result the passions of the unemployed were so aroused that a three days' riot ensued. The governor seemed powerless; a Vigilance Committee was formed to restore peace and order.

A new state constitution was to be formed. Kearney stumped the state, and got a majority of workingmen in the Constitutional Convention. The new constitution is strongly anti-Chinese. It stipulates that the Legislature should provide for the protection of the state from the presence of aliens who are detrimental to the well-being of the state. Aliens incapable of becoming citizens are then declared dangerous, and it is the duty of the Legislature to discourage their immigration by every means in its power. Asiatic coolyism is called "a form of human slavery," and a penalty is placed upon companies importing contract laborers. The nineteenth article was especially stringent. Under it no corporation existing or to be formed under the laws of the state should employ Chinese directly, indirectly or in any capacity. No Chinese were to be employed on any public works except in punishment of crime. This article and also the statute passed to enforce it were both declared unconstitutional.

THE CHINESE QUESTION IN FEDERAL POLITICS AND DIPLOMACY. With most of the anti-Chinese legislation of California declared unconstitutional, it was clear in 1876 that the problem must be solved by the Federal government. Both the great national parties adoted anti-Chinese policies. The California Legislature appointed a committee to investigate Chinese immigration. Their report was published in an "Address to the People of the United States upon the Evils of Chinese Immigration." These evils they summed up as (1) Prostitution, (2) Criminality, (3) Non-conversion, (4) Competition, and (5) Coolie-slavery. In another document called the "Memorial to Congress" three remedies were proposed: (1) Coöperation with Great Britain in suppressing the coolie trade, (2) Abrogation of all existing treaties which permitted Chinese immigration, and (3) Congressional enactment prohibiting more than fifteen Chinese to land at any one time and place.

In spite of the fact that the "Memorial" was drawn up by Californians who should ha been familiar with the situation, it shows

great ignorance, for the coolie trade was already prohibited by both Great Britain and the United States. Hittell remarks that the chief result of the "Address" and "Memorial" was "to furnish anti-Chinees thunder for the demagogue of the San Francisco sand lots."

Just before the opening of the Forty-fifth Congress the "Address" and "Memorial" were printed and distributed to Congressmen and officials throughout the country, and a committee was sent to Washington to work up anti-Chinese sentiment before the opening of Congress.

When the session began in 1876 a Joint Special Committee was appointed to come to the coast to investigate. They sat for nineteen days in San Francisco and Sacramento, heard 129 witnesses, took 1,200 pages of testimony and made a report of two pages. According to Mrs. Coolidge, the testimony was undoubtedly proChinese, but was perverted to make an anti-Chinese report.*

With this report in Congress many bills were presented. The most important of these and the only one which reached the third reading was the one known as the "Fifteen Passenger Bill." Its purpose, following out the suggestion of the California "Memorial," was to prevent more than fifteen Chinese from coming to the United States at any one time in any one vessel. Both houses passed the bill. President Hayes vetoed it, and it failed to pass over his veto.

California was much disappointed, but blamed the excesses of Kearneyism for the defeat of the measure. The Placerville Herald summed up this attitude by saying "The question is not whether John Chinaman shall go, but whether Kearney shall stay." The question was partially dropped in Congress for a time, and when taken up again led directly to the Exclusion Acts. Before studying these Acts we must notice the treaty relations between the United States and China.

The first American-Chinese treaties were purely commercial and not particularly concerned with the rights of citizens of one country living in the other. The American minister in China from 1861 to 1867 was Anson Burlingame, who had the good fortune to be in the confidence of Prince Kinig, Regent of the Empire. This regent appointed Burlingame to represent China in making treaties with other foreign nations, and to amend the existing treaty of 1850 between the United States and China. This treaty as amended is known as the Burlingame treaty. Its provisions may be briefly given as follows: (1) Mutual protection of citizens on

*Coolidge, pp. 84-95.

each other's soil; (2) The freedom of religious beliefs and exercises; (3) The right of a citizen of either country to reside in the other country at will, with the privileges of citizens of the most favored nation; (4) The right to prevent involuntariy immigration; (5) The right to establish a system of currency and commerce; (6) The admission of Chinese to the public schools in America and the right to establish American schools in China. The Fifteen Passenger Bill was vetoed because it violated this treaty.

In 1880 a Commission was appointed to negotiate a new treaty. The Commission was not given any formal or public instructions, but the tacit understanding seemed to be that they were to secure a treaty that would make Chinese exclusion possible and effective. The Emperor was quite willing to prevent the emigration of laborers, criminals, prostitutes and diseased persons. The final form of the treaty made the following revisions in the Burlingame treaty: (1) The admission of laborers might be regulated, limited or suspended, but not entirely prohibited for a period of ten years; (2) This limitation was to apply only to laborers, the exempt classes being such as body and household servants, teachers, merchants and travelers; (3) The Chinese in America were to be protected from violence. Chinese already in this country and wishing to visit China might obtain certificates permitting them to reënter our ports. The Act of 1882 to execute the provisions of this treaty is the first of the series known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts.

The intention of the treaty as shown by the wording of the document itself and the papers of the Commissioners was that only the laborers and undesirable classes should be excluded. The Federal courts, however, interpreted "laborers" to include all except teachers, traders, travelers and students. Persons of the exempt classes were required to present certificates of identification. The Chinese found many clever ways to have themselves smuggled in, but in justice to the Chinese we must say that their government tried to prevent such evasions of our laws.

Six years later (1886) negotiations were begun for a new treaty which would absolutely prohibit the immigration of Chinese laborers for a period of twenty years. This was not to apply to those returning to the United States from a visit to China of less than one year in length, provided the returning visitor had left a wife, child, parent, or property worth $1,000 in this country. The exempt classes were to be admitted only by presenting a certificate signed by the consul at the port of departure. While the right of naturalization was still denied to the Chinese, they were promised the same protection as would be given to citizens, and $276,619.75

were paid as indemnity for losses already suffered by the Chinese in the United States.* The Senate immediately ratified the treaty, but China was not so prompt. She made objections, as well she might.

While the treaty was pending, Congress passed an act embodying the provisions of the treaty and putting it into effect.† The Chinese minister protested, but to no avail. When news came early in September that China had postponed ratification of the treaty for still further consideration, it was urged that the bill must be passed in spite of the fact that it was opposed to the existing treaty. It was just before the elections. Both parties wanted the votes of the Pacific states. Consequently not only this bill, but also another one, amendatory in nature and providing that laborers absent at the time could not return and that no more certificates were to be issued, were both passed. This latter measure, the Scott Act, was passed in the face of Chinese opposition, and in spite of the fact that wages in California were constantly rising, so that in most occupations the minimum wage in San Francisco was higher than the maximum of the East.

China continued her protests, but to no effect; the Geary Act of 1892 continued all anti-Chinese legislation in effect for a period of ten years. Moreover it placed the burden of proof of the right to remain upon the Chinese themselves. If it were found that they were in the country illegally they were to be deported. But before deportation they might be kept imprisoned at hard labor for one year. The courts found this clause unconstitutional unless the sentence to imprisonment was given as punishment, after a fair, judicial trial. All Chinese in the country were supposed to secure certificates of residence in order to avoid arrest and deportation.

This act proved hard to enforce. Consequently another act (1893) further defined the terms "merchant" and "laborer," in the attempt to make the former law easier to enforce.

In 1894 a new ten-year treaty repealed the provisions of the act of 1888 forbidding laborers who had departed to return. In 1902 the anti-Chinese legislation was extended to the islands belonging to the United States, and Chinese in the islands were forbidden to come to the States except under the same conditions as apply to those coming directly from China. Two years later (1904) the McCreary amendment extended these provisions regardless of time.

This is the present legal status of the Chinese question. In practice the immigration officials, especially those of San Francisco, *Known as the "Abortive Treaty of 1838." Coolidge, p. 194, gives summary of. †Known as the "Chinese Exclusion Acts." U. S. Statutes-at-Large, XXV, 476-479.

have often taken the interpretation, and administration of the laws as interpreted, into their own hands, and so have often mistreated and insulted the Chinese coming to our country. On the other hand, many Chinese have come in, and attempted to come in, fraudulently. This does not, however, entirely justify the attitude of the immigration officers at the ports of entry. Moreover, a large part of the smuggling in of Chinese immigrants has been due to the unfair administration of our laws. It must be said that all such smuggling of Chinese, and mistreatment of them by the American officials, are discountenanced by their respective govern

ments.

Since the McCreary amendment Chinese immigration to this country has greatly decreased. Hence we have almost forgotten the Chinese question and have turned to the Japanese instead, as exampled by the School Question of 1907 and the Alien Land Law of 1913.

CONCLUSION.

It appears to the present writer that the fundamental question is racial, not economic, although the economic element has undoubtedly played its part. On the basis of the great age-long differences between the Chinese and the Americans, amalgamation is very unwise, at least, perhaps impossible. For this reason exclusion may be the only wise policy for the United States to pursue. But even if the Chinese are prohibited from becoming a part of our body of citizens, it would be both impossible and unkind, at this time when China is looking to the United States for help and guidance in the formation of the new republic, to prevent the Chinese from coming to our country to travel and study and learn of us. So, although we maintain a general policy of Chinese exclusion, we should treat all those who do come so that they may take back to changing China the best that America can give them.