On the 18th of February, Thomas J. Geary, a Member from California, reported to the House of Representatives, from the committee on foreign affairs, a bill to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States. On the 4th of April he moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. After a debate of one hour, and without amendment, this drastic bill passed. It came to the Senate and was referred to the committee on foreign relations, On the 13th of April it was reported to the Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was the bill that had previously passed the Senate.
On the 21st of April I made a full statement of the action of the committee and the scope of the amendment proposed by it. I had no sympathy with the outcry against the Chinese, but was quite willing to restrict their migration here to the extent proposed by the committee. On the 25th of April the amendment was agreed to after full debate, by the strong vote of yeas 43 and nays 14. In this form the bill passed. The House disagreed to the Senate amendment and a committee of conference was appointed, consisting of Dolph, Sherman and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary, Chipman and Hall on the part of the House. This committee recommended the adoption of the House bill with certain amendments. The report was signed by Dolph and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary and Chipman on the part of the House. I stated my dissent from the conference report, as follows:
"Though a member of the conference committee, I was not able to get the consent of my own judgment to sign this report. I simply wish to state very briefly the reasons why I did not do it.
"I was very willing to provide for any legislation necessary to continue in force the existing restrictions against Chinese laborers coming to this country. The Senate bill did this, I thought, very broadly. It continued in force the old laws. It provided some penal sections to punish Chinamen coming into the country in opposition to the law, especially through Canada. I look upon the introduction of Chinese laborers through Canada as not only an insult to our country, but it seems to me an almost designed insult by the Canadian authorities to allow a class of people who are forbidden by our laws to come here, to enter a port right on our border. They are charged $50 for the privilege of landing on Canadian soil with the privilege to enter our country in violation of our laws. It is not courteous treatment by the Canadian authorities, and it is incidents like this which tend to create excitement all along the border, and which some time or other will no doubt be the cause of great difficulty, because unfriendly legislation of that kind, constantly repeated, must tend to create irritation.
"The objection I have to this measure is in the addition that has been made to the Senate bill, which provides for a certificate to be taken out by every Chinaman lawfully in this country, here under virtue of our treaty and by our laws; that they must apply to the collector of internal revenue of their respective districts, within one year after the passage of this act, for a certificate of residence, and severe penalties are provided for neglect or refusal to do so. This inaugurates in our system of government a new departure, one I believe never before practiced, although it was suggested in conference that some such rules had been adopted in the old slavery times to secure the peaceful and quiet condition of society. It is suggested that we act daily upon the same rule in regard to the Indian tribes on reservations, but that is upon very different ground. The Indians are in our country, they are confined to reservations, and treaties have been made, and those treaties require them to stay on their reservations. So we are simply enforcing the treaties, and the Indians do not have to get a certificate or be punished.
"Now, whether this exceptional legislation, never before introduced into our country, except in the possible cases I have mentioned, is in violation of the treaty, is the real question and the real doubt upon which I stand. I care nothing about the exclusion of Chinese laborers from our country, because I believe their habits are inconsistent with our civilization, and, as soon as we can get rid of them properly, according to the treaty, I am willing to do so. The question is now whether, in the fact of the language of the treaty of 1880, it is our right—not our power, but our right according to the treaty—to make this exceptional legislation for people who are now here under existing law. The treaty provides that the United States may, whenever in its opinion the coming or residence of Chinese laborers injuriously affects the interests of this country, 'regulate, limit or suspend such coming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it.' In violation of that article of the treaty we expressly provide that these people shall only have the right to remain here upon applying, on certain terms and conditions, for a certificate; that if they lose their certificate they are not to be governed by the laws as to other persons; they are here ticket-of-leave men. Precisely as under Australian law a convict is allowed to go at large upon a ticket-of-leave, these people are allowed to go at large and earn their livelihood, but they must have this ticket-of-leave in their possession. We have agreed by this treaty not only that we would not discriminate against them in our legislation, but that we would permit these laborers to remain in the position of persons 'of the most favored nation.' . . . Here is a treaty by which China, the most populous nation in the world, agreed that the United States may exclude the class of people of China that we do not want here, making a discrimination against them among all nations of the world. But it is done upon certain terms and conditions, that in respect to those who are here now they shall be treated as all other peoples are treated; that no discrimination shall be made against them; that no prejudicial mark shall be put upon them. By the terms of this bill I think the treaty is violated, and I, for one, do not propose to vote for the conference report on that ground."
After a lengthy debate in the Senate the report of the conference committee was agreed to, and the bill became a law.
An interesting debate occurred during this session in respect to the effect of the tariff laws upon wages and prices. No tariff bill was then pending, but a sub-committee of the committee on finance had been engaged for the past year in investigating this subject, and had accumulated a mass of testimony in regard to it. Senator Eugene Hale, on the 27th of June, offered the following resolution, which gave rise to the debate:
"Whereas, At no time has so large a proportion of the American people been employed at so high wages, and purchasing the necessities and comforts of life at so low prices, as in the year 1892; and
"Whereas, The balance of the trade with foreign countries has never been so large in favor of the United States as in the last year; and