These are the opinions of one who was doubtless the largest minded man on the committee, and who, being free from local influences and prejudices, and evidently aiming only at conclusions which were sustained by the testimony, justly commands from the disinterested inquirer, the highest degree of confidence.
We have been thus prolix in comments upon the report of the joint committee, because it was the basis of all subsequent acts relating to the Chinese, and must be considered as the most complete testimony on the Chinese question on both sides.
It would be impracticable to follow the debates on this question which have to a greater or less extent occupied the attention of Congress and the country from the time this report was made down to the present day. On the one side was urged our duty to humanity and to the principles of human liberty on which our government is founded; the importance of maintaining friendly relations with China, for religious and moral as well as for commercial purposes; the unreasonableness of the fears which prevailed in some quarters that the Chinese would overrun this country, or reduce its standard of civilization. It was shown that the emigration was limited to a district of China about the size of Connecticut, and for reasons founded upon peculiarities of language and inherited habits, would never affect the population of China outside of this region. It was shown that this class of Chinese was distinguished for thrift, integrity and cleanliness.
On the other side while admitting the importance of the general propositions as to our treaty obligations, and humanitarian reasons, the arguments and facts brought forward by the friends of the Chinese were diametrically contradicted. The coming of the Chinese was denounced as a horrible invasion, tending to dishonor labor, corrupt our morals and disintegrate our civilization. Into the discussion from the start has been injected a political issue, which has determined every vote taken in Congress; the issue as to the partisan control of the Pacific States. To illustrate this fact we call to mind the famous Morey letter, a forgery, imputed to Gen. Garfield in October, 1880, in which he was made to favor the importation of Chinese labor, in order to defeat his election. Both Republicans and Democrats feared the consequence of opposing the wishes of the people of California and the adjoining States. And no one could doubt what their wishes were respecting Chinese immigration. For this reason, from the outset, the veto of the President has been the only barrier in defense of our treaty obligations and of the rights of the Chinese in the United States.
The next move in the direction of a change was a resolution by Congress, early in 1878, requesting President Hayes "to open correspondence immediately with a view of securing a change or abrogation of all stipulations in existing treaties which permit unlimited immigration of Chinese to the United States." This resolution never reached the President, and therefore nothing was done. Early in 1879 the Committee on Education and Labor introduced "an act to restrict the immigration of Chinese to the United States." This was the first of a series of acts passed for the same purpose. It limited the number of Chinese passengers by any one vessel to fifteen, and was vetoed by President Hayes for the general reason that it was in violation of treaty stipulations. He adds the special reason that, "the recession of emigration from China to the Pacific coast relieves us from any apprehension that the treatment of the subject by the proper course of diplomatic negotiations will introduce any new features of discontent or disturbance among the communities directly affected," and he deprecates violation of our treaties with China as more injurious than any local inconveniences.
In reference to this last mentioned act, a special meeting of the Chamber of Commerce was held on the 27th of February, 1879, at which earnest addresses were made in opposition to the passage of the Act by Messrs. A. A. Low, Wm. H. Fogg, Elliot C. Cowdin, Jackson S. Shultz, Charles Watrous and Isaac Phillips.
Resolutions, embodying this sentiment and calling on the Government to fulfil its treaty stipulations, were unanimously adopted.
Similar resolutions were adopted in various places, chiefly along the Atlantic coast.
Meantime the voters of California, in September, 1879, in conformity with a recent law of the State, met at the polls to express the wishes of the people respecting Chinese immigration. For Chinese immigration there were cast 883 votes, against it were 154,638 votes, and the entire vote of the State was cast within less than 4,000. In Nevada the vote was 183 for and 17,259 against it.
In March, 1880, the Committee of the House of Representatives on the Causes of the Depression of Labor, submitted a report attributing much of the existing trouble to the presence of the Chinese. Although the minority condemned this view, and charged the majority with prejudice, the report resulted in an inquiry addressed to the President respecting the step% if any, which had been taken to change the Burlingame Treaty. To this Secretary Evarts replied that no definite measures had been concluded, but "that preparation had been laid for a conclusive disposition of the matter." Following this, at an early date, came the appointment of James B. Angel, John F. Swift and Wm. Henry Trescot, Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the United States to China, for the purpose of securing, by friendly negotiation, the desired modification of the Burlingame Treaty. They were cordially received by the Chinese government, and "two Chinese Commissioners of high rank and large influence, both members of the Privy Council of State," were appointed, with full powers to consider their demands. After a comparatively brief discussion, which was marked on the part of the Chinese government by courtesy and by a friendly desire to treat with great consideration the wishes of the United States, the modifications were agreed to and a new treaty was signed on the 17th of November, 1880.