The News Bulletin of the Foreign Policy Association declared, "persistent agitation, inadvertently abetted by diplomatic ineptitude and culminating in Senatorial hysteria, threatens needlessly to wreck the most important achievement of the Washington Conference. . . .”1 On the other hand, the Boston Transcript declared, "Congress was exactly and everlastingly right." The Hearst papers also took this point of view. A large number of organizations also passed resolutions criticizing the passage of the exclusion law. At its annual meeting in December, 1923, the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, deplored as "unpatriotic and unchristian" the discriminatory treatment of aliens, and advocated a non-discriminatory naturalization test.3 The Administrative Committee of the Council also protested against excluding “aliens ineligible to citizenship", on the ground that it is "unnecessarily and inevitably offensive. Similar resolutions criticizing the method used by Congress were passed by the Massachusetts Federation of Churches, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, the National Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, meeting at Springfield, Mass., the Northern Baptist Convention, the Committee representing the Foreign Missionary Boards of the United States, the General Synod of the Reformed Church in America, the Woman's Union Missionary Society of America, the Woman's American Baptist Foreign Missionary Society, the Methodist Episcopal Church South, the National Board of the Y. W. C. A., the American members of the Executive Committee of the World Sunday School Association, the World Peace Foundation, the National Chamber of Commerce at its annual meeting at Cleveland, and the National Committee on American-Japanese Relations. A group of prominent New York business and professional men sent a cablegram to the American-Japanese Society in Tokyo "deeply" deploring the unjustifiable things said during the exclusion debate in regard to Japan. The message was signed, among others, by Henry W. Taft, George W. Wickersham, Thomas W. Lamont, Darwin P. Kingsley, and J. B. Millet. 1April 25, 1924. "Ed., June 19, 1924. 'Hearings on S. 2576, cited, p. 55. New York Times, July 2, 1924. Another cablegram was signed by 30 heads or Presidents Emeritus of leading American universities and colleges, regretting "the inconsiderate action of the American Congress, which does not represent the sentiments of the American people toward Japan." The author of the message was Charles W. Eliot, President Emeritus of Harvard, and among those who disapproved the action of Congress were David Starr Jordan, President Emeritus of Stanford University, and W. W. Campbell, President of the University of California.1 On the other hand, the California American Legion, the State Federation of Labor, the Native Sons of the Golden West, and the State Grange, protested against the attempt of Ambassador Hanihara "to influence the electorate of this country on a purely domestic question-Immigration." 'New York Times, July 6, 1924. Literary Digest, cited. VII. IMMIGRATION TREATIES In view of the assertion, made by a large number of senators and representatives in the recent exclusion debate', that a treaty providing for the exclusion of the Japanese would be "unconstitutional", the history of our two immigration treaties with China will be discussed. The United States entered into treaties with China in 1844 and in 1858, neither of which, however, touched upon immigration. In the so-called Burlingame treaty of July 28, 1868, however, the United States and China "cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from the one country to the other for purposes of curiosity, and of trade or as permanent residents". But the presence of an increasing number of Chinese on the Pacific Coast led to trouble, and in December, 1878, the Constitutional Convention in California memorialized Congress to stop what was considered an Oriental invasion. Congress thereupon appropriated money to send commissioners to China to negotiate another treaty." The supplementary treaty of November 17, 1880, provided as follows: "Article I. Whenever in the opinion of the Government of the United States, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect the interests of that country, or to endanger the good order of the said country or of any locality within the territory thereof, the Government of China agrees that the Government of the United States may regulate, limit, or suspend such coming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation or suspension shall be reasonable and shall apply only to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes not being included in the limitations. Legislation taken in regard to Chinese laborers will be of such a character only as is necessary to enforce the regulation, limitation or suspension of immigration, and immigrants shall not be subject to personal maltreatment or abuse." 1Cf. p. 310ff. 'Malloy, Treaties and Conventions of the United States, pp. 196, 211. 'Malloy, Treaties and Conventions of the United States, p. 238. In May, 1882, Congress passed a statute, entitled "An Act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese", part of which read as follows: "Whereas, in the opinion of the Government of the United Statesthe coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof: "Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended. . . .” By the act of May 5, 1892, these provisions were continued in force for another ten years. Two years later another immigration treaty was signed with China, the treaty of March 17, 1894, which provided that the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, except under the conditions specified in the treaty, should be "absolutely prohibited.” In a law passed on April 29, 1902, Congress provided that all laws prohibiting entrance of Chinese were hereby re-enacted, "so far as the same are not inconsistent with treaty obligations." In 1904 the Chinese Government gave notice of the termination of the treaty of 1894, which led Congress to pass another exclusion act stating that all exclusion laws "are hereby reenacted, extended, and continued, without modification, limitation or condition." China denounced the treaty of 1894 because of alleged mistreatment of merchants, students and travelers who had been entitled to enter under the treaty and because the United States declined to guarantee that the administration of the law would be less rash in the future." Maladministration of exclusion laws and regulations by the United States also led to a boycott in 1Act, May 6, 1882, Chap. 126, as amended July 5, 1884, 22 Stat. 58; 23 Stat. 115, Chap. 220. On March 1, 1879, President Hayes had vetoed a Chinese restriction bill, on the ground that it violated the treaty of 1868. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the United States, Vol. VII, p. 514. On April 4, 1882, President Arthur vetoed an exclusion bill on the ground that it abrogated the treaty of 1880. Ibid., VIII, p. 112. 227 Stat. 25, Chap. 60. "Malloy, Treaties and Conventions of the United States, p. 241. 432 Stat. 176, Chap. 641. "Foreign Relations of the United States, 1904, p. 117. Sec. 5, Act of April 27, 1904, 33 Stat. 428, Chap. 1630. 'M. R. Coolidge, Chinese Immigration (1909), pp. 469, 483, 485. China of American goods which caused the export of cotton cloth to China from the United States to fall one-half and of mineral oils to two-thirds of what it had been in the previous year. This boycott led President Roosevelt and officials to promise that the law would be more liberally administered. The attitude of Congress toward immigration as a proper subject of negotiation is shown by the following section in the Immigration Act of 1917: "That the President of the United States is authorized, in the name of the Government of the United States, to call, in his discretion, an international conference, to assemble at such point as may be agreed upon or to send special commissioners to any foreign country, for the purpose of regulating by international agreement, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, the immigration of aliens to the United States; of providing for the mental, moral, and physical examination of such aliens by American consuls or other officers of the United States Government at the ports of embarkation, or elsewhere; of securing the assistance of foreign governments in their own territory to prevent the evasion of the laws of the United States governing immigration to the United States; of entering into such international agreements as may be proper to prevent the immigration of aliens who, under the laws of the United States, are or may be excluded from entering the United States, and of regulating any matters pertaining to such immigration." In a number of cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has had occasion to interpret the treaty-making power, particularly in connection with the legislative powers of Congress. In 1829 it declared, "Our Constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision.” The Constitution gives Congress power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." But at the same time a large number of treaties have been made by the President and Senate in regard 'Sec. 29, Act of February 5, 1917, 39 Stat. 874, Chap. 29. This section is a virtual repetition of Sec. 39 of the Immigration Act of February 20, 1907, 34 Stat. 898, Chap. 1134. 2Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. (1829) 253, 314; Art. VI, Sec. 2 of the Constitution says, "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.' Art. I, Sec. 8, par. 3. |