Chinese Immigration by Editor

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Feb 20, 1879

Chinese Immigration.

By Editor

ON the 28th of January the House of Representatives passed a bill designed to check the immigration of the Chinese to the United States. With amendments it was passed by the Senate February 15th. This question has assumed large proportions within a few months. The Senate of the United States sent a Committee to the Pacific Coast about two years ago to investigate the subject, but the death of Senator Morton, who had partially prepared a report, seemed to have the effect to allay or delay its agitation.

We noticed at the time of the visit of the Senatorial Committee to California that the evidence taken before them was clearly defined into two classes—that of the cities was strongly against the Chinese, while that of the country or of farmers was in their favor.

In our travels in this State we have always found this difference of opinion to exist. Farmers have told us that they started out with strong prejudices against the Chinese, but were compelled to hire them as they were the only hands on whom they could rely under all circumstances.

The action of the House on the 28th ult. failed to give satisfaction, and it is difficult to conceive that the promoters of the bill expected much more than a political result to grow out of it. The manner in which it was hurried through, without opportunity for amendment or debate, did not seem to accord with the importance of the question or the dignity of our national legislature. The action of the Senate was much more worthy of that body; amendments were made, debate was had, and the political parties divided on the issue, each individual seeming to act according to his own convictions or inclinations.

While the newspapers of the Pacific slope are almost as a unit in favor of the bill, the great majority of influential papers on the Atlantic are opposed to it, and this without regard to parties. At this we cannot be surprised. We must expect that the leading men and papers on the two extremes of our wide country will be divided on this question. And the manner in which it is discussed on the Pacific by very many, yes, by the great majority, will never carry conviction to those removed from the immediate influence of the "Mongolian scourge." And we have been surprised that able men on the Pacific Coast have not realized it.

When it is charged that the Chinese do not assimilate to our civilization and our institutions, they in the East read that the Chinese are shut out of the public schools and denied the privilege of becoming citizens when application is made.

When they are accused of sending their money out of the country back to China, it is a well-known fact that inducements and even opportunities are withheld from them to settle down on a level with other nationalities, either as citizens or land-holders. Now we do not say that the positions against them are not well taken, for we must confess that, as much as we have seen of the Chinese, they are yet a mystery to us; but we only say that Eastern papers cannot be expected to coincide with the ideas of the people on this coast while such facts are before their eyes.

The popular demand, that "the Chinese must go," is not met by this bill. It only limits the number who may be landed from any one vessel, and this may be evaded or rendered ineffectual in many ways. Many of the best statesmen in the land, among whom is Secretary of State, Evarts, are of opinion that the treaty obligations now existing should be regarded until the treaty may be annulled.

How this action of Congress is regarded by the Chinese themselves is yet a matter of conjecture. Those already here are said to be pleased with it, as they think their own labor will command better wages if the number who may come to our shores is limited. It is conceded that the Chinese officials are deeply skilled in diplomacy, and it is difficult to arrive at any certain conclusion as to their ideas or wishes in the matter. A late dispatch from Washington to the New York Times seems to take a reasonable view of the case. It gives the substance of remarks by Mr. Walker, editor of the Washington Republic, who accompanied Ross Browne to China, and was in the Chinese military service:—

"In regard to the report that Chin Ta Tin had been secretly favoring the passage of the bill, Walker said he would not be at all surprised if such was the case. It was in thorough accord with the Chinese methods of diplomacy, and there are, he thinks, no more skillful diplomats in the world than the Chinese. Taking advantage of the prejudice against the Chinese in this country, and desiring the abrogation of the treaty, it would be natural for the Chinese authorities to pretend opposition, while secretly elated at the prospects of its passage. If the President fails to veto the bill, and it becomes a law, it will give the Chinese a lever in their dealings with foreigners for which they have been seeking for the past twenty years. China, with its splendid arsenals and trained military, will soon be in a position to defy European interference. In the meanwhile Americans will be placed at a disadvantage with other traders. The market which might take $100,000,000 worth of American products may be closed. The Pacific Mail Steamship Company will be obliged to abandon its Asiatic branch and San Francisco will be the greatest sufferer."

We have here given to our readers as good an idea of this question as we possibly can in brief. It may result in complications of great national importance. It may be made a lever for political effect in the coming Presidential campaign. But this cannot be counted on with any certainty, as a couple of years' agitation may entirely change the position of parties in regard to the present bill. And even if it becomes a law, it will not satisfy the Pacific States and Territories; they will demand further and more effectual legislation.