Speech #430031083

Neither would we object to it if its provisions were observed and faithiftilly carried out. Bat the provisions of this treaty are disregarded. The Burlingame treaty. as it roads. might not be objectionable to the people of the State of California. for the reason that it merely recoFnizes the fight of immigration from China to the United States. for purposes of curiosity. of trade. or as permaneeit residents." and prihibits immigration for other purposes. such as we complain of. and as I will explain. There is no immigration to the State of California or to the UnitedStates from China for purposes of curiosity. of trade. oras permanent residents. The lowest estimate from the bes sources of information. is that there are about eightythousand Chinese now in California. and some estimate it at one hundred theasand. Of those eighty thousand. there is not one in a thousand that comes there for purposes of curiosity. or of trade. or as a permanent resident. This article (article 5 of the treaty) further says: The high contracting parties. therefore. join in reprobating any other than an entirely votntary emigration for these purposes. That is. for the purpose of trade. of curiosity. or of permanent residence. Then it proceeds to provide that each country shall pass penal laws to prohibit any other kind of emigration from China to this country or from this country to China. The point which I wish to get at is to explain the character of this Chinese emigration. and to show that it is not only in conflict with the Burlingame treaty. but in conflict with a law as old as March 2. 1807. That was the law to suppress the African slave trade. I will read section 1 of that act of 1807. intended to abolish the African slave trade and to prohibit the importationof personsof color to be held to service or labor.