It transforms the treaty into a delusion and a snare. The first article of the treaty which has been so often repeated providesthat suspension ofimmigration shall he" reasonable. " it shall not be "absolutely prohibitory." Twenty years is an unreasonable time. Suppose our commissioner had proposed to insert in this treaty the provision that the "suspension of immigration shall be reasonable and not for a longer period than twenty years." )oes anybody suppose this treaty could have Ieen made with that clause ill it V Men inegotiate treaties not only for succeeding generations but for their own. and when personal privileges are involved is it reasonable or are we to be told that the very men who were negotiating this treaty for China. middleaged or further advanced. representing the generation on the stage of action with them. intended to put anything into the treaty by which they and their fellows for twothirds of a generation would Ile prohibited from entering the United States. that they consented to this. and in the next breath turned round and said this must be "reasonable." it must not be "prohibitory?" Is this a reasonable construction of the treaty V It nmust be if this bill is to stand on it. But did not the Republican party. we are asked. agree to regulate and restrict Chinese immigration ? Yes. perhaps it did. But did it agree to prohibit it ?
Keywords matched
immigration