Speech #470058149

There was a distinct statemeut on the pdrt of our commissioners to the Chinese Government that they would not accept the Chinese proposition that the word "laborers" should not include artisans. and thereupon that word was put into the treaty with the undersatandmi. o ueing atife that thee words "lbrr"ddi clud e d tias. uner t thviea ooc a di scr n d frth e n gitsatesioen mett.xld them by statute. . That being the understanding of the definition of the word "laborrs" in the treaty. and it being explained in the very wohmeunication with which our commissioners laid the treaty before our own Government for ratification. how can it be said that there is no necessity .or no propriety in our placing that construction distinctly in the body of this bill ? It seems to me that it is a clear duty that we should do so. a duty which we owe to China as well as a duty which we owe to all persons who may be concerned in this country or elsewhere in the effort to bring in such a class of immigration to this country. Mr. President. I will not undertake to criticise the motives which may lie at the bottom of the objection to this definition of the word in the treaty. but I cannot close my eyes to the fact. as it seems to me. that there is a settled purpose that there shall be still longer doubt left in the construction of our statutes. so that they may be still further evaded. It was the doubt left in reference to the importation of coolies contained in the very fact that there was no definition of the meaning of the word "coolies" that has led to the great evasion which has caused swarms of people to come from China to this country without any construction of our statutes at all. and if we pass a statute of this kind without a construction which does not now define the class of people who may come and those who are excluded. we shall have still further evasion. and the law will become. as the cooly statute has become. a dead letter on the statutebook. I desire that the bill shall be enacted in such a form as that itwill have soens efficiency. as that it will at least secure what the people of the United States desire. and have expressed twice by solemn vote given in both brunches of Congress. To leave the word "laborers" to be construed by the terms of the treaty is merely to open the statute unnecessarily and unwisely to a construction some courts may put upon it ad verse to the views entertained by the friends of this bill. and which they desire to exclude by express provision in t ho language of the bill itself.