At first glance it may seem to some that if we exact -indemnity from China for injuries inflicted on our citizens in that country and for property destroyed by mobs. the reciprocal obligation exists upon our Government to indemnify the Chinese Government or its subjects from our national Treasury for injuries received by Chinese subjects here. On 1886.. reflection. however. the reasons why this is not so and can not possibly in the very nature of the case be so will be seen at a glance. It resuits in the first place and mainly irons the absolutely diverse structure of the two governments. which are so essentially and widely different in their respective political organisms and functional p6wers. and in their machinery and modes respectively of protecting private rights and redressing private wrongs. and all of which essential and radical differences have been fully recognized by both governments in every treaty entered into between the two states. commencing with I hat of 1844 and extending through those of 1858. and known as our commercial treaty. and 1868. known as the Burliiigame treaty. and ending with that of 1880. known as the "emigrationrestriction treaty." And these radical differences between the two governments in and of themselves interpose an absolute barrier against any attempt that might have been made to make the conventional stipulations between the two governments in any respect reciprocal. No such attempt was ever made. They are not and could not in the very nature of the case be reciprocal.
Keywords matched
emigrationrestriction