He said that the word "laborer" had a fixed meaning. and it was used in the treaty with reference to this meaning. which the courts could determine. and that we could not make the word laborer. as used in the treaty. mean more or less by an act of Congress. Of course if we wished to go beyond the treaty. if we wished to violate the treaty. if we wished to exclude classes of Chinese by the law that were not excluded by the treaty. that chld be done. but that was not what General Harrison was talking about. He was talking about enlarging the definition of the word "laborer" as used in the treaty by an act of Congress. and a very sensible remark he made about it. too. and his action in that matter shows. just as his action upon the previous bill showed. that he favored the restriction of Chinese immigration. But suppose that that were not so. Is a man to be held forever to a position that he has taken at a particular time or to his views upon a question at a given time?
Keywords matched
immigration