Speech #500117266

I do not know much. If the Senator only wants to find out the extent of my information I will admit that I am very ignorant. Here is what the Senator from Connecticut said about it after the colloquy in which he stated that they were naturalizing Chinese in his State: Therefore I conceive that the argument against cooly Immigration has no force here for the reason that it is already sufficiently forbidden by statute twenty years old. and for the further reason that there is none. and there is no tendency of it toward this country. because cooly emigration is punished by beheading in China. The Chinese immigration. while it affords a serious question to the people of the California coast. and I sympathize with certain of their feelings. has not. in myjudgment. reached anything like the threatening proportions which have been represented. I am sorry it is not distributed more throughout the coultry. for I appreciate tie painfulness of my position in discussing a matter that does not immediately affect my own State at all. and I am willing to contribute to the charitable and sympathetic feeling for those who sincerely feel themsalves afflicted. I wish we could have some sympathetic feeling of that sort sometimes from Northern Senators about troubles that are equally as distressing to some other sections of the country. I am willing to regulate the immigration. I think the Chinese Government is willing. I am willing to limit it. to restrict it. I admit. nay more. I assert. the right of a government to defend itself against a hostile or dangerous immigration. It is a question of fact as to whether this is such. It is a further question for rightful consideration whether we are wisely legislating against it even if there bean evil. If we could suppose a bill that should admit only such Cliinamen as came with their families. and admit such only as came with a purpose to permanent settlement with us. admitting none to be citizens and voters unless they should be able to speak and read the English language. you certainly could defend such a bill with much more consistency than you can defend this bilt as it stands with the clause forbidding naturalization. because that makes no distinction upon the ground of merit. or education. orintelligence. or patriotism. It simply excludes a man by reason of his race or color. and we have said as emphatically as we could to the world that no man should be excluded for that reason. An exclusion based purely upon race or color is unphilosophical. unjust. and undemocratic.