Speech #530024557

I can not believe that that was contemplated by the original act of the 5th of May. 1892. Several gentlemen from the Pacific coast. and the member from New York besides. have urged upon us that is the right and the best thing to do. The gentleman from California . who last spoke. and whom I am happy to recognize is a native of my own State. although a resident of California. has pressed upon us that immediate deportation is the right and desirable thing to do in the execution and fulfillment of the registration clauses of the Geary act. But. sir. if I understood correctly the distinguished author of that act. who addressed us immediately after the chairman. it was not the intention.of that act to cause an extensive deportation. that the intention was to protect the Chinese who had acquired the right to remain in the country. and. as he said. to furnish a satisfactory method of identification by which they might not incur the sentence of deportation which belonged properly to those who had no right to remain in this country. Now. sir. this is not the only case in the world where an act that might have two results unexpectedly leads to that one of the two results which was not chiefly in anticipation. I do not believe that with the funds at our disposal. with the state of public opinion in many parts of the countryerroneous. if you please. a mistaken opinion. an opinion founded onimperfect knowledge. if you please. but in the face of the strong public opinion against the act at all. in the face of the remonstrance of a friendly powerI do not believe it would ba practicable. I do not believe it would be approved or the right thing to proceed immediately to deport over 86.000 people. when the original act did not contemplate any such design. The question of the funds has been somewhat discussed. and I understand from the best authority that the state of the case was this: That when the Supreme Court had finally decided that the Geary act was constitutional. the amount of funds remaining of the original appropriation was not sufficient to carry it out in all its provisions. and that the Secretary of the Treasury justly believed. as has been stated by the gentleman from Ohio . that precedence must be given to those clauses which were to stop the further immigration of Chinese. and that these limited funds should be appropriated first to prevent more coming in and not to deport those who had been recognized as having aright to remain. that. therefore. it was tht the original instruction came from him. and not from the AttorneyGeneral. that further proceedings with a view to deportation should be stayed. and that the funds should first be used for the removal of those who are coming from time to time. At a later period. it appears. if I am not mistaken. that the AttorneyGeneral was not. as has been stated. unwilling to employ the funds which were at his disposal for carrying out the judicial portion of the proceedings. It seems to me that that is shown by the telegram which the AttorneyGeneral sent on the 9th of September. 1893. and which may be found in Executive Document No. 9. Fiftythird Congress. first session: The following telegram was sent to the United States marshals for the northern and southern districts of California: Instructions heretofore given do not apply to warrants of arrest of China. men under section 6 of Geary act issued by a court. which are to be executed by yourself and deputies in the ordinary course. Deportation orders In such cases are also to be executed to the extent of available funds. Amount being small. report at once number of cases in your district in which court warrants have been applied for or granted. That. sir. seems to me to answer the charge which has been made here that the Department of Justice has done nothing to carry out the provisions of the Geary act.