“That this Committee is of opinion that the surplus of the Indemnity Fund received from the Chinese under the Convention of 1858, referred to in the Annual Message of President Buchanan to the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth Congress, and of President Lincoln to the Second Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress, with the accumulation thereon, certainly does belong in equity to the Chinese Government, as the Presidents therein declare, and should be returned to it.”
The Committee then proceed to say, that, if such surplus shall be declined by China, it should be expended, according to the recommendation of Mr. Burlingame, in founding a literary institution for the equal benefit of Chinese and Americans.
Chicago responded to New York. At a meeting of citizens March 31st, another committee was organized, with R. B. Mason, the Mayor, as chairman,—and among the members were William Bross, Lieutenant-Governor of Illinois, Thomas Drummond, Judge of the United States Circuit Court, James E. McLean, Collector of Customs, N. S. Davis, Professor of Surgery in the Medical College, Samuel M. Wiseman, President of the First National Bank, J. C. Burroughs, President of the University of Chicago, and E. D. Haven, President of the Northwestern University, with others,—and adopted resolutions, where, after approving those of New York, they declare,—
“That it seems to us eminently fitting and fortunate that this money, which distinguished representatives of the United States have asserted belongs in equity to the Chinese Government, though that government is disposed to waive its right to it, should be employed in some way to the common advantage and honor of both nations.”
The committee then proceed to resolve further,—
“That in view of the impression conveyed by Secretary Seward’s Report to the Third Session of the Fortieth Congress, that the Chinese authorities are unwilling to receive this money, this Committee respectfully memorializes Congress to cover it into the United States Treasury as a special fund, to be returned to the Chinese Treasury, or hereafter appropriated to the establishment of the proposed institution of learning at Peking, as the Chinese Government may elect.”
These two weighty committees concur in recognizing the equity of China, if not her proprietorship, in this fund. If it be true that the surplus belongs to China, or that it is hers in equity, it will be difficult to defend any proposition to return the amount indirectly, as in a college or buildings for the accommodation of the United States on Chinese soil. If returned at all, it must be directly, and in the form of money. What right have we to determine how to expend in China or for China that which is hers? To do so would not be generous, even if it were just. It would be ostentatious, and might be offensive. It would assume that we can employ the money of China, even in China, for her own benefit, better than she can herself. At all events, it would recognize an undefined title in China, to which we deferred.
THE CHINESE HAVE NOT REFUSED TO RECEIVE IT.
But it cannot be disguised, that, when the two Secretaries of State concurred in the idea of appropriating this fund to the erection of buildings, also when Mr. Burlingame made his earnest effort for its appropriation to a college at Peking, and when two successive Presidents invited Congress to consider what should be done with it, there was an impression not only that the Chinese would not allow the surplus to be returned, but that they had peremptorily declined to entertain the proposition. Such was the impression when the attention of the Committee was first called to this fund, now many years ago. And it cannot be doubted that this impression has exercised an influence in preventing frank and explicit action on the question, according to the obvious requirement of justice.
The Committee have endeavored to ascertain the ground for the statement that the Chinese had refused to receive the surplus. It seems, on inquiry, to be a report or rumor started nobody knows precisely how or when. Thus we find Mr. Seward saying, in his Report of February 18, 1868:—
“It appears, that, when it was ascertained that this surplus would remain, the return of it to the Chinese Government was proposed, but that they declined to accept it.”[132]
And Mr. Fish, in a similar Report, under date of March 10, 1870, says likewise:—
“The Secretary of State is informed, that, after the awards were completed, and it was definitely known that there would be a surplus, Mr. Burlingame informally proposed to return whatever should be left. The Chinese, however, did not seem disposed to accept it.”[133]
But these distinguished Secretaries do not adduce any authority for their assertion; nor does careful search at the State Department disclose any dispatch or record sustaining or justifying it. On this point the Committee are confident. No instruction was ever given to any Minister authorizing him to tender a return of the surplus, or even to sound the Chinese Government on the question of receiving it, if tendered. In fact, no power exists in the State Department to authorize such a tender. Such an act could proceed only from Congress, which has never acted on the subject.
The Committee, therefore, dismiss the assumption that there has been any tender to the Chinese, or any refusal on their part, whether formal or informal, and they approach the question simply on its merits.
DUTY TO CHINA.
Had this question arisen in our relations with a European power, it would be only according to an important precedent, if we forbore to open the transaction. By two separate conventions, one in 1815 and the other in 1818, France paid to England a large sum, amounting to one hundred and thirty million francs, on account of English claimants, and the English Government undertook to dispose of all their claims, as the United States undertook to dispose of all the claims of American citizens in China. In 1852 Lord Lyndhurst brought the subject before the House of Lords, when he stated that there was “an unapplied balance of upwards of £200,000”;[134] and in 1861 Mr. Denman did the same in the House of Commons, when he said, that, “after all claims had been satisfied, there still remained a sum of £200,000 not in any way to be considered due under the convention.”[135] Nothing was said of returning this surplus to France. The Baron de Bode, a renowned litigant, made an ineffectual attempt to obtain something out of it on account of losses in France, although his case was argued with consummate ability in the English courts, and awakened the eloquence of Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords. In an appeal for justice, the Baron declares that out of the amount received by England, only 67,071,301 francs had been paid to claimants, and he insists that the Crown should account to the claimants, or to France, for the unexpended surplus,—thus recognizing an eventual proprietorship in France, after the satisfaction of the claims.[136] What has been done with this surplus since is not known.
But while the importance of doing equity always is a paramount duty, the Committee feel that there is something in the negotiation under which this surplus accrued which should make us particularly careful lest we fail to do equity. It will be observed that the sum received from China was on account of certain claims of our citizens, and that it was in no sense a national indemnity; in other words, the consideration was specific, and not general in character. The preamble of the convention recites that it was entered into “for the satisfaction of claims of American citizens,”—thus expressly excluding any other consideration. With regard to these claims the Chinese had little or no information, while our Minister saw clearly, that, with the disallowance of those doubtful, which he regarded as probable, there would be a surplus. His words were: “If they be recognized, the fund will be exhausted. If they be disallowed, there will be a surplus at the disposition of the Government.”[137] The actual surplus was about thirty-three and a third per cent. of the amount stipulated, and about fifty per cent. of the amount awarded to claimants. The considerableness of this sum is another reason why we should hesitate to take advantage of a transaction where we were so situated as to be the best informed on the matter in issue. If we did not know everything bearing on it, we knew much more than the Chinese.
In fact, the Chinese acted in the dark; and here we have the testimony of Mr. Williams, the interpreter of our Minister in the negotiation, and still an honored servant of the Government, who has said in a dispatch: “No list was presented to the Chinese by Mr. Reed”; and again, “The United States Government was made the sole judge of the justice of the claims”; and then again, “In reality, they [the Chinese] paid the demands made upon them by the English and French Ministers, as well as the American, under pressure.”[138] If this were so,—and one of our own officers is the witness,—the equity of the Chinese becomes more apparent. Obviously, they were unable to examine the claims, and did not pretend to examine them. Everything was left to the United States. And this was done while the ancient empire was torn by civil war, aggravated by the menacing attitudes of England and France. It is not too much to say that it was done “under pressure.” According to well-known authorities, a deed made under duress may be set aside; and this rule of jurisprudence shows a just sensitiveness with regard to that absolute freedom which is essential to the life of a contract. Such a rule, if applied in the intercourse of nations, would invalidate most of those conventions after war or menace by which one power has assumed obligations to another, and, indeed, would strike at war and menace as modes of pursuing a claim. In the present case the validity of the convention is not called in question; but, since we assert no right of conquest, it is properly suggested that the original pressure upon China, attested by one of our own functionaries, peculiarly intimate with the transaction, is an additional reason why we should decline to take advantage of the convention beyond the just satisfaction of our citizens.
And this brings the Committee to the conclusion, that, in equity, this fund does not belong to us. Whatever may be our technical title, in conscience the money is not ours.
In returning to China the fund in question and its accretions, the United States will relieve themselves of an embarrassing trust, while they render unto the distant Cæsar what is his own, and set an example by which republican institutions will be elevated. The question of its application, which has occupied the attention of successive Presidents, which has been presented to successive Congresses, and is still undecided, will be at rest. Schemes for the bestowal of the fund in such a way as to harmonize our sense of justice with our obligations to China, if not with Chinese proprietorship, will cease. There will be nothing for “disappointed claimants” to pursue. China will receive her own,—if with astonishment, it will be only because nations have so rarely lived according to the Golden Rule. Such an act cannot be otherwise than honorable to the United States. It will be a victory in a new field, making us first in a new order of conquerors. China, with infinite resources, will be more than ever open to American enterprise. Thus, while doing right, shall we benefit ourselves. So is justice to others the way to national advantage. But whatever this advantage, it must not be forgotten that the first inducement is the essential equity of the case.
The measure now proposed will be valuable in proportion as it is spontaneous. Thus far China has made no demand, or suggestion even. A year hence the venerable Empire may appear before the youthful Republic with a formal claim. The very fact that we deliberate about this fund will spread the tidings of its existence. Better anticipate a demand than wait and at last yield an ungracious compliance, urged by a foreign plenipotentiary in the service of the ancient government whose money is now in our hands.
The Report was accompanied by the following Joint Resolution, which was read and passed to a second reading:—
JOINT RESOLUTION, DIRECTING THE RETURN OF CERTAIN MONEYS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF CHINA.
Whereas on the 8th day of November, 1858, a convention was entered into between the United States and China for the settlement of claims against the latter by citizens of the United States, and in pursuance thereof an amount of five hundred thousand taels, making seven hundred thousand dollars in gold, or thereabouts, was paid by China, out of which sum, after the satisfaction of all claims exhibited by citizens of the United States, there remains in the hands of the United States an unappropriated surplus, amounting, with interest and exchange, to four hundred thousand dollars in currency, or thereabouts, which sum is now in custody of the Department of State: Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the unappropriated surplus now in the hands of the United States, under the convention with China, of November 8, 1858, be refunded to the Government of China; and it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to see that this is carried into effect.
APPENDIX.
(A). Page 121.
LETTER OF MR. SEWARD TO MR. SUMNER.
Department of State, Washington, June 21, 1862.
Sir,—I duly received your letter of the 3d instant, accompanied by a copy of the resolution of the Senate of the 2d instant, referring to the consideration of the Committee on Foreign Relations of that part of the President’s Annual Message to Congress, of December last, which adverts to the difference between the amount stipulated to be paid by China in satisfaction of claims of United States citizens and the gross amount of the awards of the Commissioners appointed pursuant to the Act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1859.
In compliance with your request for information and suggestion upon the subject, I have the honor to communicate a copy of the Convention, a copy of the Act to carry it into effect, a copy of all the correspondence on record or on file in the Department touching the matter, and all the original papers relating to the proceedings of the Commissioners. It is desirable that great care should be taken of these last, and that they should be returned to the Department as soon as the subject shall have been disposed of.
The circumstance of the complaints against the Chinese, which it was the purpose of the convention to adjust, having arisen in a peculiar region and among a singular people, probably suggested the appointment of Commissioners resident on the spot, who were familiar with the scene of their duties. It is understood, therefore, that, upon the recommendation of Mr. Reed, the Minister who concluded the convention, Mr. Charles W. Bradley, who was United States Consul at Ning-po, and Mr. Oliver E. Roberts, who had acted in a similar capacity elsewhere in China, and both of whom had long resided in that country, were appointed Commissioners. The business-like manner in which they discharged their trust is manifest from the records of the Commission.
With regard to the disposition of the surplus in question, three methods suggest themselves.
1. The refunding of the whole amount to the Chinese.
2. Appropriating the whole or a part of it in payment of claims supposed to have been unjustly rejected by the Commissioners, and of others in which the amounts allowed may not have been satisfactory to the claimants.
3. Retaining the whole surplus in the Treasury of the United States, or causing it to be invested toward indemnifying citizens who may hereafter be injured by the Chinese authorities.
I will abstain from any remarks on the first head.
There is but one claim, that of Messrs. Nott & Co., disallowed by the Commissioners,—in which case application has been made for a part of the surplus referred to. The claimants allege that their agents in China were too far from Macao, the place where the Commissioners met, to allow them to appeal to the Minister in season. The Committee will be enabled to judge of the sufficiency of this reason for considering the claim in that case an open one.
The award in the Caldera case is the only one complained of as having been inadequate. As all the facts and arguments in the case are embraced in the accompanying papers, the Committee can form their own opinion upon this point.
The Minister who concluded the convention pursued a judicious course in requiring from the Chinese a sum in gross adequate to meet the sums claimed in the several cases. This, however, can hardly be allowed to imply, that, even in his opinion, the claimants in those cases ought to receive the amounts which severally they might expect.
Congress made it the duty of the Commissioners, by an investigation judicial in its character, to ascertain the amounts justly due; and if the claimants should be dissatisfied with the decisions of the Commissioners, an appeal to the Minister was allowed, whose decision was expected to be final.
The expediency of sanctioning a review of decisions of the Commissioners or arbiter may be deemed questionable. They were all of high character, peculiarly qualified for the trust conferred upon them. It is for Congress to consider the conveniences and inconveniences of such a precedent, when the Government, in all its branches, may be considered to have already fulfilled its duty to the claimants, collectively and individually.
The whole subject is one of a purely legislative character, affecting a fund which, although it came into the Treasury in a peculiar manner, seems to me to belong to the United States. This Department has no authority to inquire whether there are equities existing on the part of any of our citizens which Congress ought to consult in directing the disposition of the fund. If Congress should impose any inquiry of that nature upon the Department, it would undertake the performance of it cheerfully and with a purpose only to consult justice and the public advantage. But the Department sees no ground for recommending such a measure in the present case.
I have the honor to be, Sir, your very obedient servant,
William H. Seward.
Hon. Charles Sumner,
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate.
(B). Page 454.
CLAIMS SINCE THE AWARD.
It remains to speak of claims which have been brought forward or renewed since the awards were made.
One of these is that of Matthew Rooney, master of the bark Caldera, which had been presented to the Commissioners, but was not considered by them, in the absence of proof of citizenship. In 1864 his representatives produced to Mr. Burlingame evidence on this head, and the latter directed that he should be paid in the same manner and proportion as other persons interested in the same class of claims had been paid by order of Mr. Ward, our Minister at Peking.[139]
Mr. Burlingame says, in his dispatch reporting the action which he had taken in this matter: “There is no other demand that can ever come up for payment out of this Indemnity Fund, which has not been examined and decided.”[140]
Other claims have, however, been brought to notice. Some of these are known as the Caldera claims; another is the Neva or Nott & Co.’s claim.
The Caldera was a Chilian bark. On the 5th October, 1854, she sailed from Hong-Kong for San Francisco. During the ensuing night she encountered a storm, by which she was so injured as to be obliged to seek an anchorage. This she found, on the 7th October, between islands lying off the Chinese coast. Here she was attacked and plundered by successive piratical bands. The captain escaped and made his way to Hong-Kong, when, upon his information, steps were taken to recover the property and punish the pirates. A small portion of the cargo was found, and summary justice was inflicted upon such of the pirates as were captured.
The master of the Caldera was an American. An American firm were shippers by her, and various American insurance offices had taken risks upon the hull of the vessel and the larger portion of her cargo. These all appealed to Mr. McLane, then the chief diplomatic officer of the United States in China, with a view to secure indemnity. Mr. McLane declined to take action, declaring that our treaty offered “no basis whatever on which to make a claim against the Chinese Government,”[141] and referred the subject to Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State. The latter responded, under date of October 5, 1855, “that the parties injured were entitled to indemnification from the Government of China, if not specially by treaty, at least by general principles of international right and obligation.”[142] The same matter forms the subject of a dispatch from Mr. Cass, Secretary of State, to Mr. Ward, dated May 5, 1859, in which, after declaring that “the decision of the case will rest with the Commissioners and yourself,” and detailing certain allegations made to him by the claimants, who appear to have been very active, he says: “If facts of such a nature be proved, the responsibility of the Chinese Government and its duty to make indemnity would seem to be fixed, according to the treaty, as well as according to the Law of Nations.”[143]
The matter was brought before the Commissioners in 1859, and a patient hearing seems to have been given by them, the result of which was a disagreement between them. Both rendered elaborate opinions: one adjudging that no portion of the claims should be allowed; the other, an opposite view, and he proceeded to assess the damages sustained by the claimants. These he estimated at forty per cent. of their claim, holding that the vessel and her cargo had been injured by the storm to the extent of sixty per cent. of their value. The case then went before Mr. Ward, whose conclusion was expressed in the following words:—
“Under the instructions of Mr. Marcy, thus reaffirmed by Mr. Cass, my duty may be discharged by ascertaining, as far as possible, what have been ‘the actual losses of our citizens.’ Satisfied with the award of Mr. Roberts on this point, I have approved the same, and ordered the amounts awarded by him to be paid to the respective claimants.”[144]
The amounts so paid exceeded $54,000 in coin. This was received by the several claimants, and it does not appear that they protested against the awards. Some of them were, however, dissatisfied, and in 1863 addressed Mr. Burlingame, setting forth their views, and asking him to favor their purpose for a rehearing. Mr. Burlingame, as will be seen on reference to his dispatch of October 5, 1863,[145] entered on a thorough examination of their statements, and arrived at the conclusion that the awards ought not to be disturbed, using strong language in this sense.
The Neva was a British schooner. Messrs. Nott & Co. were American merchants, residing at Hong-Kong. On the 16th October, 1857, they shipped by the Neva, then bound for the port of Foo-chow, five packages containing twenty thousand Mexican dollars. The vessel sailed at 3 o’clock P.M. of the 17th, and the same evening, while at anchor a short distance beyond the limits of the port of Hong-Kong, five Chinese came alongside and requested passage to Foo-chow, which was granted. At 11 o’clock that night these Chinese and the Chinese members of the crew took possession of the vessel; and having murdered the master and some of the crew and secured the rest, they broke into the hold, seized four of the packages of silver and removed them to the shore. The efforts of Messrs. Nott & Co. to recover the treasure were unsuccessful; and finally, the firm having ceased to exist, the agent representing their interests placed the claim before the Commissioners, who rejected it. Correspondence with the State Department ensued, and in 1869 the representatives of the firm appeared before Congress, declaring that their agent was absent from the South of China, where the Commissioners held their sittings, at the time when the awards were made, and that they had then, innocently, been deprived of their right to appeal from them to the Minister. The Attorney-General was directed by Congress to examine their claim, and, if in his judgment it was valid, he was empowered to award its payment out of the Indemnity Fund. The Attorney-General decided in favor of the claimants, and directed payment of a certain sum in gold. Mr. Washburne, then Secretary of State, held that he was not authorized to make the payment in any other than current funds of the United States. From this ruling the claimants have lately appealed to the Court of Claims, which has decided that the award of the Attorney-General should be complied with. This will make a small deduction from the fund.
TAX ON BOOKS.
Remarks in the Senate, June 30, 1870.
A bill “to reduce internal taxes and for other purposes” being under consideration, Mr. Sumner moved to add to the free list of imports “books in foreign or dead languages, of which no editions are printed in the United States.” In conclusion of a running debate relative to the application of this amendment, Mr. Sumner said:—
Senators seem to argue that this is applicable exclusively, or almost exclusively, to school-books; but we are all aware that outside of school-books there are works of literature, of instruction generally, of travels, of romance if you please, interesting in families, and which thousands who are familiar, for instance, with the German language, would be glad to have. For example, here is the large German population of our country,—is it not right that they should have the means of adding to those innocent recreations that are found in reading? We shall be doing a real service to them, if we enable them to import books that they lack, cheap,—not merely school-books, but I mean the large class of books outside of school-books. I see no possible objection to this provision, while I see much in its favor.
I have alluded to the large German population. There is also a very considerable Italian population. Some one told me the other day, who professed to know, that there are three hundred thousand Italians in our country. That seemed to me very large; but it was an estimate made by an Italian. Now should not those Italians be enabled under our tariff law to import books from their own country, of literature or of science, without paying a tax? It seems to me that we owe that gratification to them, when they come here to join their fortunes to ours. And so you may go through the whole list of European nations. Take Spaniards; take Swedes; take Danes: I know not why their books should be taxed, when they come to them from across the sea. It seems to me that the tax is inhospitable; it is churlish; and of course it is a tax on knowledge.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. Sumner then moved to add,—“Also books with illustrations relating to the sciences and the arts,”—saying:—
On that I wish to read a remark of an intelligent person not belonging to the class that the Senator from Ohio characterized as rich men who import books, but one who imports books because he needs them. Remarking on the works of science and the arts, including books on architecture and the fine arts, which now pay very heavily at the custom-house, he says:—
“Books of this kind are too costly, and the sale of them is too limited, for them to be reprinted. To add to their cost by a heavy duty is an outrage, for it is depriving men of small means of the tools whereby they live. It is a queer kind of protection of home industry which seeks to keep out of the country by taxation the knowledge which makes industry valuable.”
Now I put it to Senators whether any injurious consequence can result from allowing these books to come in free. The duty that you receive from them is small; it is very little for you to give up; but in giving facilities to the importation of such books you contribute to knowledge. I am sure of it. I have no motive in making this motion, or this succession of motions, except my anxiety for the extension of knowledge in this Republic. I am for free schools; I am for free knowledge everywhere; and I wish to beat down all the obstructions possible, and one of these is the tax which we impose in our tariff. I hope there can be no question on that amendment.
The vote being taken by yeas and nays resulted, Yeas 14, Nays 26; so this amendment was likewise rejected.
NATURALIZATION LAWS: NO DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF COLOR.
Remarks in the Senate, July 2 and 4, 1870.
July 2, 1870, the Senate having under consideration a bill “to amend the Naturalization Laws and to punish crimes against the same,” which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary as a substitute for one from the House,—the particular object of both bills being the prevention of the election frauds perpetrated through the instrumentality of unnaturalized or illegally naturalized aliens,—Mr. Sumner moved to add, as a new section, a bill previously introduced by himself, and reported favorably from the same Committee, providing—
“That all Acts of Congress relating to naturalization be, and the same are hereby, amended by striking out the word ‘white’ wherever it occurs, so that in naturalization there shall be no distinction of race or color.”
The motion was strenuously resisted, as ill-timed and out of place,—Mr. Edmunds, of the Judiciary Committee, remarking, that, although he reported the bill in question, and believed in it so far as he now understood, yet, under existing circumstances, he should vote against it as an amendment to the pending bill.
Mr. Sumner briefly responded:—
MR. PRESIDENT,—The remark of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Edmunds] renders it necessary for me to make a brief statement. Some time during the last Congress I had the honor of introducing a bill to strike the word “white” from our Naturalization Laws. I tried to have it put on its passage. I was resisted then by the Senator from Vermont, who moved its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary. There it remained until near the expiration of that Congress, and was then reported adversely, too late for further action. During the third week of the present Congress, now more than a year ago, I introduced the same bill again. It remained in the room of the Judiciary Committee from March, 1869, until very recently, when it was reported favorably.
Such, Sir, have been my efforts to bring the Senate to a vote on this question. Never till this moment has it been in my power to have a vote on a question which I deem of vital importance. I have here on my table letters from different States,—from California, from Florida, from Virginia,—all showing a considerable number of colored persons—shall I say of African blood?—aliens under our laws, who cannot be naturalized on account of that word “white.”
Now, Sir, here is a practical grievance which needs a remedy. This is the first time that I have been able to obtain a vote upon it; and I should be unworthy of my seat here, if, because Senators rise and say they will vote it down on the ground that it is out of place, I should hesitate to persevere. Senators will vote as they please; I shall vote for it. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] properly says it is in place. Never was there a bill to which it was more germane. You are now revising the naturalization system, and I propose to strike out from that system a requirement disgraceful to this country and to this age. I propose to bring our system into harmony with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The word “white” cannot be found in either of these two great title-deeds of this Republic. How can you place it in your statutes?
The motion was lost,—Yeas 22, Nays 23.
Subsequently, on the same day, the pending bill was itself defeated, the original bill being preferred,—and the latter now coming up, Mr. Sumner renewed his amendment, remarking,—
Now I have to say that that is worth all the rest of the bill put together. That is a section that is pure gold. It will do more for the character and honor and good name of this Republic than all the rest of the bill. I am for the rest of the bill, but this is better than all the rest. Now I ask for the yeas and nays.
After further debate the amendment prevailed,—Yeas 27, Nays 22; whereupon Mr. Williams, of Oregon, moved the following addition:—
“Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the naturalization of persons born in the Chinese Empire.”
July 4th, the debate on the House bill being resumed, Mr. Conkling, of New York, criticized sharply the course of Mr. Sumner in pressing his amendment, to the peril of the bill,—denominating it “an act of self-will in defeating the purpose of a great majority of this body to consummate a simple, practical, and urgent measure.” Mr. Sumner replied as follows:—
Mr. President,—The Senator from New York has chosen to make an assault on me to-day, because, in the discharge of my duties, I do not see my duty as he sees his duty,—because on this Fourth day of July I choose to stand by the Declaration of our fathers. For that I am impeached by the Senator from New York.
He presses me to postpone this proposition until to-morrow. When, Sir, will that to-morrow come? Can the Senator tell? Is he adept enough to indicate the day, or even the week, when a vote can be had on it? The Senator knows, he must know, that, if not voted on now, it will fail during the present session. The Senator shakes his head; but he knows too much of the business now before the Senate not to see that I am right. What chance is there of getting before the Senate the original bill containing this proposition? Why, Sir, the bill was introduced first on the 19th of July, 1867, now three years ago. I tried then to put it on its passage, deeming it so simple that there was no need of a reference to any committee. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Edmunds] prevailed against me by insisting that it should be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It was referred, and there it slumbered until that Congress was about to close, thus sleeping the long sleep.
On the 22d of March, 1869, which was in the next Congress, I introduced the same bill again,—I have it before me,—and again it slumbered in the hands of the Judiciary Committee until a few weeks ago, when at last it was reported to the Senate. Then it took its place on the Calendar, with the numerous other bills there, important and unimportant, some very important, all in competition with it.
What chance have I had for a vote upon it? From the 19th of July, 1867, down to this hour, Saturday was the first day I was able to have a vote upon it; and now to-day Senators insist that I shall withdraw it, and postpone the whole question to some “to-morrow,” some indefinite, unknown to-morrow.
Sir, I am not one of those “fools.” I will not postpone this question to any “to-morrow.” The Senate will do as they please; but, God willing, they shall have an opportunity to vote on it. Vote as you please, Sir, but the time has come for a vote.
Mr. President, this is not the only bill on the Calendar which concerns the rights of colored persons. There are two on the Calendar, and one now before the Judiciary Committee. The first on the Calendar was reported by me from the Committee on the District of Columbia as long ago as February 8, 1870, and is entitled “A bill to repeal the charter of the Medical Society of the District of Columbia.” That society has been guilty of an act which I have no hesitation, on all the testimony before us, in declaring to be one of infamy, for which they deserve the promptest judgment of Congress, which shall take from them the power to inflict indignity on their fellow-man. Enjoying a charter from Congress which dedicates them and sets them apart to the cultivation of medical science, they have undertaken to exclude persons otherwise competent simply on account of color. They have set up a test of membership founded on color. The evidence is irrefutable; and yet I have been unable to bring the Senate to a vote on that bill; and meanwhile colored physicians in this District are subjected to the indignity of exclusion from the Society, and thus are shut out from opportunities of medical instruction.
There is another bill, which I reported from the Committee on the District of Columbia May 6, 1870, entitled “A bill to secure equal rights in the public schools of Washington and Georgetown.” That, also, I have tried in vain to press upon the Senate. There is, then, another bill, which I had the honor of introducing May 13, 1870, entitled “A bill supplementary to an Act entitled ‘An Act to protect all citizens of the United States in their civil rights, and to furnish the means for their vindication,’ passed April 9, 1866.” This important bill was duly referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but I have heard nothing from it since. It slumbers on the table of the Committee.
Of all these measures which concern equal rights, the only one which I have been able to bring before the Senate is that under consideration; and I am now pressed to withdraw it so as to avoid a vote. Why, Sir, again and again in other years have I been pressed in the same way; again and again in other years have Senators spoken to me and of me as the Senator from New York was advised to speak to-day: but it has not been my habit to yield; nor have I been alone, Sir, in such determination. One of the most beautiful instances in parliamentary history, familiar, doubtless, to the Chamber, is that motion of Mr. Buxton in the House of Commons, in 1832, which determined Emancipation. The Ministry professed to be against Slavery; a large number of the House of Commons made the same profession; but they were against declaring it; and when Mr. Buxton gave notice of a motion in favor of immediate emancipation, Ministry, members of the House, and personal friends came to him entreating that he would not press his motion, especially that he would not divide the House. One of his family records in his Memoirs, which I have in my hands, says:—
“He was cruelly beset, and acutely alive to the pain of refusing them, and, as they said, of embarrassing all their measures, and giving their enemies a handle at this tottering moment.”[146]
Then it is recorded of his friends in the House:—
“‘They hated,’ they said, ‘dividing against him when their hearts were all for him; it was merely a nominal difference; why should he split hairs? He was sure to be beaten; where was the use of bringing them all into difficulty, and making them vote against him?’ He told us that he thought he had a hundred applications of this kind in the course of the evening; in short, nearly every friend he had in the House came to him, and by all considerations of reason and friendship besought him to give way.”[147]
On that occasion he wrote to the leader of the House of Commons, Lord Althorp, under date of May 22, 1832, as follows:—
“Allow me, moreover, to remind you, that, however insignificant in myself, I am the representative, on this question, of no mean body in this country, who would be, to an extent of which I believe you have no idea, disappointed and chagrined at the suspension of the question.”[148]
Sir, in a humble way I may adopt this language. I, too, am the representative, on this question, of no mean body in this country, who I know would be disappointed and chagrined at the suspension of the question. The English Emancipationist refused to yield; he insisted, according to the language of Parliament, on dividing the House. He was left in a minority, but that vote determined Emancipation; and the Ministry and those personal friends who had advised against his course complimented him upon that firmness which had at last assured the victory.
I doubt if Senators are aware of the practical bearing of this proposition on the Atlantic seaboard, and even in California. I said on Saturday that I had letters from various parts of the country attesting that there are colored aliens shut out from equal rights by that word “white” in our Naturalization Laws. I did not then read the letters; but as this debate now promises to extend, I deem it my duty to lay some of them before the Senate.