Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Test Bank For Us A Narrative History 8th Edition by Davidson
Test Bank For Us A Narrative History 8th Edition by Davidson
“I would see its fertile plains, its sequestered vales, its vine-clad
hills, its deep blue canons, its furrowed mountain-sides, dotted all
over with American homes—the homes of a free, happy people,
resonant with the sweet voices of flaxen-haired children, and ringing
with the joyous laughter of maiden fair—
Soft as her clime, and sunny as her skies—
like the homes of New England; yet brighter and better far shall be
the homes which are to be builded in that wonderland by the sunset
sea, the homes of a race from which shall spring
The flower of men,
To serve as model for the mighty world,
And be the fair beginning of a time.”
Reply of Senator Geo. P. Hoar.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
Section 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have
certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and
defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and defending
property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Sec. 17. Foreigners who are or who may hereafter become bona
fide residents of this State, shall enjoy the same rights in respect to
the possession, enjoyment, and inheritance of property, as native-
born citizens.
In the Revised Statutes, section 1999, Congress in the most solemn
manner declare that the right of expatriation is beyond the lawful
control of government:
Sec. 1999. Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and
inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the
rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and
Whereas in the recognition of this principle this Government has
freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with
the rights of citizenship.
This is a re-enactment, in part, of the statute of 1868, of which Mr.
Conness, then a California Senator, of Irish birth, was, if not the
author, the chief advocate.
The California Senator called up the bill day after day. The bill
originally provided that the President might order the arrest and
detention in custody of “any subject or citizen of such foreign
government” as should arrest and detain any naturalized citizen of
the United States under the claim that he still remained subject to his
allegiance to his native sovereign. This gave rise to debate.
But there was no controversy about the part of the bill which I
have read. The preamble is as follows:
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of
all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness, for the protection of which the
Government of the United States was established; and whereas in the
recognition of this principle this Government has freely received
emigrants from all nations and vested them with the rights of
citizenship, &c.
Mr. Howard declares that—
The absolute right of expatriation is the great leading American
principle.
Mr. Morton says:
That a man’s right to withdraw from his native country and make
his home in another, and thus cut himself off from all connection
with his native country, is a part of his natural liberty, and without
that his liberty is defective. We claim that the right to liberty is a
natural, inherent, God-given right, and his liberty is imperfect unless
it carries with it the right of expatriation.
The bill containing the preamble above recited passed the Senate
by a vote of 39 to 5.
The United States of America and the Emperor of China cordially
recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his
home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free
migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively
from the one country to the other for purposes of curiosity, of trade,
or as permanent residents.
“The bill which passed Congress two years ago and was vetoed by
President Hayes, the treaty of 1881, and the bill now before the
Senate, have the same origin and are parts of the same measure. Two
years ago it was proposed to exclude Chinese laborers from our
borders, in express disregard of our solemn treaty obligations. This
measure was arrested by President Hayes. The treaty of 1881
extorted from unwilling China her consent that we might regulate,
limit, or suspend the coming of Chinese laborers into this country—a
consent of which it is proposed by this bill to take advantage. This is
entitled “A bill to enforce treaty stipulations with China.”
“It seems necessary in discussing the statute briefly to review the
history of the treaty. First let me say that the title of this bill is
deceptive. There is no stipulation of the treaty which the bill
enforces. The bill where it is not inconsistent with the compact only
avails itself of a privilege which that concedes. China only relaxed the
Burlingame treaty so far as to permit us to ‘regulate, limit, or
suspend the coming or residence’ of Chinese laborers, ‘but not
absolutely to prohibit it.’ The treaty expressly declares ‘such
limitation or suspension shall be reasonable.’ But here is proposed a
statute which for twenty years, under the severest penalties,
absolutely inhibits the coming of Chinese laborers to this country.
The treaty pledges us not absolutely to prohibit it. The bill is
intended absolutely to prohibit it.
“The second article of the treaty is this:
“Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as
traders, students, or merchants, or from curiosity, together with their
body and household servants, and Chinese laborers, who are now in
the United States, shall be allowed to go and come of their own free
will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges,
immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and
subjects of the most favored nations.
“Yet it is difficult to believe that the complex and cumbrous
passport system provided in the last twelve sections of the bill was
not intended as an evasion of this agreement. Upon what other
nation, favored or not, is such a burden imposed? This is the
execution of a promise that they may come and go ‘of their own free
will.’
“What has happened within thirteen years that the great Republic
should strike its flag? What change has come over us that we should
eat the bravest and the truest words we ever spoke? From 1858 to
1880 there was added to the population of the country 42,000
Chinese.
“I give a table from the census of 1880 showing the Chinese
population of each State:
Statement showing the Chinese population in each State and
Territory, according to the United States censuses of 1870 and of
1880.
Alabama 4
Alaska
Arizona 20 1,630
Arkansas 98 134
California 49,310 75,025
Colorado 7 610
Connecticut 2 124
Dakota 238
Delaware 1
District of Columbia 3 13
Florida 18
Georgia 1 17
Idaho 4,274 3,378
Illinois 1 210
Indiana 33
Iowa 3 47
Kansas 19
Kentucky 1 10
Louisiana 71 481
Maine 1 9
Maryland 2 5
Massachusetts 97 237
Michigan 2 27
Minnesota 53
Mississippi 16 52
Missouri 3 94
Montana 1,949 1,764
Nebraska 18
Nevada 3,152 5,420
New Hampshire 14
New Jersey 15 176
New Mexico 55
New York 29 924
North Carolina
Ohio 1 114
Oregon 3,330 9,513
Pennsylvania 14 160
Rhode Island 27
South Carolina 1 9
Tennessee 26
Texas 25 141
Utah 445 501
Vermont
Virginia 4 6
Washington 234 3,182
West Virginia 14
Wisconsin 16
Wyoming 143 914
“By the census of 1880 the number of Chinese in this country was
105,000—one five-hundredth part of the whole population. The
Chinese are the most easily governed race in the world. Yet every
Chinaman in America has four hundred and ninety-nine Americans
to control him.
The immigration was also constantly decreasing for the last half of
the decade. The Bureau of Statistics gives the numbers as follows,
(for the first eight years the figures are those of the entire Asiatic
immigration:)
The number of immigrants from Asia, as reported by the United
States Bureau of Statistics is as follows, namely:
1871 7,236
1872 7,825
1873 20,326
1874 13,857
1875 16,498
1876 22,943
1877 10,640
1878 9,014
Total 108,339
1879 9,604
1880 5,802
Total 15,406
· · · · ·
Upon the bill being reported to the Senate from the Committee of
the Whole Mr. Ingalls again moved to limit the suspension of the
coming of Chinese laborers to ten years.
Mr. Jones, of Nevada, said this limit would hardly have the effect
of allaying agitation on the subject as the discussion would be
resumed in two or three years, and ten years, he feared, would not
even be a long enough period to enable Congress intelligently to base
upon it any future policy.
Mr. Miller, of California, also urged that the shorter period would
not measurably relieve the business interest of the Pacific slope,
inasmuch as the white immigrants, who were so much desired,
would not come there if they believed the Chinese were to be again
admitted in ten years. Being interrupted by Mr. Hoar, he asserted
that that Senator and other republican leaders, as also the last
republican nominee for President, had heretofore given the people of
the Pacific slope good reason to believe that they would secure to
them the relief they sought by the bill.
Mr. Hoar, (Rep.) of Mass., briefly replied.
The amendment was lost—yeas 20, nays 21.
The vote is as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Aldrich, Allison, Blair, Brown, Conger, Davis of
Illinois, Dawes, Edmunds, Frye, Hale, Hoar, Ingalls, Lapham,
McDill, McMillan, Mahone, Morrill, Plumb, Sawyer and Teller—20.
Nays—Messrs. Bayard, Beck, Call, Cameron of Wisconsin, Coke,
Fair, Farley, Garland, George, Gorman, Jackson, Jonas, Jones of
Nevada, Miller of California, Miller of New York, Morgan, Ransom,
Slater, Yance, Voorhees and Walker—21.
Messrs. Butler, Camden, McPherson, Johnston, Davis of West
Virginia, Pendleton and Ransom were paired with Messrs. Hawley,
Anthony, Sewell, Platt, Van Wyck, Windom and Sherman.
Messrs. Hampton, Pugh, Vest, Rollins and Jones of Florida were
paired with absentees.
Increase Per
1850. 1880. Cent.
Commerce of all
nations $4,280,000,000 $14,405,000,000 240
Railways (miles
open) 44,400 222,600 398
Shipping tonnage 6,905,000 18,720,000 171
Carrying tonnage 8,464,000 34,280,060 304