IN an in Lune. 31
a home, the support of a family,_and the education of children.
Competition with Chinese labor, under the conditions mentioned, was
necessarily irritating and exasperating, and often led to seriouscol-
lisions between persons of the two races. ,,It was seen that without
some restriction upon the immigration of Chinese, white laborers
, and mechanics would be driven from the state. They looked, there-
fore, with great apprehensions toward the crowded millions of China
and of the adjacent islands in the Pacino, and felt that there was
more than a possibility of such multitudes coming as to make a resi-
dence here unendurable. It was perceived by; thoughtful men, look-
ing to the possibilities of the future, that the immigration ofthe
·Chinese must be stopped if we would preserve this land for our peo-
ple and their posterity, and protect. the laborer from a competition `
degrading in its character, and ruinous to his hopes of material and
social advancement} There went up, therefore, most urgent appeals
from the racist coast to the government ofthe United States to
take such measures as would stop the further coming of Chinese
laborers. The effect of these appeals was the sending of commis-
sioners to China to negotiate for a modincation of the treaty of 1868.
The supplementary treaty of 1880 was the result. It authorized leg-
islation restricting the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United
States whenever our government should be of opinion that their com-
ing would affect or threaten to aifect the interests of,the country, or
endanger its good order, but expressly stipulated that its provisions
should notapply to other classes coming to the United States. 22 `
St. Append. 12.
The act of May 6, 1882, followed this new treaty, and in speaking
of it in the Case of the Chinese Mercha2zt,” we said—referring to
merchants as a olass—that it was framed in supposed conform-
ity with the provisions of the treaty, and that, in the inhibitions
which it imposes upon the immigration of Chinese, there was no
purpose expressed in terms to go beyond the limitations of the treaty.
Undoubtedly, so far as the subjects of China are concerned, no
purpose is shown by the act to go beyond those limitations, and
that is all that was -intended by language which has been sup-
` posed to have a broader meaning. Itwas felt necessary to obtain a
modincation of the treaty of 1868 before legislating with reference i
to the immigration of Chinese. The government of China, without
such modification, would have had just ground of complaint. It was
never supposed that any of the European governments having within
their possessions in the east Chinese as subjects, would make any com-
plaint to theirlexclusion from our country. It was well known that
the English colonies in Australia had either entirely excluded or
had placed under very stringent conditions the immigration of Chi- `
1This is the opinion expressed, and substantially the lan age used, by United
"tates senators from California.-Casscrlv. Sargent, Booth, Eilrley, and Miller.
2See 13 FED. REP. 607. ’