contended that those in the country should not be treated unjustly or harshly; that the census reports showed that the Chinese population in the country was decreasing, and hence there was no occasion to enact more restrictive measures; and, above all, that there should be no legislation which would look towards a disregard of treaty stipulations. It was also urged that it was bad policy to adopt measures which would offend the Chinese people at a time when earnest efforts were being made to increase commercial relations with that country.
The result of the debate was the defeat of the bill embodying the stringent provisions proposed by the committee, and the adoption of a substitute offered by Senator Platt, of Connecticut, which continued in force the existing laws and regulations, not inconsistent with the treaty, until 1904, or until a new treaty should be made.[1] It was a distinct defeat of the anti-Chinese extremists and a clear indication that the sober public
- ↑ 7 Presidents' Messages, 514; 8 Ib. 113, 634; U. S. For. Rel. 1881, China; Ib. 1888, China; Ib. 1894, China; U. S. Treaties, 182; U. S. Treaties in Force (ed. 1899), 122; Chinese Immigration, by S. Wells Williams, New York, 1877; 2 Blaine's Twenty Years in Congress, 651. For debate in Senate, 1902, Cong. Record, 57th Cong. 1st Sess. pp. 3880-4509, 5050, 5051. For laws of Congress as to Chinese immigration, 22 Stat. at Large, 58; 23 Ib. 115; 25 Ib. 476, 504; 27 Ib. 25; 28 Ib. 7; and Act of April 29, 1902. For comments on legislation, N. A. Rev. July, 1893, p. 52; Hon. Charles Denby in Forum, July-Sept. 1902; Report on Certain Economic Questions in the Orient, by Prof. J. W. Jenks, War Department, Washington, 1902, Chinese Immigration in Colonies, chap, iii., Chinese Immigration to the Philippines, 157. The Acts of Congress respecting immigration have been frequently considered by the U. S. Supreme Court. The leading case is Fong Yue Ting et al. v. United States, 149 U. S. Reports, 689.
