THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 5803, 22 January 1906, Page 7

THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA.

Tlotaliafcioo against the United Status by means of a boycott having failed, China ia reported to Ivave adopted the policy of making diplomatic and legal claims of pecuniary indemnity for the exclusion or deportation of immigrants by the United Stales authorities. The theory is that since tho lapsing of the treaty of 1894, last vear. the old Burlingame treaty of 1808, which does: not provide for any restriction of immigration, is alone in force; wherefore every deported or excluded Chinaman is entitled to indemnity from tho United States for tho financial loss or personal suffering thus inflicted upon him, and if tlic United States' Government will not pay Buck indemnity upon demand at its State Department, appeal will bo made to the international tribunal at Tho Hague. That the treaty of 1804 is no longer ia force may he conceded: and alto that tho treaty of 1868 is still in force, excepting as modified by subsequent conventions. Tho logic of tho Chinese contention concerning tho treaty of 1830 ia, however, not entirely clear nor convincing. Wo aro told that according to the Chinese view, that treaty wan voided by tine adoption of tho luxelusion Act of 1883. Tho treaty of 18S0 assuredly contains no provision for its abrogation ia any such manner. On tho contrary, it provides for tho enactment of legislation regulating, limiting or suspending Chinese immigration into tlio country. Moreover, if the treaty of 1880 was automatically abrogated bv tho Congressional legislation of 1888. "how was it that six yearn afterwards in 18HM, tho Chinese Government. in tho Gresham-Yang Yu treaty of that year, referred to tho treaty of 1880 to though it wore still operative? Controversy over such details apart, however, tho fact remains that judgment was passed explicitly upon tho matter hy the Supreme Court of the United States in 1893 to this effect; ’Hint every nation has a natural and inherent right, by virtue of its own independent sovereignty, to exclude or to expel aliens, tho power of doing bo being not a judicial, but a political power; am! that tho Act providing for tho exclusion of Chine;-e labourers was constitutional and valid, and was not nullified by any former treaty stipulations. For it could not be maintained that any treaty bid given to Clumt)o immigrants! any right to enter or to remain in tho country except upon tbo terms of laws enacted by Congress. Such laws did not abrogate a treaty. They qualify its application, according to the principles of the Constitution; and of course no treaty, any more than a law. can traverse or nullify a constitutional principle. We Khali scarcely expect to see tho Chinese Government asking tho United States to appeal to the tribunal at Hie Hague for a decision aw to the validity of one of our own Supremo Court’s decrees. or as to the constitutionality of any of our domestic laws. Neither doi>s it j-eem likely that that tribunal will be converted into a Court of claims, with jurisdiction over eases arising under the domestic legislation of tho United Stater;. —"X.Y. Tribune.'’