The Chinese Must Go
Page 46
treaty stipulations relating to Chinese,’ ” (The Chinese Exclusion Act; The
Scott Act) chap. 1064, 25 Stat. 504 (October 1, 1888). Cleveland also urged
allocating funds to pay indemnity to the Chinese for vio lence in Wyoming
Territory and the Pacific Northwest. S. Rep. No. 273, October 1, 1888. See
also 19 Cong. Rec., 406, 412 (1888).
55. “An Act making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations
for the fiscal year ending June 13, 1888,” chap. 1210, 25 stat. 565 (October 19,
1888). When Congress approved the indemnity it also made the first annual
appropriation for exclusion, setting it at $50,000. “An Act making an
appropriation for the enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion Act,” chap.
1222, 25 Stat. 615 (October 19, 1888). Zhang Yinhaun to General
Department, tele gram, December 27, 1888, pt. 3, item 33, vol. 2, ZS, 127.
On sovereignty in immigration matters, see Mae M. Ngai, Impossible
Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern Amer i ca (Prince ton, NJ:
Prince ton University Press, 2005), 11; McKeown, Melancholy Order,
177–179.
56. LAT, October 1, 1888.
57. As cited by McClain, In Search of Equality, 193; The Model Commonwealth
[Seattle, WA] October 12, 1888; Grenville and Young, Politics, Strategy and
American Diplomacy, 63.
58. Harper’s Weekly, October 6, 1888; NYT, October 2, 1888. Scholars have
argued that the bill was delayed too long in the Senate and handled too
hesitantly by the White House and Cleveland at the polls. The Republican
candidate, Benjamin Harrison, who also ran on an anti- Chinese platform,
was elected the twenty- third president of the United States. Tsai, China
and the Overseas Chinese, 93; Grenville and Young, Politics, Strategy and
American Diplomacy, 63.
59. Zhang Yinhuan to Imperial Court, memorial, March 30, 1889, pt. 3, item
34, ZS, 127–134; Charles Denby, China and Her People, 2:100–101. Mary
Roberts Coo lidge, Chinese Immigration (New York: Henry Holt, 1909),
183, 207; Warren Cohen, Amer i ca’s Response to China: A History of
Sino- American Relations, 5th ed. (New York: Columbia University Press,
2010), 34.
60. Charles Seymour to Charles Denby, March 20, 1889, USDS / DCO; LAT,
October 27, 1888.
61. Seymour to Denby, March 20, 1889; LAT, February 10, 1889; McKee,
Chinese Exclusion versus the Open Door, 103–112; Charles Denby to Thomas
316
NOTES TO PAGES 191–193
Bayard, December 1, 1888, doc. 88, American Diplomatic and Public Papers:
The United States and China, series 2, vol. 13, 325.
62. In 1894 the United States and China ratified the Gresham- Yang Treaty,
which retroactively approved the exclusion acts of 1888 and 1892 (the Geary
Act). But this treaty allowed for exclusion for a period of only ten years,
so the exclusion acts of 1902 and 1904 were again passed in violation of
U.S.- Chinese treaty stipulations. See Coo lidge, Chinese Immigration, 237;
Paulsen, “The Gresham- Yang Treaty,” 281–297; George E. Paulsen, “The
Abrogation of the Gresham- Yang Treaty,” Pacific Historical Review 40,
no. 4 (1971), 457–477.
63. Others have focused on these continued diplomatic concessions. See
Paul A. Kramer, “Imperial Openings: Civilization, Exemption, and the
Geopolitics of Mobility in the History of Chinese Exclusion, 1868–1910,”
Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 14, no. 3 (July 2015): 317–347;
Madeline Y. Hsu, The Good Immigrants: How the Yellow Peril Became the
Model Minority (Prince ton, NJ: Prince ton University Press, 2015), 11–17,
39–54; Eric T. Love, Race over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism,
1865–1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004); McKee,
Chinese Exclusion versus the Open Door Policy. This shifts dramatically in
the twentieth century with the turn against formal empire; see Mary L.
Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy
(Prince ton, NJ: Prince ton University Press, 2000).
64. Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889); Lucy E. Salyer, Laws
Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and the Shaping of Modern
Immigration Law (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995),
22.
65. Chae Chan Ping v. United States.
66. Ibid.; Kunal M. Parker, Making Foreigners: Immigration and Citizenship
Law in Amer i ca, 1600–2000 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015),
119; Meredith K. Olafson, “Note: The Concept of Limited Sovereignty and
the Immigration Law Plenary Power Doctrine,” Georgetown Immigration
Law Journal 13, no. 2 (Spring 1999): 433–453; Emer de Vattel, Law of
Nations (London: G. G. and J. Robinson, 1797), 108; Ngai, Impossible
Subjects, 11; McKeown, Melancholy Order, 177–179; McClain, In Search of Equality, 197; Gabriel Chin, “Segregation’s Last Stronghold: Race
Discrimination and the Constitutional Law of Immigration,” UCLA Law
Review 46, no. 1 (1998): 56, 58, 12; Natsu Taylor Saito, “The Enduring Effect
of the Chinese Exclusion Cases: The ‘Plenary Power’ Justification for
NOTES TO PAGES 193–197
317
On- Going Abuses of Human Rights,” Asian American Law Journal 10
(May 2003): 13–17, 26–30; Gabriel Chin, “Is There a Plenary Power
Doctrine? A Tentative Apology and Prediction for Our Strange but
Unexceptional Constitutional Immigration Law,” Georgetown Immigration
Law Journal 14 (2000): 257–287.
67. For the evolution of the plenary power doctrine, see Natsu Taylor Saito,
From Chinese Exclusion to Guantanamo Bay: Plenary Power and the
Prerogative State (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2007), 5–6, 26–34;
Sarah H. Cleveland, “Powers Inherent in Sovereignty: Indians, Aliens,
Territories and the Nineteenth Century Origins of Plenary Power Over
Foreign Affairs,” Texas Law Review 81, no. 1 (2002): 1–284. Though plenary
power was fully articulated in the Chinese exclusion cases, there are
antecedents in U.S. jurisprudence. See Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. (8
Wheat.) 589 (1823); United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 377 (1886).
.
7 AFTERLIVES UNDER EXCLUSION
1. R. P. Scherwin to J. H. Rinder, February 15, 1904, private collection.
2. Ibid.
3.
SFCH, April 20, 1904; LAT, July 30, 1904. Mary C. Greenfield,
“Benevolent Desires and Dark Dominations: The Pacific Mail Steamship
Com pany’s SS City of Peking and the United States in the Pacific 1874–
1910,” Southern California Quarterly 94, no. 4 (2012): 423–478. The Pacific
Mail Steamship Com pany had received intermittent federal subsidies since
its inception in 1848.
4. As quoted by Robert Eric Barde, Immigration at the Golden Gate: Passenger
Ships, Exclusion, and Angel Island (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2008), 209–222.
5. For example, see Lucy E. Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants
and the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law (Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1995); Daniel J. Trichenor, Dividing Lines: The
Politics of Immigration Control in Amer i ca (Prince ton, NJ: Prince ton
/>
University Press, 2002), 87–113; Daniel Kanstroom, Deportation Nation:
Outsiders in American History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2010), 95–130.
6. W. H. Miller to William Windom, secretary of the trea sury, June 30, 1891,
box 4, USCS / IE; James J. Brooks, special agent, to William Windom,
March 4, 1890, box 4, USCS / IE. Kitty Calavita has noted an increase in
authority of administrative officials in 1889. Kitty Calavita, “The Paradoxes
318
NOTES TO PAGES 197–199
of Race, Class Identity, and ‘Passing’: Enforcing the Chinese Exclusion
Act, 1882–1910,” Law and Social Inquiry 25, no. 1 (Winter 2000): 19.
7. “Chinese Immigration,” H.R. Rep. No. 4048 at iii – iv (1891).
8. Erika Lee, At Amer i ca’s Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion
Era, 1882–1943 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003),
153; McKeown, Melancholy Order, 144; Patrick Ettinger, Imaginary Lines:
Border Enforcement and the Origins of Undocumented Immigration, 1882–
1930 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009), 55–57; Elliott Young, Alien
Nation: Chinese Migration in the Amer i cas from the Coolie Era through
World War II (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014), 153,
171–193.
9. “Chinese Immigration,” H.R. Rep. No. 4048 at 18–22 (1891). For Chinese
on Indian reservations, see Ettinger, Imaginary Lines, 54. There has been
little work on Chinese– Native American liaisons in the nineteenth
century. The existence of these relationships was noted in con temporary
newspapers; see Daniel Liestman, “Horizontal Inter- Ethnic Relations:
Chinese and American Indians in the Nineteenth- Century West,” Western
Historical Quarterly 30, no. 3 (Autumn 1999): 327–349; Jordan Hua, “ ‘They
Looked Askance’: American Indians and Chinese in the Nineteenth
Century U.S. West” (honors thesis, Rutgers University, 2012).
10. For “remote control,” see Aristide R. Zolberg, A Nation by Design:
American Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of Amer i ca (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 110–113.
11. “Chinese Immigration,” H.R. Rep. No. 4048 at 140, 168 (1891). Historians’
estimates have varied, as have their sources of information, but most also
fall within this range. Ettinger, Imaginary Lines, 49; Young, Alien Nation,
160–161; Lee, At Amer i ca’s Gates, 135.
12. “Chinese Immigration,” H.R. Rep. No. 4048 at 24–25, 65 (1891); Adam M.
McKeown, Melancholy Order: Asian Migration and the Globalization of
Borders (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008) , 217–238.
13. “Chinese Immigration,” H.R. Rep. No. 4048 at 515, 546, ii (1891);
W. H. Miller to William Windom, June 30, 1891; George H. Hopkins to
O. L. Spaul ding, June 27, 1891, box 4, USCS / IE. On the history of
deportation, see Daniel Kanstroom, Deportation Nation.
14. W. H. Miller to William Windom, draft, April 1890, box 4, USCS / IE;
O. L. Spaul ding to C. W. Bradshaw, April 1890, box 4, USCS / IE; Thomas R.
Brown to C. W. Bradshaw, May 16, 1890, box 4, USCS / IE; O. L. Spaul-
ding to C. W. Bradshaw, draft, May 1890, box 4, USCS / IE.
NOTES TO PAGES 199–202
319
15. Kanstroom, Deportation Nation.
16. “Chinese Immigration,” H.R. Rep. No. 4048 at 273, 333, 271, 494 (1891).
17. Calavita, “The Paradoxes of Race,” 1–40; Anna Pegler- Gordon, “Chinese
Exclusion, Photography, and the Development of U.S. Immigration
Policy,” American Quarterly 58, no. 1 (March 2006): 51–77.
18. Chinese Immigration,” H.R. Rep. No. 4048 at 273 (1891); Judy Yung,
Unbound Feet: A Social History of Chinese Women in San Francisco
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 293; Salyer, Laws Harsh as
Tigers, 150–151, 210.
19. “Chinese Immigration,” H.R. Rep. No. 4048 at 406–407 (1891).
20. Ibid. at ii, 518, 544. Young, Alien Nation, 158–159; Ettinger, Imaginary Lines, 56; “Chinese Immigration,” H.R. Rep. No. 4048 at 515, 546, ii (1891);
Grace Peña Delgado, Making the Chinese Mexican: Global Migration,
Localism, and Exclusion in the U.S.- Mexico Borderlands (Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 2012), 13–40, 73–103; Lee, At Amer i ca’s Gates,
157–173, 179–187; Young, Alien Nation, 171–193.
21. W. H. Miller to William Windom, June 30, 1891, box 4, USCS / IE. Based
on data collected by the author from the following sources: For 1851–1882,
see Mary Roberts Coo lidge, Chinese Immigration (New York: Henry Holt,
1909), 498; Trea sury Department, “Letter from the Secretary of the
Trea sury . . . statement of arrivals of Chinese at the port of San Francisco,”
51st Cong., 1st sess., Ex. Doc. 97 (April 12, 1890) and Commissioner
General of Immigration, Annual Report of the Commissioner General of
Immigration for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1903 (Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, 1903), 34–37, 110–111; Bureau of Statistics,
Annual Report and Statements of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics on the
Foreign Commerce, Navigation, Immigration and Tonnage of the U.S. for the
year ending June 30, 1892, 52d Cong., 2d Sess., 3102 Ex. Doc. 6
(November 29, 1892); Trea sury Department, Immigration and Passenger
Movement at Ports of the United States during the year ending June 30, 1894,
53rd Cong., 3rd Sess., 3317 H.R. Ex. Doc. 6 (January 2, 1895). These figures
do not include Chinese mi grants who were in transit to other countries.
22. Lee, At Amer i ca’s Gate, 153, 238; McKeown, Melancholy Order, 144;
Ettinger, Imaginary Lines, 55–57.
23. Kenneth Chew, Mark Leach, and John M. Liu, “The Revolving Door to
Gold Mountain: How Chinese Immigrants Got around U.S. Exclusion
and Replenished the Chinese American Labor Pool, 1900–1910,”
International Migration Review 43, no. 2 (2009): 410–430.
320
NOTES TO PAGES 202–204
24. “Chinese Immigration,” H.R. Rep. No. 4048 at 493–495 (1891).
25. Martin Gold, Forbidden Citizens: Chinese Exclusion and the U.S. Congress:
A Legislative History (Alexandria, VA: The Capitol.Net, 2012), 282–283.
26. John Sherman as quoted in Coo lidge, Chinese Immigration, 215; 23 Cong.
Rec. 2912, 2915 (1892).
27. House 186 to 27, Senate 30 to 15. Coo lidge, Chinese Immigration, 215–216.
28. “An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States”
(The Geary Act), chap. 60, 27 Stat. 25 (May 5, 1892).
29. Ibid.; “An Act to amend an act entitled ‘An act to prohibit the coming of
Chinese persons into the United States’ ” (McCreary Amendment), chap.
14, 28 Stat. 7 (November 3, 1893); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S.
228 (1896). The ruling against punitive imprisonment still allowed for
immigrant detention, see Hernandez, City of Inmates, 89. For previous
experiments with denial of bail, see “Chinese Immigration,” H.R. Rep.
No. 4048 at 348–350 (1891). For shifting definitions of exempt class, see
Calavita, “The Paradoxes of Race,” 16. For previous expectations of
affirmative proof, see George H. Hopkins to O. L. Spaul ding, June 27,
> 1891, box 4, USCS / IE. For incidental use of registration, see A. L. Blake to
A. W. Bash, September 1, 1882, box 111, file 2, RG36, USCS / CM; Charles J.
McClain, In Search of Equality: The Chinese Strug gle against Discrimination
in Nineteenth- Century Amer i ca (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1994), 348n61; Commissioner- General of Immigration, Annual Report of the
Commissioner- General of Immigration, 34–37. For California’s previous
attempt to register the Chinese, see Hudson N. Janisch, “The Chinese, the
Courts and the Constitution: A Study of the Legal Issues Raised by
Chinese Immigration to the United States, 1850–1902” (JSD diss.,
University of Chicago Law School, 1971), 950; SFCA, April 27, 1892.
30. For previous forms of Chinese re sis tance, see Janisch, “The Chinese, the
Courts, and the Constitution,” 353, 529.
31. For previous use of passports, see McKeown, Melancholy Order, 41–42,
102–107; Craig Robertson, The Passport in Amer i ca: The History of a
Document (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Daily Morning Call,
September 20, 1892. See also “Memorial from Yang Ru to Imperial Court,”
May 5, 1894, pt. 3, item 39, ZS, 139–142.
32. Janisch, “The Chinese, the Courts, and the Constitution,” 975; SDRU,
May 5, 1893; Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers, 55.
33. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893); Chae Chan Ping v.
United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889); Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers, 52.
NOTES TO PAGES 204–208
321
34. McClain, In Search of Equality, 201–211; Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers,
46–58; Jean Pfaelzer, Driven Out: The Forgotten War against Chinese
Americans (New York: Random House, 2007), 300–301.
35. 53d Cong. 1st Sess., S. Doc. no. 13, “Letter from the Secretary of the
Trea sury in answer to a resolution of the senate . . . September 12, 1893”; as
quoted by Janisch, “The Chinese, the Courts, and the Constitution,” 985.
36. SFCA, August 23, 1893; Pfaelzer, Driven Out, 318–327; Yucheng Qin, The Diplomacy of Nationalism: The Six Companies and China’s Policy toward
Exclusion (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2009), 122.
37. Sausalito News, August 25, 1893; Janisch, “The Chinese, the Courts, and the
Constitution,” 993; LAH, September 3, 5, 27, 1893; SFCA, September 3,
1893; Pfaelzer, Driven Out, 307–313; Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers, 55–56;