The Chinese Must Go
Page 47
Kelly Lytle Hernandez, City of Inmates: Conquest, Rebellion, and the Rise of
Human Caging in Los Angeles, 1771–1965 (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 2017), 69 –87.
38. SFCA, September 16, 1893; LAH, August 28, 1893.
39. LAH, October 17, 1893; McCreary Amendment.
40. 25 Cong. Rec. app. 231 (1893); Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers, 55–56.
41. Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers, 86; George E. Paulsen, “The Gresham- Yang
Treaty,” Pacific Historical Review 37 no. 3 (August 1968): 288; Report of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1894
[H.R. Ex. Doc. 4] (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1894 ),
23. An 1894 appropriation act further strengthened the law, declaring the
“decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officers, if adverse to
the admission of such alien, shall be final, unless reversed on appeal to the
Secretary of the Trea sury”; see “An Act making appropriations for sundry
civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 13, 1895,
and for other purposes,” chap. 301, 28 Stat. 372, 390 (August 18, 1894);
McClain, In Search of Equality, 215.
42. Paulsen, “The Gresham- Yang Treaty,” 281–297. For treaty text, see Gold,
Forbidden Citizens, 516–518; “Memorial from the General Department to
the Imperial Court,” August 29, 1894, pt. 3, item 40, ZS, 142–143.
43. Commissioner- General of Immigration, Annual Report of the
Commissioner- General of Immigration, 34 – 37.
44. Commissioner- General of Immigration, Annual Report of the
Commissioner- General of Immigration to the Secretary of Trea sury for the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1897 (Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office, 1897), 49 – 50 ; Lee, At Amer i ca’s Gates, 66; Delber L. McKee, Chinese
322
NOTES TO PAGES 208–210
Exclusion versus the Open Door Policy, 1900–1906: Clashes over China Policy
in the Roo se velt Era (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1977), 28 – 34.
45. Adam McKeown, Chinese Mi grant Networks and Cultural Change: Peru,
Chicago, Hawaii, 1900–1936 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001),
28; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905). Opinion of the Attorney
General, July 15, 1898, 22–130, as quoted in Report of William W. Rockhill,
Late Commissioner to China with Accompanying Documents (Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office, 1901), 35.
46. Calculation based on Adam McKeown, “Ritualization of Regulation: The
Enforcement of Chinese Exclusion in the United States and China,”
American Historical Review 108, no. 2 (April 2003): 390. See also Salyer,
Laws Harsh as Tigers, 32; McKee, Chinese Exclusion versus the Open Door
Policy, 31; Beth Lew- Williams, “Before Restriction Became Exclusion:
Amer ica’s Experiment in Diplomatic Immigration Control,” Pacific
Historical Review 83, no. 1 (February 2014): 24–56. All migration was
temporarily halted during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900.
47. Walter LaFeber, The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion,
1860–1898, 35th anniversary ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1998); Paul A. Kramer, The Blood of Government: Race, Empire, the United
States, and the Philippines (Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press,
2006).
48. The Chinese population in Cuba had reached a peak of 59,283 in 1869, but
scholars estimate it fell to 15,000 by 1900. Mauro García Triana and Pedro
Eng Herrera, The Chinese in Cuba, 1847– Now (Lanham, MD: Lexington
Books, 2009), xxxiv; Kathleen M. López, Chinese Cubans: A Transnational
History (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2013), 50; Ronald
Takaki, Pau Hana: Plantation Life and Labor in Hawaii (Honolulu:
University of Hawai‘i Press, 1983), 24–25; Russell McCulloch Story,
“Oriental Immigration into the Philippines,” Annals of the American
Acad emy of Po liti cal and Social Science 34, no. 2 (1909): 168–174; Eleanor C.
Nordyke and Richard K. C. Lee, “The Chinese in Hawai‘i: A Historical
and Demographic Perspective,” Hawaiian Journal of History 23 (1989):
196–216; Irene Khin Khin Myint Jensen, The Chinese in the Philippines
during the American Regime: 1898–1946 (San Francisco: R and E Research
Associates, 1975), 14, 16–17, 42; McKeown, Chinese Mi grant Networks,
32–43.
49. Chinese exclusion brought to the Philippines an apparatus of U.S.
surveillance that predates the security apparatus described by Alfred W.
NOTES TO PAGES 210–212
323
McCoy in Policing Amer i ca’s Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and
the Rise of the Surveillance State (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
2009), 8.
50. Transcript of “Joint Resolution to Provide for Annexing the Hawaiian
Islands to the United States” (1898) in John A. Mallory, U.S. Compiled
Statutes Annotated 1916, vol. 5 (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1916);
Tit. 29 Chap. B 4335 (Res. July 7, 1898, No. 55, 1) Exclusion of Chinese
from Hawaii; entry into the United States from Hawaii Prohibited in
Augustus H. Oakes and Willoughby Maycock, British and Foreign State
Papers, 1890–1891, vol. 83 (London, 1897), 899–900; Act of the Hawaiian
Islands, to authorize the Introduction of Chinese Agricultural Labourers
and to amend Chapter 28 of the laws of 1887, entitled “An Act to Regulate
Chinese Immigration,” November 14, 1890, in Oakes and Maycock, British
and Foreign State Papers, 899. Later the United States exempted Chinese
who were Hawaiian citizens. Jensen, “The Chinese in the Philippines,”
58–59.
51. Report of the Commissioner of Labor on Hawaii, 1905 (Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, 1906); NYT, January 21, 1899; McKee,
Chinese Exclusion versus the Open Door Policy, 35–39; “An Act to prohibit
the coming into and to regulate the residence within the United States, its
Territories, and all territory under its jurisdiction, and the District of
Columbia, of Chinese and persons of Chinese descent,” (Chinese Exclusion
Act of 1902), Pub. L. 57 – 89, 32 Stat. 176 (April 29, 1902).
52. Clark L. Alejandrino, A History of the 1902 Chinese Exclusion Act: American
Colonial Transmission and Deterioration of Filipino- Chinese Relations
(Manila: Kaisa Para Sa Kaunlaran, 2003), 15–18, 32; Washington Star as
cited in Richard T. Chu, Chinese and Chinese Mestizos of Manila: Family,
Identity, and Culture, 1860s– 1930s (Boston: Brill, 2010), 286–287; Report of the Philippine Commission to the President, vol. 2 (Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, 1900), 252–253; Kramer, The Blood of
Government, 157–158. Some American businessmen did argue for Chinese
labor. Jensen, “The Chinese in the Philippines,” 62–63.
53. As cited by Qin, The Diplomacy of Nationalism, 122; Wu Tingfang to
Secretary of State John Hay, September 12, 1899, in Papers Relating to the
Foreign Relations of the United States (Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office, 1899), 212.
54. “An Act making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations
for the fiscal year ending June
13, 1904, and for prior years, and for other
324
NOTES TO PAGES 212–214
purposes,” (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1904), Pub. L. 58–189, 33 Stat. 394,
428 (April 27, 1904); George E. Paulsen, “The Abrogation of the Gresham-
Yang Treaty,” Pacific Historical Review 40, no. 4 (November 1971): 473.
55. Guanhua Wang, In Search of Justice: The 1905–1906 Chinese Anti- American
Boycott (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center and Harvard
University Press, 2001), 81, 115; Bryna Goodman, Native Place, City, and
Nation: Regional Networks and Identities in Shanghai, 1853–1937 (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1995), 183–187. For allegations of further
Qing government participation, see Daniel J. Meissner, “China’s 1905
Anti- American Boycott: A Nationalist Myth?” Journal of American- East
Asian Relations 10, no. 3 / 4 (2001): 175–196. On the importance of the
overseas Chinese, see Shih- shan H. Ts’ai, “Reaction to Exclusion: The
Boycott of 1905 and Chinese National Awakening,” Historian 39, no. 1
(1976): 95–110; Delber L. McKee, “The Chinese Boycott of 1905–1906
Reconsidered: The Role of Chinese Americans,” Pacific Historical Review
55, no. 2 (1986): 165–191.
56. As quoted by Wang, In Search of Justice, 163, 149; Arnold Xiangze Jiang,
The United States and China (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988),
39; June Mei, Jean Pang Yip, and Russell Leong, “The Bitter Society: Ku
Shehui, A Translation, Chapters 37–46,” Amerasia Journal 8, no. 1 (1981):
33–67.
57. As quoted by Howard K. Beal, Theodore Roo se velt and the Rise of Amer i ca to
World Power (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1956), 230.
58. Based on McKeown, “Ritualization of Regulation,” 390.
59. Ibid., 241–244; William Rockhill to Elihu Root, July 25, 1905, August 15,
1905, October 30, 1905 in American Diplomatic and Public Papers: The
United States and China 1861–1893, series 3, vol. 8, 175, 185, 225; Gregory
Moore, Defining and Defending the Open Door Policy: Theodore Roo se velt
and China, 1901–1909 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015), 126–127.
60. McKee, Chinese Exclusion versus the Open Door Policy, 135.
61. Documented deaths between 1885 and 1887 occurred in Squak Valley,
Washington Territory (3); Tacoma, Washington Territory (2); Port
Townsend, Washington Territory (1); Rock Springs, Wyoming Territory
(28); Juneau, District of Alaska (2); Anaconda, Montana Territory (5);
Pierce, Idaho Territory (5); Snake River, Oregon (34); and Yreka, California
(5). See Appendix A for further details. Mary Gaylord, Eastern Washington’s
Past: Chinese and Other Pioneers 1860–1910 ([Portland, OR]: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1993), 66, 84–85; R. Gregory Nokes, Massacred
NOTES TO PAGES 214–222
325
for Gold: The Chinese in Hells Canyon (Corvallis: Oregon State University
Press, 2009); NYT, September 23, 1885; Daily Miner, April 17, 1885; Chicago Tribune, March 6, 1886.
62. On precarity, see Judith Butler, “Performativity, Precarity and Sexual
Politics,” Revista de Antropologia Iberoamericana 4, no. 3 (September-
December 2009): i– xiii.
63. Some city maps, like that of Truckee, California, did not include the area
of town where Chinese resided. Marysville, California (1885, 1890); Nevada
City, California (1885, 1891); Tacoma, Washington Territory (1885, 1888);
Eureka, California (1886); Cloverdale, California (1885, 1888); Riverside,
California (1884, 1887, 1895); San Jose, California (1884, 1891); Seattle,
Washington Territory (1884, 1888); Sanborn Map Collection, Library of
Congress, Washington, DC. On relocation of Chinatown in San Jose, see
Connie Young Yu, Chinatown San Jose, USA (San Jose, CA: San Jose
Historical Museum Association, 1991), 11–47.
64. “List of Chinese Businesses Burned in Tacoma during Anti- Chinese
Unrest,” ca. 1886, box 2, file 24, WCS; Chang Yen Hoon, “Receipt for the
Indemnity,” in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States
(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1890), 118; Shih- shan
Henry Tsai, China and the Overseas Chinese in the United States: 1868–1911
(Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1983), 77.
65. USC / WT 1885, 1887.
66. Robert Edmund Strahorn, The Resources and Attractions of Washington
Territory, for the Home Seeker, Cap i tal ist, and Tourist (Omaha, NE: Union
Pacific Railway, 1888).
67. “Chinaman Turned White- Man Dies,” Tacoma News, December 19, 1916,
Chinese Folder, Tacoma Public Library Northwest Room, Tacoma, WA.
68. USC / CA 1880, 1890, 1900. The federal census only included taxed Indians.
69. Ibid.
70. Noting that the number of Chinese agricultural workers in California
reached new heights in the mid-1880s and 1890s, Sucheng Chan concluded
that Chinese expulsions had no long- term effect. Sucheng Chan, This
Bitter- Sweet Soil: The Chinese in California Agriculture, 1860–1910 (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1989), 378–381.
71. Unfortunately, anti- Chinese vio lence followed the Chinese mi grants south.
Sporadic local attacks and expulsions continued in rural areas throughout
the 1890s and the coordinated anti- Chinese campaign in 1893 was
particularly pronounced in southern agricultural areas. Richard Steven
326
NOTES TO PAGES 223–224
Street, Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California Farmworkers,
1769–1913 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004), 386–391.
72. DAC, February 13, 1886; J. S. Look, interview by C. H. Burnett, August 13,
1924, box 27, no. 182, SRR; Charlotte Brooks, Alien Neighbors, Foreign
Friends: Asian Americans, Housing, and the Transformation of Urban
California (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).
73. Coo lidge bases her estimate for 1882 on the rate of in / out migration, the
federal census, and an annual death rate of 2 percent; see Coo lidge, Chinese
Immigration, 498. When Congress passed the Exclusion Act a few years
later, they made it unlawful for these displaced Chinese workers to return.
The population dropped despite the continued entry of undocumented
mi grants.
74. Law Yow, interview by C. H. Burnett, August 12, 1924, box 27, no. 191,
SRR. See also Sue Fawn Chung, Chinese in the Woods: Logging and
Lumbering in the American West (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2015),
98.
75. Coo lidge, Chinese Immigration, 501.
76. On the movement east, see Huping Ling, Chinese Chicago: Race,
Transnational Migration, and Community Since 1870 (Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press, 2012), 30; Huping Ling, Chinese St. Louis: From
Enclave to Cultural Community (Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
2004), 27–28.
77. On Chinese isolation, see Paul C. P. Sui, The Chinese Laundryman: A Study
of Social Isolation, ed. John Kuo Wei Tchen (New York: New York
University Press, 1987); James W. Loewen, The Mississippi Chinese: Between
Black and White, 2nd ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 1988), 32–57;
Susan B. Car ter, “
Embracing Isolation: Chinese American Geographic
Re distribution during the Exclusion Era, 1882–1943” (unpublished paper,
2013).
78. No longer willing to allow perpetrators to narrate histories of vio lence,
scholars have increasingly turned to survivors to comprehend the
nature and meaning of trauma. The lack of sources produced by Chinese
survivors thus poses a large interpretive challenge. Judith Lewis Herman,
Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Vio lence— from Domestic Abuse to
Po liti cal Terror (New York: Basic Books, 1992), 7–8; Veena Das, Mirrors of
Vio lence: Communities, Riots and Survivors in South Asia (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1990), 33–34; Kidada E. Williams, They Left Great Marks
on Me: African American Testimonies of Racial Vio lence from Emancipation
NOTES TO PAGES 225–227
327
to World War I (New York: New York University Press, 2012), 10; Veena
Das, “Language and Body: Transactions in the Construction of Pain,” in
Social Sufering, ed. Arthur Kleinman, Veena Das, and Margaret Lock
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 88.
79. On physical trauma and Chinese mi grants, see Ryan P. Harrod and John J.
Crandall, “Rails Built of Ancestors’ Bones: The Bioarchaeology of the
Overseas Chinese Experience,” Historical Archeology 49, no. 1 (2015):
148–161. On “refugee temporality,” see Eric Tang, Unsettled: Cambodian
Refugees in the NYC Hyperghetto (Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
2015), 49–51.
80. Elizabeth Sinn, Pacific Crossing: California Gold, Chinese Migration, and
the Making of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013),
265–295; Sue Fawn Chung and Priscilla Wegars eds., Chinese American
Death Rituals: Respecting Ancestors (Lanham, MD: AltaMira, 2005), 1–14;
Cathy Caruth, Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative and History
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 7. On Chinese fatalism,
see Vera Schwarcz, “The Pane of Sorrow: Public Uses of Personal Grief in
Modern China,” in Social Sufering, 122; Vincent Brown, The Reaper’s
Garden: Death and Power in the World of Atlantic Slavery (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2008).
81. Marlon K. Hom, Songs of Gold Mountain: Cantonese Rhymes from San
Francisco Chinatown (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 96,