decisions as to what evidence is necessary to establish the fact that an individual Chinaman belongs to the exempted class. "He, however, went beyond the spirit of the act, and the judicial decisions, by providing, in a circular dated January 14, 1885, for the original issuance of such a certificate by the United States consular officer at the port of departure in the absence of a Chinese diplomatic or consular representative thereat. For it is clear that the act of Congress contemplated the intervention of the United States consul only in a supervisory capacity, his function being to check the proceeding and see that no abuse of the privilege followed. The power or duty of original certification is wholly distinct from that supervisory function. It either dispenses with the foreign certificate altogether, leaving the consular visa to stand alone and sufficient, or else it combines in one official act the distinct functions of certification and verification of the fact certified. "The official character attaching to the consular certification contemplated by the unamended circular of January 14, 1885, is to be borne in mind. It is not merely prima facie evidence of the status of the bearer, such as the courts may admit in their discretion; it was prescribed as an official attestation, on the strength of which the customs officers at the port of entry were to admit the bearer without further adjudication of his status unless question should arise as to the truth of the certificate itself. "It became, therefore, necessary to amend the circular of January 14, 1885, and this was done on the 13th of June following, by striking out the clause prescribing original certification of status by the United States consuls. The effect of this amendment is to deprive any certificate the United States consuls may issue of the value it purported to possess, as sole permissible evidence under the statute when its issuance was prescribed by Treasury regulations. There is, however, nothing to prevent consuls giving certificates of facts within their knowledge, to be received as evidence in the absence of statutory au thentication. "The complaint of the Chinese minister, in his note of March 24, 1886, is that the Chinese merchant, Lay Sang, of the house of King Lee & Co., of San Francisco, having arrived at San Francisco from HongKong, and exhibited a certificate of the United States consul at HongKong as to his status as a merchant, and consequently exempt under the treaty, was refused permission to land, and was sent back to HongKong by the steamer which brought him. While the certificate he bore was doubtless insufficient under the present law, it is to be remembered that there is at Hong-Kong no representative of the Government of China competent or authorized to issue the certificate required by the statute. The intent of Congress to legislate in execution of the treaty is thus defeated by a prohibition directly contrary to the treaty; and conditions are exacted which, in the words of the Supreme Court herein before quoted, 'it was physically impossible to perform.' "This anomalous feature of the act should be reformed as speedily as possible, in order that the occurrence of such cases may be avoided, and the imputation removed which would otherwise rest upon the good faith of the United States in the execution of their solemn treaty engagements." President Cleveland, Special Message of Apr. 6, 1886. The fourth section of the act of Congress, approved May 6, 1882, chapter 126, as amended by the act of July 5, 1884, chapter 120, prescribing the certificate which shall be produced by a Chinese laborer as the "only evidence permissible to establish his right of re-entry " into the United States, is not applicable to Chinese laborers who, residing in this country at the date of the treaty of November 17, 1880, departed by sea before May 6, 1882, and remained out of the United States until after July 5, 1884. Chew Heong v. U. S., 112 U. S., 536. In virtue of the treaty between the United States and China of 1844, all citizens of the United States in China enjoy complete rights of exterritoriality, and are answerable to no authority but that of the United States. The whole subject examined. 7 Op., 495, Cushing (1855). The following Congressional documents, cited from the list of papers concerning foreign relations attached to the register of the Department of State, bear on the topics discussed in this section: China, famine in. Relief asked by citizens of New York and Boston. Feb. 8, 187. House Mis. Doc. 25, 45th Cong., 2d sess. Publication of order for service of summons on absent defendents in consular courts. President's message. Mar. 22, 1882. House Ex. Doc. 213, 47th Cong., 1st sess. Slavery in. President's message. Mar. 11, 1880. House Ex. Doc. 60, 46th Cong., 2d sess. Rent of consular premises in. President's message, transmitting report of the Sec. of State. June 19, 1884. House Ex. Doc. 171, 48th Cong., 1st sess. Chinese immigration: Report of Joint Special Restriction of. Resolution favoring such a change in the treaty with China of 1868 as will prevent the great influx of Chinese into the United States. Apr. 20, 1876. Senate Mis. Doc. 93, 44th Cong., 1st. sess. Character, extent, and effect of, in the United States. Committee as to, with evidence taken. Feb. 27, 1877. Cong., 2d sess. Address upon the social, moral, and political effect of, prepared by a committee of the senate of California. Nov. 7, 1877. House Mis. Doc. 9, 45th Cong., 1st sess. View of Oliver P. Morton. Jan. 17, 1878. Senate Mis. Doc. 20, 45th Cong., 2d sess. Resolution of California in favor of modification of treaty. Feb. 4, 1878. House Mis. Doc. 20, 45th Cong., 2d sess. Views of Joseph C. G. Kennedy. Feb. 25, 1878. Senate Mis. Doc. 36, 45th Cong., 2d sess. Report in favor of negotiating with China and Great Britain to restrict. Feb. 25, 1878, House. Rep. 240, 45th Cong., 2d sess. Resolution in favor of the modification of the treaty. May 7, 1878. Senate Mis. Doc. 62, 45th Cong., 2d sess. Report of Committee on Education and Labor. Jan. 14, 1879. House Rep. 62, 45th Cong., 3d sess. Report adverse to taking action on certain memorials. Feb. 18, 1879. House Rep. 111, 45th Cong., 3d sess. Veto of the bill. Message of President. Mar. 1, 1879. House Ex. Doc. 102, 45th Cong., 3d sess. Causes of general depression in labor and business. Dec. 10, 1879. House Mis. Doc. 5, 46th Cong., 2d sess. Amendments to a pending bill. Mar. 10, 1880. House Rep. 519, 46th Cong., 2d sess. Report of the Select Committee on the Causes of the Present Depression of Labor. Mar. 19, 1880. House Rep. 572, 46th Cong.. 2d sess. Character of the instructions given to United States minister to China on subject. President's message. Apr. 12, 1880. House Ex. Doc. 70, 46th Cong., 2d sess. Report recommending suspension of, for twenty-five years. Jan. 26, 1882. House Rep. 67, 47th Cong., 1st sess. Veto of Senate bill 71. President's message. Apr. 4, 1882. Senate Ex. Doc. 148, 47th Cong., 1st sess. Minority report. Discretion as to number of years to suspend, lies with this Government. Apr. 14, 18~2. House Rep. 1017, part 2 (part 1 not printed), 47th Cong., 1st sess. Report of George F. Seward, minister to China. President's message. May 15, 1882. Senate Ex. Doc. 175, 47th Cong., 1st sess. Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury relating to the enforcement of the "Act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese" (with map). Jan. 18, 1884. Senate Ex. Doc. 62, 48th Cong., 1st sess. Majority and minority reports on the bill to amend the act approved May 6, 1882. Mar. 4, 1884. House Rep. 614, 48th Cong., 1st sess. Chinese indemnity fund. Report in favor of returning it to China. Feb. 21, 1879. House Rep. 113, 45th Cong., 3d sess. Amendment to the bill providing for the return of the money to China. Apr. 16, 1880. House Rep. 1124, 46th Cong., 2d sess. Report in favor of returning it to China. Mar. 22, 1884. House Rep. 970, 48th Cong., 1st sess. As to transit of Chinese in United States, see Mr. Bayard to Mr. Morrison, Mar. 30, 1886; see Mr. Bayard to Mr. Fairchild, Mar. 31, 1886. MSS. Dom. Let. An article on China and international law will be found in Revue de Droit Int. for 1885, No. 5, 504. (12) JAPAN. "Your dispatch of May 8 (No. 20) has been received, together with the letter mentioned therein, written by the Tycoon of Japan to the President, and the letter from the ministers of foreign affairs addressed to myself. "All these papers relate to a proposition of the Japanese Government that the opening of the cities of Yedo and Osacca and the harbors of Hiogo and Neëgata, as stipulated in our existing treaty, shall be post poned. Your own counsel, as given in your dispatch, is that discre tionary power be given to the diplomatic agent of the United States to act in concert with his colleagues, the representatives of other powers standing in relations towards Japan similar to those of the United States. "The course suggested is, as you doubtless were aware, different from what has been contemplated by the President. He holds, however, your ability and discretion in high consideration, and therefore care will be taken to review the subject fully, upon consultation, if possible, with the representatives here of the other powers concerned. As soon as the subject shall have been thus considered, you will receive a definitive communication in relation to it. "In the mean time you will inform the Tycoon and the ministers for foreign affairs that their letters have been received and taken into consideration, with a due desire to establish the intercourse between the United States and Japan on the best and surest foundations." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Harris, July 23, 1861. MSS. Inst., Japan; "I recur again to your dispatch of the 1st of August, 1860 (No. 26). "In that paper you recommended a postponement for another year of the exercise of the right of American citizens to reside in the city of Yedo for the purpose of trade after the 1st of January next, saved to the United States by a clause in the third article of the treaty of July 29, 1858. "In my dispatch to you of the 16th May last (No. 15), I stated that I had then addressed a note in relation thereto to the minister of Prussia in the United States, of which a copy was sent to you, and also that a similar note had been addressed to the ministers of Great Britain, France, Russia, and Holland, and that when replies to those communications should have been received by the Department, no time would be lost in acquainting you with their contents. "The burden of the circular note thus addressed to the ministers of Great Britain, France, Prussia, Russia, and Holland, was that the President might, perhaps, have yielded to your suggestion if the circumstances which surround the subject had, remained unchanged; but we had learned by recent dispatches that Mr. Heusken, secretary of the American legation at Yedo, was, on the night of the 15th of January last, waylaid and assassinated in the streets of that city without any other cause or provocation than the fact that he was a foreigner. "The Japanese Government had made no satisfactory explanation of this great violation of the rights of the United States, and, on the other hand, had virtually confessed its inability to bring the offenders to punishment. "It was argued by me in the aforesaid notes that the Japanese Government would infer that we are unwilling or unable to vindicate our rights, if, leaving that transaction unpunished and unexplained, we should frustrate the effect of the treaty stipulation for the opening of the city of Yedo. "The President was, for this reason, of opinion that no postponement of the opening of the city of Yedo ought to be conceded. He thought, however, that some demonstration, which would render the residence of foreigners in Yedo safe, ought to be made, and that the other powers consulted would probably be induced to co-operate in such a demonstration, because their representatives are equally exposed there with our own. The President therefore proposed that those powers should announce to the Government of Japan their willingness and their purpose to make common cause and co-operate with this Government in exacting satisfaction, if the Japanese Government should not at once put forth all possible effort to secure the punishment of the assassins of Mr. Heusken, and also in making requisitions with signal vigor if any insult or injury should be committed against any foreigner residing in Yedo, after the opening of the city in January next, according to the treaty. "The ministers addressed, as I have reason to know, promptly sub mitted these suggestions to their respective Governments, together with a form of a convention for carrying them into effect. This projected convention contemplated the dispatch of a fleet of steamers adequate to impress the Japanese Government with the ability and the determination, of the states engaged to secure a performance of its treaty stipulations. "Subsequently to these proceedings, and while no answers had yet been received from the Governments consulted, your dispatch (No. 20) of the date of May 8, 1861, was received, accompanied by a letter addressed by his Majesty the Tycoon to the President of the United States, and also a letter to myself, written by the Japanese ministers of foreign affairs. "Those letters expressed the desire of the Government of Japan that the opening of the cities of Yedo and Osacca, and the harbors of Hiogo and Neëgata, should be postponed for the reasons more specifically set forth in the latter communication. These reasons are, in substance, that the opening of the commerce of Japan to the western nations has had immediate results very different from what were anticipated. The prices of articles of general consumption are daily advancing, owing to the extensive exportation, while but little is imported, and the people of the humble class, not being able to supply their wants, as heretofore, attribute this to foreign trade. Even higher and wealthier classes, we are told, are generally not favorably disposed towards commerce, so that soon there may be those who will condemn the abrogation of the prohibition of former times and desire the re-establishment of the ancient law. We are informed also that these results, following immediately upon the radical change of policy of the Government, have |