Mr. Foster to Mr. Herbert.
Washington, October 3, 1892.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 29th ultimo, in response to mine of the 10th of August last, relative to the alleged action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in transporting Chinese persons from China into the United States.
I am gratified to note the denial of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that it has “sold tickets to any Chinese who lacked the proper certificates to secure their return to the United States;” as also the statement that “there is no congregation of Chinese at Vancouver, or anywhere about our Pacific terminus, waiting to get into the United States.”
It had in the meantime been intimated to me, unofficially and through informal channels, that the instructions of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to their agents positively prohibit the sale of through tickets to Chinese persons from points in China or Canada to points in the United States, and that severe displeasure would be visited upon any agent violating these orders and committing an act so evidently detrimental to the interests of the United States. These statements go far toward relieving the Canadian Pacific Railway Company from the imputation of unfriendliness which might properly have been laid to its charge had it been found that the corporation in question had in fact employed its vast power and resources to thwart the purposes of this Government by becoming an organized machinery for the unlawful introduction of Chinese persons into the United States.
Had the reply of the Dominion Government communicated with friendly acquiescence the sentiments and purposes which, as I am led to believe, inspire the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in dealing with this subject, my acknowledgment thereof would have been an agreeable duty.
As it is, I am compelled to notice the statement in the approved minute of the Canadian privy council which your note transmits to me, “that no foundation exists for the assertion of the Secretary of State of the United States that the government of Canada has been in this matter either indifferent to the wishes of the Government of the United States or tolerant of proceedings which would imply want of friendliness [Page 317] towards that power,” and the further suggestion that the Government of the United States should “receive an intimation that, although disposed to the utmost friendliness, the government of Canada does not charge itself with the duty of enforcing the measures of restriction which the government of any other country may see fit to adopt with regard to access to their territory by persons of other nationalities.”
My assertion of the indifference of the Dominion government to this subject finds abundant foundation in the silence with which the Canadian authorities have treated the proposal, made in virtue of a concurrent resolution of Congress, through Her Britannic Majesty’s Government nearly two years ago, inviting negotiations with a view to securing treaty stipulations for the prevention of the entry of Chinese laborers from the Dominion of Canada, contrary to our laws. I observe that the present minute of the dominion privy council makes no reference whatever to the statements in this regard presented in my note to you of August 10, 1892. The reference to my so-called assertion that the government of Canada has been in this matter tolerant of proceedings which would imply a want of friendliness to the United States appears to rest entirely on a perversion of the sense and words of my note of August 10, of which I invite your reperusal.
As for the concluding “intimation,” suggested in the minute of the privy council and officially conveyed to me in your note as a declaration emanating from the Governor-General of Canada, it appears wholly to ignore the considerations of friendly respect for the laws and institutions of a neighboring State, which prompted the proposals of October 22, 1890, for a conventional understanding in this regard. This Government is not unaware that Canada, like the United States, has upon its statute books laws restrictive of the immigration of Chinese persons, and it has every disposition to respect those laws. While in the absence of treaty engagements to that end it could not well charge itself with enforcing the Canadian laws with regard to Chinese persons entering Canadian territory, it certainly would not knowingly take any step or countenance any action tending to evade or defeat those laws.
The concurrent tenor of the laws of the two countries in respect to Chinese immigration so clearly indicates the desirability of a friendly understanding between them in furtherance of their common interests and the duties of a good neighborhood that I can not too deeply deplore the indifference with which the proposal of October 22, 1890, for the conventional regulation of the matter has been treated by the Dominion Government.
I have, etc.,