contended that those in the country should not be treated unjustly or harshly; that the census reports showed that the Chinese population in the country was decreasing, and hence there was no occasion to enact more restrictive measures; and, above all, that there should be no legislation which would look towards a disregard of treaty stipulations. It was also urged that it was bad policy to adopt measures which would offend the Chinese people at a time when earnest efforts were being made to increase commercial relations with that country.

The result of the debate was the defeat of the bill embodying the stringent provisions proposed by the committee, and the adoption of a substitute offered by Senator Platt, of Connecticut, which continued in force the existing laws and regulations, not inconsistent with the treaty, until 1904, or until a new treaty should be made.1 It was a distinct defeat of the anti-Chinese extremists and a clear indication that the sober public

17 Presidents' Messages, 514; 8 Ib. 113, 634; U. S. For. Rel. 1881, China; Ib. 1888, China; Ib. 1894, China; U. S. Treaties, 182; U. S. Treaties in Force (ed. 1899), 122; Chinese Immigration, by S. Wells Williams, New York, 1877; 2 Blaine's Twenty Years in Congress, 651. For debate in Senate, 1902, Cong. Record, 57th Cong. 1st Sess. pp. 38804509, 5050, 5051. For laws of Congress as to Chinese immigration, 22 Stat. at Large, 58; 23 Ib. 115; 25 Ib. 476, 504; 27 Ib. 25; 28 Ib. 7; and Act of April 29, 1902. For comments on legislation, N. A. Rev. July, 1893, p. 52; Hon. Charles Denby in Forum, July-Sept. 1902; Report on Certain Economic Questions in the Orient, by Prof. J. W. Jenks, War Department, Washington, 1902, Chinese Immigration in Colonies, chap. iii., Chinese Immigration to the Philippines, 157. The Acts of Congress respecting immigration have been frequently considered by the U. S. Supreme Court. The leading case is Fong Yue Ting et al. v. United States, 149 U. S. Reports, 689.

opinion of the country favored a faithful adherence to treaty obligations.

From the foregoing narrative it is seen that a radical change in public opinion respecting Chinese immigration has taken place in the United States since the Burlingame treaty was proclaimed with so much pride and satisfaction in 1868. Even the lofty and noble sentiments embodied in the minority report of Senator Morton in 1877 have given place to a more perfect realization of the economic conditions as shown by experience. While the principle of expatriation is still adhered to and insisted upon by the government of the United States, it holds that citizenship is a privilege to be conferred and not a right which can be claimed by every foreigner who enters the country. It maintains, further, the right to exclude from its territory any class of people whose coming it may judge to be harmful or undesirable. A majority of the people of the United States have reached the conviction that it is not wise to allow the free and unrestricted immigration of people of the Asiatic races, and that it is especially desirable to exclude Chinese laborers from its territory.

On the other hand, it has been seen that the government of the United States is unwilling to allow the reproach to attach to it of a disregard of treaty obligations. When in time of political excitement the popular branch of the government has temporarily yielded to public clamor, the executive head of the government has not failed to interpose, and in every instance Congress has listened to the voice of reason and the appeal to national honor, and has corrected its legislation to

meet the views of the executive department, which conducts the foreign intercourse.

It has also been seen that the government of China has in this matter shown a commendable spirit of friendliness and concession. It allowed the Burlingame treaty to be framed to suit the views of the United States. When it became apparent that a change in public sentiment in the latter country had taken place, it acquiesced in the request for a radical modification of that treaty which materially restricted the privileges of its own subjects. And a second time, when it was approached for another treaty change, it consented to limit still further the treaty rights of its people. The outrages which they have at times suffered by mob violence or at the hands of overzealous officials are not attributed to the ill-will of the government of the United States, neither has the harsh legislation, much as it is regretted, been allowed to change the friendly relations of the two nations. Each recognizes the difficulties of internal administration, and does not require of the other impossible conditions.

IX

KOREA AND ITS NEIGHBORS

KOREA, or Chosen, as it is officially styled, the Land of the Morning Calm, - has been for ages the scene of conflict between its ambitious neighbors. Its geographical position, a peninsula extending into waters which wash the shores of powerful and rival nations on the east, north, and west, has made it a constant sufferer from invading armies, kept it in subjection, and wasted its resources. It has been fitly termed "the Naboth's Vineyard of the Far East," coveted by great nations both in ancient and modern times.

Its people lay claim to a history of four thousand years. Centuries before the Christian era it had experienced invasion both from China and Japan, and through the succeeding ages it was dominated by one or the other at recurring periods. When the Mongols became powerful under the Manchu sovereigns, and before their conquest of China, Korea felt the devastating effects of their armies. In modern times the kingdom sent embassies and paid tribute concurrently to China and Japan, up to 1832, when these evidences of vassalage ceased respecting Japan, though China continued to exercise suzerainty until her overlordship was completely removed by the late Chinese-Japanese war. During the last half of the nineteenth century Korean

territory has been invaded by four of the nations of the West, France, the United States, Great Britain, and Russia. To-day it is a threatening cause of conflict between Japan and Russia.

European commercial activity, which followed the maritime discoveries of the Portuguese in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, found nothing to attract it in poverty-stricken Korea, exhausted by war and taxation. The first recorded formal attempt to open trade with Korea took place in 1832, when the British East India Company fitted out a ship at Canton and sent her on a voyage of commercial exploration to that country. Dr. Gutzlaff, the German missionary, then in the service of the American Board of Missions, went as a passenger in the hope of finding an opening for mission work. The vessel spent a month on the southern coast, and presents were sent to the king of Korea, but they were refused by him. Dr. Gutzlaff, through his knowledge of the Chinese language, was able to communicate with the natives, and occupied himself with medical attention to the people, planting potatoes and teaching their cultivation, and with futile efforts at the distribution of Bibles and works on geography and mathematics in Chinese translations. The expedition was both a commercial and religious failure.1

1 For account of early Dutch intercourse (1653), Narrative of an Unlucky Voyage and Shipwreck on the Coast of Corea, by Henry Hamel, republished in Corea, Without and Within, by W. E. Griffis, Philadelphia, 1885. Voyages along the Coast of China, etc., by Charles Gutzlaff, New York, 1833, pp. 254, 332. Corea, The Hermit Nation, by W. E. Griffis, New York, 1897, pp. 169, 359; China and Her Neighbors, by R. S. Gundry, London, 1893.