previously
passed the Senate.

On the 21st of April I made a full statement of the action of the
committee and the scope of the amendment proposed by it. I had no
sympathy with the outcry against the Chinese, but was quite willing
to restrict their migration here to the extent proposed by the
committee. On the 25th of April the amendment was agreed to after
full debate, by the strong vote of yeas 43 and nays 14. In this
form the bill passed. The House disagreed to the Senate amendment
and a committee of conference was appointed, consisting of Dolph,
Sherman and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary, Chipman
and Hall on the part of the House. This committee recommended the
adoption of the House bill with certain amendments. The report
was signed by Dolph and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary
and Chipman on the part of the House. I stated my dissent from
the conference report, as follows:

"Though a member of the conference committee, I was not able to
get the consent of my own judgment to sign this report. I simply
wish to state very briefly the reasons why I did not do it.

"I was very willing to provide for any legislation necessary to
continue in force the existing restrictions against Chinese laborers
coming to this country. The Senate bill did this, I thought, very
broadly. It continued in force the old laws. It provided some
penal sections to punish Chinamen coming into the country in
opposition to the law, especially through Canada. I look upon the
introduction of Chinese laborers through Canada as not only an
insult to our country, but it seems to me an almost designed insult
by the Canadian authorities to allow a class of people who are
forbidden by our laws to come here, to enter a port right on our
border. They are charged $50 for the privilege of landing on
Canadian soil with the privilege to enter our country in violation
of our laws. It is not courteous treatment by the Canadian
authorities, and it is incidents like this which tend to create
excitement all along the border, and which some time or other will
no doubt be the cause of great difficulty, because unfriendly
legislation of that kind, constantly repeated, must tend to create
irritation.

"The objection I have to this measure is in the addition that has
been made to the Senate bill, which provides for a certificate to
be taken out by every Chinaman lawfully in this country, here under
virtue of our treaty and by