No. 82.
Mr. Young
to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, May 31, 1883.
(Received July 16.)
No. 207.]
Sir: I have the honor to inclose a correspondence
between this legation and Mr. Consul Jones, of Nagasaki. The question asked
by Mr. Jones is whether, under the law, the Chinese consul at Nagasaki is a
competent “authority” to issue a certificate of identification to Chinese
subjects who propose to visit the United States and are entitled to do
so.
I have said to the consul that in my opinion a consul has the right to issue
such a certificate. This opinion I have, however, asked him to accept with
reserve, subject to the approval of the Department, as I have no instruction
that enables me to speak with authority.
I have, &c.,
[Page 205]
[Inclosure 1 in No. 207.]
Mr. Jones to Mr.
Young.
Sir: The act of Congress of May 6, 1882,
suspends the coming of Chinese laborers for ten years, except those who
were in the country previous to November 17, 1880. These can return upon
producing certain prescribed certificates of identification. The
certificate is to be issued by the Chinese Government, or under its authority, and must state the name,
age, &c., of the person to whom it is issued.
The question I desire to ask is: Is a Chinese consul in Japan, who is
also a judicial officer, competent authority, under the provisions and
meaning of this act, to issue such certificate? In my opinion he is, but
I would be glad to be furnished with your opinion also.
My colleague, Mr. U. Tsing, Chinese consul” at this port, has been
applied to for such certificates, and I have given him my opinion, but
as some trouble has grown out of this act, I desired him not to act upon
it until I had laid the question before you for your opinion.
I have, &c.,
A. C. JONES,
United States
Consul.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 207.]
Mr. Young to Mr.
Jones.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge your
dispatch dated May 14, 1883, in which you ask the opinion of the
legation as to the right of Chinese consuls at foreign ports to issue
“certificates of identification” to Chinese subjects proposing to visit
the United States.
This legation has no instruction from the Department upon this particular
question. Any opinion, therefore, I may express, you must accept with
reserve, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
As I understand the statute, any Chinese subject, not excluded from the
United States by its provisions, has, to gain admission to our ports, to
show by some papers coming from an authority in the confidence of the
Chinese Government that he does not belong to the interdicted classes.
In China he would go to the taotai or the viceroy. In Nagasaki his only
recourse is the consul or minister. The consul and the minister are high
and responsible authorities, charged with his protection. He is as much
entitled to protection in his right to travel as in any other right. All
that our Government wishes to know is whether a Chinaman asking to land
in the United States has a right to do so under the statutes and the
treaties. The certificate of a consul is, in the opinion of this
legation, a true and lawful way of giving that knowledge.
If there should be any doubt as to whether a consul is an “authority” in
the meaning of the statute, there would, I apprehend, be no difficulty
in inducing the imperial cabinet to confer the power upon all the
officials in the consular service. Any suggestion of this kind to the
cabinet, however, will await the instructions of the Department.
I am, &c.,
