Scott Act (1888)

Scott Act (1888)
Long title	An Act a supplement to an act entitled "An Act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese," approved the sixth day of May eighteen hundred and eighty-two.
Nicknames	Chinese Exclusion Law of 1888
Enacted by	the 50th United States Congress
Effective	October 1, 1888
Citations
Public law	50-1064
Statutes at Large	25 Stat. 504
Legislative history
	Introduced in the House as H.R. 11336 by William Lawrence Scott (D–PA) on July 15, 1888; Passed the Senate on August 8, 1888 (40-3, in lieu of S. 3304); Passed the House on August 20, 1888 (Passed) with amendment; House agreed to House amendment on September 13, 1888 (Passed); Signed into law by President Grover Cleveland on October 1, 1888;

Last updated December 02, 2024

The Scott Act was a United States law that prohibited U.S. resident Chinese laborers from returning to the United States. Its main author was William Lawrence Scott of Pennsylvania, and it was signed into law by U.S. President Grover Cleveland on October 1, 1888.^[1]^[2] It was introduced to expand upon the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882 and left an estimated 20,000-30,000 Chinese outside the United States at the time of its passage stranded, with no option to return to their U.S. residence.^[1]

History

Chinese Exclusion

In the 1850s, Chinese workers migrated to the United States to work in gold mines, take jobs in agriculture and factories, and built railroads in the American West.^[3] More than 10,000 workers built the railroad tracks in the American West by hand, 80% of whom were Chinese migrant workers.^[4] This influx of Chinese immigrants led to a strong anti-Chinese sentiment among white American workers. In 1880, the Angell Treaty suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years and required every Chinese person traveling in or out of the United States to carry a certificate identifying their status as a worker, scholar, diplomat, or merchant. In 1882, Congress passed these terms as the Chinese Exclusion Act.^[3] After this, Chinese exclusion was extended for 10 more years with the 1892 Geary Act, then another 10 in 1902. It was made indefinite in 1904.^[5]

Bayard-Zhang Treaty

Prior to the Scott Act, the governments of the United States and the Great Qing Empire of China had negotiated the Bayard-Zhang Treaty, whereby the Chinese government would restrict emigration to the United States, and in exchange, the U.S. government would crack down on discrimination and poor treatment against Chinese in the United States.^[1]^[6] In May 1888, the Senate approved the Bayard-Zhang Treaty, but with amendments that canceled all return certificates of Chinese who were outside of the United States and a 20-year indefinite ban that would continue unless the treaty was renegotiated or renounced. Congress on the whole then passed legislation that enforced the treaty, assuming China would ratify in 1888.^[7]

However, the treaty met with considerable opposition, both in China (particularly Guangdong province) and among the Chinese in the United States, and a delay in ratification on China's part stoked fears that the treaty would be rejected.^[7]

Scott Act

On September 3, 1888, Representative William L. Scott, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, introduced the Scott Act to force the stipulations of the treaty into American law without any agreement from the Chinese government. All Chinese laborers who were residents of the United States were barred from traveling abroad, and those who were abroad –– even those who had certificates allowing their return when the act was passed –– were not allowed to return.^[8]

The act read, "Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the United States of America, in congress assembled, that from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for and Chinese laborer who shall at any time heretofore have been . . . a resident within the United States, and who shall have departed, or shall depart, therefrom, and shall not have returned before the passage of this act, to return to or remain the United States."^[8]

Scott claimed there were copious amounts of fake Chinese return documents and that the system was being abused, although few actual cases of fraud had been caught. "As the truth is a merchantable commodity from a Chinese point of view, those certificates were in many instances sold to Chinamen who had never been in this country, who took them and came to the United States in violation of the law," Scott said when introducing the act.^[7]

In congressional debate regarding the Scott Act, representatives' only other concern was keeping those certificate holders who weren't in the United States from returning. They were concerned Scott's proposed act wouldn't be strict enough to accomplish this, but he assured them it would be. After half an hour of debate, the bill was passed by voice vote. The Senate took up the bill hours after it passed in the House. Senator Henry Teller, Republican of Colorado, said of the act, "There are now about one hundred thousand Chinese who have come into this country, and I myself will welcome any legislation that shall deport every single one of them from the United States and send them back to China, where they belong." The bill passed in the Senate as well.^[7]

Due to public pressure, the Chinese government chose not to ratify the treaty, and President Grover Cleveland signed the Scott Act into law on October 1, 1888. In an accompanying message he sent to Congress along with the law, he justified the act by saying China had promised in the renounced Bayard-Zhang treaty to prevent workers from coming to the United States. In absence of this act, Cleveland said, the United States had to act, "An emergency has arisen, in which the Government of the United States is called upon to act in self-defense by the exercise of its legislative power. I cannot but regard the expressed demand on the part of China for a reexamination and renewed discussion of the topics so completely covered by mutual treaty stipulations, as an indefinite postponement and practical abandonment on the objects we have in view..." He recommended that separate legislation should be introduced to allow reentry of the Chinese who were already in transit back to the United States, but this never happened. He also recommended that the United States pay $276,619.75 for injuries to the Chinese in America from violence, which had been a provision of the renounced Bayard-Zhang Treaty, which also never happened.^[1]^[7]

Supreme Court challenge and upholding

On October 8, 1888, Chae Chan Ping, a Chinese citizen and unskilled laborer working in San Francisco, returned to the US after a trip home to China. He was stopped at the port and denied entry. He challenged the denial and the case reached the Supreme Court. This case, Chae Chan Ping v. United States , was decided on May 13, 1889, in favor of the United States.^[9]^[10] The Supreme Court said its hands were tied because Congress’ power to exclude aliens was absolute because it was a sovereign power granted by the constitution that could be exercised at any time, “when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one.”^[11]

While exclusion power did not exist as a federal power at the time of the United States' founding, it became grounded in inherent sovereignty and was unrestrained by the constitution.^[11] The Supreme Court decision was an important precedent both for establishing the federal government's discretionary power over immigration and upholding the government's authority to pass and enforce legislation contradictory to the terms of past international treaties (the treaty in question being the Burlingame Treaty of 1868).

Related Research Articles

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. The law made exceptions for merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and diplomats. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first major US law ever implemented to prevent all members of a specific national group from immigrating to the United States, and therefore helped shape twentieth-century race-based immigration policy.

The Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907 was an informal agreement between the United States of America and the Empire of Japan whereby Japan would not allow laborers further emigration to the United States and the United States would not impose restrictions on Japanese immigrants already present in the country. The goal was to reduce tensions between the two Pacific nations such as those that followed the Pacific Coast race riots of 1907 and the segregation of Japanese students in public schools. The agreement was not a treaty and so was not voted on by the United States Congress. It was superseded by the Immigration Act of 1924.

The Asiatic Exclusion League was an organization formed in the early 20th century in the United States and Canada that aimed to prevent immigration of people of Asian origin.

The Geary Act was a United States law that extended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 by adding onerous new requirements. It was written by California Representative Thomas J. Geary and was passed by Congress on May 5, 1892. The law required all Chinese residents of the United States to carry a resident permit, a sort of internal passport. Failure to carry the permit at all times was punishable by deportation or a year of hard labor. In addition, Chinese were not allowed to bear witness in court, and could not receive bail in habeas corpus proceedings.

The Immigration Act of 1917 was a United States Act that aimed to restrict immigration by imposing literacy tests on immigrants, creating new categories of inadmissible persons, and barring immigration from the Asia–Pacific region. The most sweeping immigration act the United States had passed until that time it followed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 in marking a turn toward nativism. The 1917 act governed immigration policy until it was amended by the Immigration Act of 1924; both acts were revised by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

The Immigration Act of 1882 was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on August 3, 1882. It imposed a head tax on non-citizens of the United States who came to American ports and restricted certain classes of people from immigrating to America, including criminals, the insane, or "any person unable to take care of him or herself." The act created what is recognized as the first federal immigration bureaucracy and laid the foundation for more regulations on immigration, such as the Immigration Act of 1891.

John Franklin Swift was an American politician and author. Swift was a Republican member of the California State Assembly. He represented the 8th district in 1863 and 1873-75. In 1875, he ran as an independent for congress, but lost to William A. Piper. He later represented the 13th District from 1877 to 1880. In 1886, he ran for Governor of California, but lost to Democrat Washington Montgomery Bartlett.

Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U.S. 47 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case. Occurring at the beginning of the era of Chinese Exclusion as well as the formation of the United States courts of appeals, the case set precedents for the interpretation of the rights of Chinese merchants as well as the jurisdiction of the new courts. The ruling relied heavily the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, the Angell Treaty of 1880, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the amendments to the Act in 1884, as well as the Evarts Act of 1891. The case helped to establish not only the rights of the Chinese merchant class, but also informed future cases about the power of the Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the perception of Chinese immigrants.

United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court conceded its right to judicial review over immigration matters. The case held that "a citizen of Chinese parentage seeking admission to the United States" could be excluded by the administrative immigration authorities, even when being denied a hearing before a judicial body on the question whether they were indeed a citizen. The Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not deny due process and held that findings by immigration officials are conclusive and not subject to judicial review unless there is evidence of bias or negligence. This case marked a shift in the court in respect to habeas corpus petitions and altered the judicial landscape for citizens applying for admission into the United States as well as for those facing deportation.

Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889), better known as the Chinese Exclusion Case, was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on May 13, 1889, that challenged the Scott Act of 1888, an addendum to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

The Angell Treaty of 1880, formally known as the Treaty Regulating Immigration from China, was a modification of the 1868 Burlingame Treaty between the United States and China, passed in Beijing, China, on November 17, 1880.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876), was a US Supreme Court case that ruled that the powers to set rules surrounding immigration and to manage foreign relations rest with the US federal government, rather than that of the states. The case has been cited in other Supreme Court cases related to government authority on matters relating to immigration policy and immigration enforcement, most recently in Arizona v. United States (2012).

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1893, was a case challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency and allowed for the arrest and the deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws. The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates. The Supreme Court decision was in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

The Immigration Act of 1891, also known as the 1891 Immigration Act, was a modification of the Immigration Act of 1882, focusing on immigration rules and enforcement mechanisms for foreigners arriving from countries other than China. It was the second major federal legislation related to the mechanisms and authority of immigration enforcement, the first being the Immigration Act of 1882. The law was passed on March 3, 1891, at the end of the term of the 51st United States Congress, and signed into law by then United States President Benjamin Harrison.

Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of some provisions of the Immigration Act of 1891. The case was decided against the litigant and in favor of the government, upholding the law. The case is one of two major cases that involved challenges to the Immigration Act of 1891 by Japanese immigrants, the other case being Yamataya v. Fisher.

Events in the year 1888 in China.

The Gresham-Yang Treaty was a treaty signed between the United States of America and the Qing dynasty in 1894, in which the Qing dynasty consented to measures put in place by the United States prohibiting Chinese immigration in exchange for the readmission of previous Chinese residents, thus agreeing to the enforcement of the Geary Act. This was the first time the United States government barred an entire ethnic group from entering the mainland United States of America.

Chinese immigration to America in the 19th century is commonly referred to as the first wave of Chinese Americans, and are mainly Cantonese and Taishanese speaking people.

References

1 2 3 4 "Scott Act (1888)". Harpweek. Retrieved January 16, 2015.
↑ Hall, Kermit L. (1999). The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. ISBN 9780195139242 . Retrieved January 16, 2015.
1 2 "Milestones: 1866–1898 - Office of the Historian". history.state.gov. Retrieved 2022-02-02.
↑ Hsu, Irene (2018-06-28). "The Echoes of Chinese Exclusion". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583 . Retrieved 2022-02-02.
↑ "Chinese Exclusion Act | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2022-02-02.
↑ Erhart, Victoria (June 27, 2011). "Bayard-Zhang Treaty of 1888". Immigration in America. Retrieved January 16, 2015.
1 2 3 4 5 Chin, Phillip. "Enforcing Chinese Exclusion The Scott Act of 1888, Part 1" (PDF). Chinese American Heroes.
1 2 "Scott Act of 1888". Immigration History. Retrieved 2022-02-03.
↑ Immigration in America. "Chae Chan Ping v. United States" . Retrieved January 16, 2015.
↑ Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. "CHAE CHAN PING v. UNITED STATES. 130 U.S. 581 (9 S.Ct. 623, 32 L.Ed. 1068) CHAE CHAN PING v. UNITED STATES" . Retrieved January 16, 2015.
1 2 Parker, Kunal M. (2015). Making Foreigners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139343282. ISBN 978-1-139-34328-2.

Sources

Wong, Edlie L. (2015). Racial Reconstruction: Black Inclusion, Chinese Exclusion, and the Fictions of Citizenship. New York University Press. ISBN 978-1479817962. OCLC 906010899.
Zhu, Liping (2013). The Road to Chinese Exclusion: The Denver Riot, 1880 Election, and Rise of the West. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0700619191. OCLC 837923477.
Gold, Martin (2011). Forbidden Citizens: Chinese Exclusion and the U.S. Congress : A Legislative History. Alexandria, Virginia: The Capitol Net Inc. ISBN 978-1587332357. OCLC 785081707.
Ahmad, Diana L. (2007). The Opium Debate and Chinese Exclusion Laws in the Nineteenth-Century American West. University of Nevada Press. ISBN 978-0874176988. OCLC 71004058.
Ahmad, Diana Lynn (1997). ""Caves of Oblivion": Opium Dens and Exclusion Laws, 1850-1882". University of Missouri-Columbia. OCLC 42921756.

External links

"The Supreme Court and the Chinese Exclusion Act". American Advocate of Peace. 55 (6). Unknown: 130–131. 1893. JSTOR 27899913. OCLC 904370565.
Miller, Joaquin (1901). "The Chinese and the Exclusion Act". The North American Review. 173 (541): 782–789. JSTOR 25105257. OCLC 85824011.
Wellborn, Mildred (1912). "The Events Leading to the Chinese Exclusion Acts". Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California. 9 (1/2). Historical Society of Southern California: 49–58. doi:10.2307/41168895. JSTOR 41168895. OCLC 14640791.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[harpweek-1] 1 2 3 4 "Scott Act (1888)". Harpweek. Retrieved January 16, 2015.

[2] Hall, Kermit L. (1999). The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. ISBN 9780195139242 . Retrieved January 16, 2015.

[:0-3] 1 2 "Milestones: 1866–1898 - Office of the Historian". history.state.gov. Retrieved 2022-02-02.

[4] Hsu, Irene (2018-06-28). "The Echoes of Chinese Exclusion". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583 . Retrieved 2022-02-02.

[5] "Chinese Exclusion Act | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2022-02-02.

[6] Erhart, Victoria (June 27, 2011). "Bayard-Zhang Treaty of 1888". Immigration in America. Retrieved January 16, 2015.

[:1-7] 1 2 3 4 5 Chin, Phillip. "Enforcing Chinese Exclusion The Scott Act of 1888, Part 1" (PDF). Chinese American Heroes.

[:3-8] 1 2 "Scott Act of 1888". Immigration History. Retrieved 2022-02-03.

[9] Immigration in America. "Chae Chan Ping v. United States" . Retrieved January 16, 2015.

[10] Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. "CHAE CHAN PING v. UNITED STATES. 130 U.S. 581 (9 S.Ct. 623, 32 L.Ed. 1068) CHAE CHAN PING v. UNITED STATES" . Retrieved January 16, 2015.

[:2-11] 1 2 Parker, Kunal M. (2015). Making Foreigners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139343282. ISBN 978-1-139-34328-2.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

v t e Grover Cleveland
22nd and 24th President of the United States (1885–1889, 1893–1897) 28th Governor of New York (1883–1885)
Life	Grover Cleveland Birthplace New York Institute for Special Education 1881 Buffalo mayoral election 1882 New York state election Mugwumps Westland Mansion
Presidencies	1884 presidential election Campaign Democratic National Convention First inauguration Wedding to Frances Folsom Foreign policy Presidential Succession Act of 1886 Electoral Count Act Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 Interstate Commerce Commission Tenure of Office Act Dependent and Disability Pension Act Hatch Act of 1887 Agricultural Experiment Stations Act of 1887 Texas Seed Bill Berlin Conference Scott Act Dawes Act Indian Appropriations Act of 1889 Federal judges appointed 1888 presidential election Campaign Democratic National Convention Murchison letter Gray Gables 1892 presidential election Campaign Democratic National Convention Second inauguration Panic of 1893 Sherman Silver Purchase Act Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act Coxey's Army Pullman Strike Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Venezuelan crisis of 1895 Enabling Act of 1889 National Democratic Party
Public image	Cleveland National Forest Cleveland Park Grover Cleveland High School Buffalo, New York Los Angeles Queens Cleveland, Mississippi Mount Cleveland (Alaska)
Family	Frances Cleveland (wife) Ruth Cleveland (daughter) Esther Cleveland (daughter) Richard F. Cleveland (son) Francis Cleveland (son) Philippa Foot (granddaughter) Richard Falley Cleveland (father) Rose Cleveland (sister) Richard Falley Jr. (great-grandfather)
← Chester A. Arthur ←Benjamin Harrison→ William McKinley → Category