or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. SEC. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises. SEC. 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section four of this act may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, 2. The Anti-Trust bill introduced by Mr. Sherman, December 4, 1889, 51st Congress, Senate Number 1: Be it enacted, etc., That all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations between persons or corporations with a view, or which tend, to prevent full and free competition in the importation, transportation, or sale of articles imported into the United States, or in the production, manufacture, or sale of articles of domestic growth or production, or domestic raw material that competes with any similar article upon which a duty is levied by the United States, or which shall be transported from one State or Territory to another, and all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations between persons, or corporations, designed, or which tend, to advance the cost to the consumer of any such articles, are hereby declared to be against public policy, unlawful and void. SEC. 2. That any person or corporation injured or damnified by such arrangement, contract, agreement, trust, or combination may sue for and recover, in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction of any person or corporation a party to a combination described in the first section of this act, the full consideration or sum paid by him for any goods, wares and merchandise included in or advanced in price by said combination. SEC. 3. That all persons entering into any such arrangement, contract, agreement, trust, or combination described in Section 1 of the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof. SEC. 6. Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law. SEC. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. SEC. 8. That the word "person," or "persons," wherever used in this act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, or the law of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country. this act, either on his own account or as agent or attorney for another, or as an officer, agent, or stockholder of any corporation, or as a trustee, committee, or in any capacity whatever, shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any district or circuit court of the United States shall be subject to a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars, or to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not more than five years, or to both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. And it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States of the district in which such persons reside to institute the proper proceedings to enforce the provisions of this act. SPEECH ON CHINESE EXCLUSION BILL. One of my most carefully prepared speeches in the Senate was made on the Chinese Exclusion bill, April 14, 1902. It was prompted by certain clauses that practically nullified the provisions of our treaties with China in favor of what were known as the exempted classes--merchants, teachers, travelers, students, etc. I felt that the bill in this respect was in gross violation of our national obligations, and that, if enacted, was calculated not only to discredit us, but also to give rise to serious trouble in our relations with that people, and to work prejudice instead of benefit to the laboring men and farmers of our country, in whose behalf it was claimed that the legislation was proposed. I was surprised to see that Senator Lodge and a number of other Senators, noted for their wisdom and conservatism, were favoring the measure because, as it was whispered about, "the President was behind it." I could not believe that either the President or any of the Senators referred to could be fully informed and, therefore, not in a spirit of opposition to others, but only to prevent what I thought would be a grave mistake, I undertook to make a speech that would set everybody right. In this behalf I reviewed all our different treaties with China from the first negotiated in 1844 down to the date of the proposed legislation. I endeavored to make it clear that, according to these treaties, only Chinese laborers were prohibited from coming into this country and that the classes mentioned as exempt were not intended to embrace by name all who are exempt, but that the classes mentioned were only illustrative. In my opening remarks I said: My objection to this bill, therefore, is not on account of its prohibition of Chinese laborers coming into this country, nor of any provisions contained in this bill for giving effect to that policy of prohibition of Chinese laborers. My objection to it is that in its other provisions-the provisions having reference to what has been termed here the exempted classes-it is, first, in violation of our treaty obligations, and, in the second place, irrespective of our treaty obligations, it is unwise and calculated to do serious injury to the best interests of this country, and to nobody in this country so much as to the wageworkers of this country. Some Senators, in discussing this bill, have apparently taken it upon themselves to assume and to speak as though they were the special representatives of the laboring men of this country. Mr. President, if they are, in my judgment they are most mistakenly undertaking to advance the interests of the laboring man. The interests of the laboring man do not lie in the direction of improper treatment of the great Chinese people, and certainly not in a violation of our treaty obligations. Now, let us see what our treaty rights, stipulations and obligations are. I have taken the trouble, Mr. President, recognizing the importance of this subject-for it is important not only as involving our good name as a great people, but it is important also as involving in a great way the prosperity of this country, especially the prosperity of the men who work in the factories, in the mills, in the foundries, and in the shops of this country-I have taken occasion, in view of that, to look carefully at the entire record. I need not repeat it all. At this stage of the debate Senators are familiar in a general way with our treaty engagements, but I may briefly recapitulate them in order that I may reach by proper approaches what I want to say. Our first treaty, as all know, was a treaty of peace, amity and commerce with the Chinese nation, entered into in 1844. That treaty continued until 1858, when the treaty now in force was negotiated, ratified and put into operation. I do not mean that it is in force just as it was then adopted, but I mean that that is the basis of all the treaty provisions now in force and effect between China and the United States. The treaty of 1858 was substituted for the treaty of 1844, except possibly as to some minor provisions. The treaty of 1858 is very long and comprehensive and covers generally the subjects that could be treated of in such an instrument. I do not wish to call attention to any of its provisions except only one article. I refer to Article XXV. I do not call attention to the rest of the treaty because nothing is in the treaty except only in Article XXV that is pertinent to this discussion; that is to say, in this treaty the subject of immigration was not dealt with, neither was the subject of classes dealt with in any manner, but this provision is here. I have not heard anybody call attention to it, and I do so because it is in force and effect this very minute and has been in force and effect from the moment when the treaty of 1858 was adopted. But I will show you how it bears presently on the question that we are compelled here to consider. Article XXV of the treaty of 1858 reads: "It shall be lawful for the officers or citizens of the United States to employ scholars and people of any part of China without distinction of persons, to teach any of the languages of the Empire, and to assist in literary labors—” See how broad it is "It shall be lawful for the officers or citizens of the United States to employ scholars and people of any part of China, without dis tinction of persons, to teach any of the languages of the Empire, and to assist in literary labors." This was a treaty negotiated at the solicitation of the United States, and that is a provision in behalf of the United States. That is not all. The clause continues: "And the person so employed shall not for that cause be subject to any injury on the part either of the Government or of individuals; and it shall in like manner be lawful for citizens of the United States to purchase all manner of books in China." Mr. President, that provision of the treaty of 1858 has never been under consideration by the treaty-making representatives of the two Governments since the moment when it was adopted; it stands today as the supreme law of this land. Any citizen of the United States has a right by that treaty to employ, and any person in China has a right, if a person in the United States sees fit to exercise his right, to accept employment as a scholar or as a literary man, to assist in any kind of literary labor in the United States and to come to the United States for that purpose. Let us bear that in mind. MR. LODGE: Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? MR. LODGE: Does that clause provide that this employment shall be in the United States? MR. FORAKER: It does not in express words say that the person so employed shall come to the United States, but, Mr. President, what avail is it to me here in the United States to have a right to employ a Chinese scholar or literary man to assist me in literary labor or to teach the Chinese language, unless I can bring him to the United States, where I am likely to want such person and to utilize him; and for the Senator to suggest that this means nothing more than that a citizen of the United States going to China, and being there may there employ a man to assist him in literary labor is, it seems to me, entirely unwarranted. MR. LODGE: I only asked if it was expressly stated. MR. FORAKER: No; I say it is not expressly stated. But I submit that there is no room for argument as to what is intended, and the right is given and broadly given to the Chinese on the one hand to employ Americans and American teachers and American people of literary qualities to assist them, and then, reciprocally, the right is given to the people of the United States to employ that class of Chinese people. That provision is now in force. That was the treaty of 1858, and without further comment I pass from it to the next treaty, which is known as the "Burlingame treaty." The Burlingame Treaty was entered into in 1868. I reviewed its provisions, stating the result as follows: Down to and including the treaty of 1868 we have this status resulting from our treaties, that everybody in China, a subject of the Empire, who may want to come to the United States has the free and unrestricted right to come, and the Chinese have the right to establish |