XIII

THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA

HE relations of the United States with China have, as a rule, been more sympathetic than those of European nations. Americans have not sought territorial advantage in China and on more than one occasion, our Government has exerted its influence in favour of peace and justice for the sorely beset Celestials.

The flag of the United States first appeared in Chinese waters on a trading ship in 1785. From the beginning, Americans had less trouble with the Chinese than Europeans had experienced, partly because they had recently been at war with the English whom the Chinese hated and feared, and partly because they were less violently aggressive in dealing with the Chinese. By the treaties of July and October, 1844, the United States peacefully reaped the advantages which England had obtained at the cost of war. November 17, 1856, two American ships were fired upon by the Bogue Forts, but in spite of the hostilities which resulted, the representatives of the United States appeared to find more favour with the Chinese than those of any other power in the negotiations at Tien-tsin in 1858, and their treaty was signed a week before those of the French and the British. Article X provided that the "United States shall have the right to appoint consuls and other commercial agents, to reside at such places in the dominions of China as shall be agreed to be opened"; and Article XXX that,

"should at any time the Ta-Tsing Empire grant to any nation or the merchants or citizens of any nation any right, privileges or favour connected

with either navigation, commerce, political or other intercourse which is not conferred by this treaty, such right, privilege and favour shall at once freely inure to the benefit of the United States, its public officers, merchants and citizens."

In the settlement of damages, the Chinese agreed to pay to the United States half a million taels, then worth $735,288. When the adjustments with individual claimants left a balance of $453,400 in the treasury, Congress, to the unbounded and grateful surprise of the Chinese, gave it back to them. Mr. Burlingame, the celebrated United States Minister to China, became the most popular foreign minister in Peking within a short time after his arrival in 1862, and so highly did the Chinese Government appreciate his efforts in its behalf that during the American Civil War it promptly complied with his request to issue an edict forbidding all Confederate ships of war from entering Chinese ports. Mr. Foster declares that "such an order enforced by the governments of Europe would have saved the American commercial marine from destruction and shortened the Civil War."1

The treaty of Washington in 1868 gave great satisfaction to the Chinese Government as it contained pacific and appreciative references to China, an express disclaimer of any designs upon the Empire and a willingness to admit Chinese to the United States. The treaty of 1880, however, considerably modified this willingness and the treaty of 1894 rather sharply restricted further immigration. But in the commercial treaty of 1880, the United States, at the request of the Chinese Government, agreed to a clause peremptorily forbidding any citizen of the United States from engaging in the opium traffic with the Chinese or in any Chinese port.

Our national policy was admirably expressed in the note sent by the Hon. Frederick F. Low, United States Minister at Peking, to the Tsung-li Yamen, March 20, 1871 :

1 Foster, "American Diplomacy in the Orient," p. 259.

"To assure peace in the future, the people must be better informed of the purposes of foreigners. They must be taught that merchants are engaged in trade which cannot but be beneficial to both native and foreigner, and that missionaries seek only the welfare of the people, and are engaged in no political plots or intrigues against the Government. Whenever cases occur in which the missionaries overstep the bounds of decorum, or interfere in matters with which they have no proper concern, let each case be reported promptly to the Minister of the country to which it belongs. Such isolated instances should not produce prejudice or engender hatred against those who observe their obligations, nor should sweeping complaints be made against all on this account. Those from the United States sincerely desire the reformation of those whom they teach, and to do this they urge the examination of the Holy Scriptures, wherein the great doctrines of the present and a future state, and also the resurrection of the soul, are set forth, with the obligation of repentance, belief in the Saviour, and the duties of man to himself and others. It is owing, in a great degree, to the prevalence of a belief in the truth of the Scriptures that Western nations have attained their power and pros. perity. To enlighten the people is a duty which the officials owe to the people, to foreigners, and themselves; for if, in consequence of ignorance, the people grow discontented, and insurrection and riots occur, and the lives and property of foreigners are destroyed or imperilled, the Government cannot escape its responsibility for these unlawful acts."

Referring to this note, the Hon. J. C. B. Davis, acting Secretary of State, wrote to Mr. Low, October 19, 1871

"The President regards it (your note to the Tsung-li Yamen) as wise and judicious. Your prompt and able answer to these propositions leaves little to be said by the Department. . . . We stand upon our treaty rights; we ask no more, we expect no less. If other nations demand more, if they advance pretensions inconsistent with the dignity of China as an independent Power, we are no parties to such acts. Our influence, so far as it may be legitimately and peacefully exerted, will be used to prevent such demands or pretensions, should there be serious reason to apprehend that they will be put forth. We feel that the Government of the Emperor is actuated by friendly feelings towards the United States."

But while the Government of the United States has been thus considerate and just in its dealings with the Chinese in

China, it has, singularly enough, been most inconsiderate and unjust in its treatment of Chinese in its own territory, and its policy in this respect has done not a little to exasperate the Chinese. The Chinese began to come to America in 1848, when two men and one woman arrived in San Francisco on the brig Eagle. The discovery of gold soon brought multitudes, the year 1852 alone seeing 2,026 arrivals. There are now about 70,000 Chinese in California and 12,000 in Oregon and Washington. New York has about 10,000 Chinese, Philadelphia 5,000, Boston 800, and many other cities have little groups, while individual Chinese are scattered all over the country, though the total for the United States hardly exceeds

100,000.

The attitude of the people of the Pacific coast towards the the Chinese is an interesting study. At first, they welcomed their Oriental visitors. In January, 1853, the Hon. H. H. Haight, afterwards Governor of California, offered at a representative meeting of San Francisco citizens this resolution"Resolved that we regard with pleasure the presence of greater numbers of these people (Chinese) among us as affording the best opportunity of doing them good and through them of exerting our influence in their native land." And this resolution was unanimously adopted. Moreover in a new country, where there was much manual labour to be done in developing resources and constructing railways, and where there were comparatively few white labourers, the Chinese speedily proved to be a valuable factor. They were frugal, patient, willing, industrious and cheap, and so the corporations in particular encouraged them to come.

But as the number of immigrants increased, first dislike, then irritation and finally alarm developed, particularly among the working classes who found their means of livelihood threatened by the competition of cheaper labour. The newspapers began to give sensational accounts of the "yellow deluge" that might "swamp our institutions" and to enlarge

upon the danger that white labourers would not come to California on account of the presence of Chinese. The "sand lot orator" appeared with his frenized harangues and the political demagogue sought favour with the multitudes by pandering to their passions. Race prejudice, moreover, must always be taken into account, especially when two races attempt to live together. The terms Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian, Roman and enemy are suggestive of the distrust with which one race usually regards another. Christianity has done much to moderate it, but it still exists, and let the resident of the North and East who remembers the recent race riots in Illinois and Ohio and New York think charitably of his brethren who are confronted by the Chinese problem in California. So May 6, 1882, Congress passed the Restriction Act, which, as amended July 5, 1884, and reenacted in 1903, is now in force.

There are thousands of high-minded Christian people who are unselfishly and lovingly toiling for the temporal and spiritual welfare of this Asiatic population in America. They rightly feel that the people of the United States have a special duty towards these Orientals, that the purifying power of Christianity can remove the dangers incident to their presence in our communities, and that if we treat them aright they will, on their return to China, mightily influence their countrymen. But the kindly efforts of these Christian people are unfortunately insufficient to offset the general policy of the American people as a whole, especially as that policy is embodied in a stern law that is most harshly enforced.

Americans are apt to think of themselves as China's best friends and the facts stated show that there is some ground for the claim. But before we exalt ourselves overmuch, we might profitably read the correspondence between the Chinese Ministers at Washington and our Secretaries of State regarding the outrages upon Chinese in the United States. Many Chinese have suffered from mob violence in San Francisco and