APPENDIX III

ASIA'S APPEAL TO AMERICA

[The following discussion was first delivered in San Francisco, August, 1915, as one of the addresses given at the Congress held by the Asiatic Institute under the auspices of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition. It deals especially with the relations of America and China.]

Europe's catastrophe has suddenly shown how closely interwoven is the fabric of the modern world. The interlinking of the life and interests of the nations had advanced much further than was realized. Even Asia begins to figure as a mighty factor in Occidental affairs. Some regard it as ominous. We talk of the "yellow peril;" yet for decades, nay for centuries, Asiatics have resented an actual and progressively overwhelming "white peril."

On the one hand there is China. Not for a century has her outlook been so bright. An alien dynasty has been driven from the throne; the nation is pushing forward with remarkable insistence for modern forms of government; the opium curse has been substantially eradicated; political graft is rapidly being eliminated, financial solvency seems now assured; Occidental education is proceeding rapidly; and desire for reforms is widespread. If China can avoid further alien intrusion her future is decidedly hopeful.

And there is Japan. Her heroic struggles to meet the new world-situation that confronted her when she came out of her long isolation called forth deep admiration in America. The brilliant ability of her students and national leaders and the whole-souled patriotism of her people have received full recognition and evoked high praise. Japan, however, has reached so high a development of power and ambition that some begin to fear and suspect her.

A NEW ERA IN HUMAN HISTORY

The adoption by Japan and China of the mechanical, economic, olitical elements of Occidental civilization constitutes the new era in human history. The changes rapidly occurand our attention. At this juncture, therefore, it is

he entire situation. What is the duty ons to Asia? What responsibilities

have we, if any? and, what is even more pertinent, what may we do to put and keep ourselves right with the Orient?

Both China and Japan are facing mighty problems. The early solution of those problems concerns, not themselves alone, but all the world. Our fate is in truth involved in theirs. The urgency accordingly of their appeal should command our earnest and sympathetic attention and secure our action. Our own national welfare through the long future, no less than our national character, are intimately involved in our response to that appeal.

China's appeal for justice and friendly treatment was made decades ago, but has been completely ignored by the statesmen and Christians of America. Japan's appeal is more recent. Will America heed it any better?

AMERICAN TREATMENT OF CHINA

The story of our dealings with China is, as a whole, one of which we need not be ashamed. We have not seized her territory, bombarded her ports, extracted indemnities, or pillaged her capitals as have other nations. On the contrary, we have helped preserve her from "partition" at a grave crisis in her relations with Western lands. We returned a considerable part of her Boxer indemnity that came to us. We have stood for the open door and a square deal. Our consular courts have been models of probity and justice. The work of our missionaries in hospitals, education, and in famine and flood relief has been highly appreciated.

In consequence of such factors the Chinese as a nation hold to-day a highly gratifying attitude of friendship toward us. So conspicuous has this friendship and preferential treatment become since the establishment of the Republic that other nations have begun to note it. In the reforms taking place in China, especially in her educational system, in her political and social reorganization, and in her moral and religious awakening, the influence of Americans is far beyond that exercised by any other people.

When we turn, however, to the story of what many Chinese have suffered here, our cheeks tingle with shame. The story would be incredible were it not overwhelmingly verified by ample documentary evidence. Treaties have pledged rights, immunities, and protection. They have, nevertheless, been disregarded and even knowingly invaded; and this not only by private individuals, but by legislators, and administrative officials. Scores of Chinese have been murdered, hundreds wounded, and thousands robbed by anti-Asiatic mobs, with no protection for the victims or punishment for the culprits. State legislatures, and even Congress, have enacted laws in contravention

of treaty provisions. Men appointed to federal executive offices have at times administered those laws and regulations in offensive methods.

Let us consider briefly some of the details of the situation. It will be well to premise that, all in all, Chinese in America have not been treated badly. In general they have received police protection; their lives have been safe; they have been able to carry on successful business. So attractive to them is the opportunity of life here that they have stayed on and every year not a few succeed in smuggling their way into our land. The dark picture about to be sketched, accordingly, is not to be understood as describing the regular features of Chinese experience.

AMERICAN CHINESE TREATY PLEDGES

Adequately to appreciate the full significance of our anti-Chinese legislation we must begin the story with a few quotations from treaties by which America invited Chinese to this country.

Article V. of the treaty of 1868 reads in part:

"The United States of America and the Emperor of China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively . . . for purposes of curiosity, trade or as permanent residents."

But Article VI, after promising reciprocal "most favored nation" enjoyment of "privileges, immunities and exemptions," adds that this does not "confer naturalization" upon their respective citizens. This clause doubtless meant that the mere fact of residence in the other's land did not of itself alone carry citizenship in that land, for up till 1880 a few Chinese were granted naturalization in the United States. In harmony with the provisions of this treaty considerable Chinese immigration into the United States occurred during the seventh and eighth decades of the last century.

Anti-Chinese agitation soon developed in the Pacific Coast states. Growing violent in the seventies, it led to the sending of a Commission to China which negotiated the supplementary treaty of 1880.

The principal provisions of this treaty are as follows:

Article I provides that: "the Government of the United States may regulate, limit or suspend such coming or residence of Chinese (laborers), but may not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation or suspension shall be reasonable and shall apply only to . . . laborers."

Article II provides that: "Chinese laborers who are now in the United States shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, im

munities, and exemptions which are accorded to citizens and subjects of the most favored nation."

Article III provides that in case of ill treatment the "Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions as may be enjoyed by citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty."

Article IV provides that legislative measures dealing with Chinese shall be "communicated to the Government of China," and if found "to work hardship upon the subjects of China, consultations shall be held to the end that mutual and unqualified benefit may result."

DISREGARD OF TREATY PLEDGES

In spite, however, of the complete cessation of Chinese labor immigration, and in spite of the promises of our government to provide protection, "and most favored nation treatment," the unjust treatment of Chinese did not cease. The outrages committed on the Chinese during the eighties were even more frightful and inexcusable than those of the preceding decade.

In his discussion of the question whether the federal government should protect aliens in their treaty rights, Ex-President William H. Taft cites the cases of fifty Chinamen who suffered death at the hands of American mobs in our Western states, and of one hundred and twenty others, many of whom were wounded and robbed of all their property. The list does not profess to be complete. All these outrages have occurred since 1885.

"In an official note of February 15, 1886, riots were reported at Bloomfield, Redding, Boulder Creek, Eureka and other towns in California, involving murder, arson and robbery, and it was added that thousands of Chinese had been driven from their homes."

None of the criminals were punished in spite of the article in the treaty which expressly provides that in case "Chinese laborers meet with ill treatment at the hands of other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by citizens of the most favored nation and to which they are entitled by treaty." Congress, it is true, has voted indemnities for families of those murdered, but financial remuneration can hardly be supposed to take the place of justice or to be a substitute for observance of treaty pledges.

It is sometimes said that Italians and other aliens suffered similarly from mob violence and they too were not protected, nor were the criminals punished, and that therefore China cannot complain of ex

ceptional treatment. But is it not obvious that failure of the United States to fulfil its treaty pledges to Italy and other countries in no wise justifies similar failure toward China? Does it not rather show that the United States is culpable for failure to make adequate provision for the faithful performance of its treaty pledges? This moral and legal defect has become most conspicuous in our relations with China, but its culpability is in no wise lessened-rather it is aggravated-as soon as it becomes clear that the defect is entirely due to the failure of Congress to take the needed action. For provision for such action is made by the Constitution of the United States.

ANTI-CHINESE LEGISLATION

The failure of Congress seems inexcusable, for it found time to enact not only the first general exclusion law in harmony with the treaty with China, but also several supplementary laws, of which important clauses are admittedly in contravention to the treaty.

The Scott Law of 1888 and the Geary Law of 1892 are still in force, though the essential injustice of some of their provisions and their disregard of Chinese treaty rights are now recognized. They are producing constant anti-American feeling among Chinese legitimately in America. Even in cosmopolitan New York and in Boston, Chinese sometimes suffer from the acts of federal officers who supervise Chinese residents in the United States, acts, moreover which are required by the laws and administrative regulations dealing with the Chinese.

With regard to the Scott Law, Senator Sherman said that it was "one of the most vicious laws that have passed in my time in Congress." It was passed as a "mere political race between the two houses in the face of a Presidential election." Senator Dawes sarcastically referred to keeping the treaties as long as we had a mind to. The law was "a rank unblushing repudiation of every treaty obligation. unwarranted by any existing danger-a violation such as the United States would not dare to commit toward any warlike nation of Europe."

With regard to the Geary Law, Professor Coolidge makes the following statement:

"Meanwhile the Chinese Minister at Washington, the Consulgeneral at San Francisco, and the Yamen at Peking were also protesting against the act. The Chinese Minister had steadily protested ever since the Scott Act against the plain violation of treaty; just preceding the Geary Act, he wrote six letters to Mr. Blaine, only two of which were so much as acknowledged. He now declared