Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Free Classic E-books

New Forces in Old China

Part 3 out of 8

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 0.8 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

costs the average heathen, that the houses of the Laos Christians
are better than the single-roomed sheds about them, that
the graduates of our Siam mission schools for girls wear shirt
waists instead of sunshine, that the members of any one of our
Korean churches spend more money on soap than a whole village
of their heathen neighbours whose bodies are caked with
the accumulations of years of neglect, that the sessions of our
Syrian churches are Christian gentlemen in appearance as well
as in fact, and that the houses of our Chinese Christians do not
mix pigs, chickens and babies in one lousy, malodorous

But these altered conditions have not yet brought the ability
to meet them. The cost of living has increased faster than the
resources of the people. Only France and Russia are primarily
political in their foreign policy. England, Germany and
the United States are avowedly commercial. They talk incessantly
about ``the open door.'' Their supreme object in Asia
is to ``extend their markets.'' They are producing more than
they can use themselves, and they seek an opportunity to dispose
of their surplus products. They are less concerned to
bring the products of Asia into their own territories.
Indeed, Germany and particularly the United States have
built a tariff wall about themselves, expressly to protect
home industries from outside competition, and not a few
American manufacturers have recently been on the verge of
panic on account of Japanese competition. Europe and America
are trying to force their own manufactures on to Asia and
to take in return only what they please.

In time, this will probably right itself, in part at least.
While the farmers of the Mississippi Valley find living much
more expensive than it was two generations ago, they also find
that they get more for their wheat and that they eat better food
and wear better clothes and build better houses than their
grandfathers. The era of railroads ended the days of cheap
living, but it ended as well days when the farmer had to confine
himself to a diet of corn-bread and salt pork, when his
home was destitute of comforts and his children had little
schooling and no books. So the American working man of today
has to pay more for the necessaries of life than the working
man of Europe, but he is nevertheless the best paid, the
best fed, the best clothed and the best housed working man in
the world, a far better and more intelligent citizen because of
these very conditions.

The same changes will doubtless take place in Asia. That
great continent is capable of producing enormous quantities of
food, minerals and both raw and manufactured articles which
the rest of the world will sooner or later want. Already this
foreign demand is bringing comparative wealth to the rug
dealers of Syria, the silk embroiderers of China and the cloisonne'
and porcelain makers of Japan. But only an infinitesimal
part of the total population has thus far profited largely by
this wider market. Where one man amasses wealth in this
way, 100,000 men find that aggressive foreign traders exploit
their wares by flooding the shops with tempting articles which
they can ill-afford to buy. The difficulty is rapidly becoming
acute. My inquiries in Japan led me to the conclusion that
while the cost of the staple articles of living has increased
nearly 100 per cent. in the last twenty years, the financial ability
of the average Japanese has not increased thirty per cent.
In China, Siam, India, the Philippine Islands, and Syria I
found substantially similar anxieties though the proportions
naturally varied. ``True, there has been commerce since the
early ages, but caravans could afford to carry only precious
goods, like fine fabrics, spices and gems. These luxuries did
not reach the multitude, and could not materially change environment.
But modern commerce scatters over all the world
the products of every climate, in ever increasing quantities.''

So the economic revolution in Asia is characterized, as such
revolutions usually are in Europe and America, by wide-spread
unrest and, in some places, by violence. The oldest of continents
is the latest to undergo the throes of the stupendous
transformation from which the newest is slowly beginning to
emerge. The transition period in Asia will be longer and perhaps
more trying, as the numbers involved are vaster and more
conservative; but the ultimate result cannot fail to be beneficial
both to Asia and to the whole world.

It is therefore too late to discuss the question whether the
character and religions of these nations should be disturbed.
They have already been disturbed by the inrush of new ideas
and by the ways as well as by the products of the white man.
Like their ancient temples, the religions of Asia are cracking
from pinnacle to foundation. The natives themselves realize
that the old days are passing forever. India is in a ferment.
Japan has leaped to world prominence. The power of the
Mahdi has been broken and the Soudan has been opened to
civilization. The King of Siam has made Sunday a legal holiday
and is frightening his conservative subjects by his revolutionary
changes, while Korea is changing with kaleidoscopic

Whereas the opening years of the sixteenth century saw the
struggle for civilization, of the seventeenth century for religious
liberty, of the eighteenth century for constitutional government,
of the nineteenth century for political freedom, the
opening years of the twentieth century witness what Lowell
would have called:--

``One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt
Old systems and the word.''



THE influences that are thus surging into the Middle
Kingdom are tremendous. The beginnings of China's
foreign trade date back to the third century, though
it was not until comparatively recent years that it grew to large
proportions. To-day the leading seaports of China have many
great business houses handling vast quantities of European and
American goods. The most persistent effort is made to extend
commerce with the Chinese. That the effort is successful is
shown by the fact that the foreign trade of China increased
from 217,183,960 taels in 1888 to 583,547,291 taels in 1904.
This shows the enormous gain of 168 per cent., though this is
slightly modified by the fact that the report for 1904 includes
goods to the value of 402,639 taels carried by Chinese vessels
which, though plying between native and foreign ports, were
not formerly reported through the customs. According to
official reports,[26] the foreign trade of China has been growing
rapidly during recent years, the only falling off having been
in the Boxer outbreak year 1900. In 1891, the imports into
China were, in round numbers, 134,000,000 taels and the
exports were 101,000,000, a total of 235,000,000, and an
excess of imports of 33 per cent. In 1904 the imports had
advanced to 344,060,608 taels and the exports to 239,486,683
taels, a total of 583,547,291 taels, an increase of 148 per cent.
and an excess of imports of 44 per cent. In 1899 the total
foreign trade of China had reached 460,000,000 taels. The
next year it dropped to 370,000,000 taels, but in 1901 it sprang
to 438,000,000 taels, and has advanced nearly 150,000,000
taels within the past three years.[27]

[26] ``Returns of Trade for 1904,'' published by the Maritime Customs
Department of China.

[27] ``Returns of Trade for 1904,'' published by the Maritime Customs
Department of China.

The share of the United States is larger than one might infer
from the reports, as no inconsiderable part of our trade goes to
China by way of England and Hongkong and is often credited to
the British total instead of to ours. American trade has, moreover,
rapidly increased since 1900. We now sell more cotton
goods to China than to all other countries combined, the exports
having increased from $5,195,845 in 1898 to $27,000,000
in 1905.[28] In the year 1904, 63,529,623 gallons of kerosene
oil valued at $7,202,110 were shipped from the United States
to China. The development of the flour trade has been extraordinary,
the sales having risen from $89,305 in 1898 to
$5,360,139 in 1904.

[28] Year ending June, 1905.

In Hongkong, I found American flour controlling the
market. I learned on inquiry that years before, a firm in
Portland, Oregon, had sent an agent to introduce its flour.
The rice-eating Chinese did not want it, but the agent stayed,
gave away samples, explained its use and pushed his goods so
energetically and persistently that after years of labour and the
expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars a market was created.
Now that firm sells in such enormous quantities that its
numerous mills must run day and night to supply the demand,
and the annual profits run into six figures. That city of Portland
alone exported to Asia, chiefly China, in 1903:--
849,360 barrels flour $2,974,620
522,887 bushels wheat 413,901
46,847,975 feet lumber 647,355
Miscellaneous merchandise 352,879
Total $4,414,651

While cotton goods, kerosene oil and flour are our chief exports
to China, there is a growing demand for many other
American products. The utility of the American locomotive
has become so apparent that in 1899, engines costing $732,212
were sent to China and additional orders are received every
few months. With the enormous forests bordering the Pacific
Ocean in the states of Oregon and Washington, and with the
development of cheap water transportation, there is a rapidly
widening market in China for American lumber. Eastern Asia
is too densely peopled to have large forests, and those she has
are not within easy reach. Native lumber, therefore, is scarce
and often small and crooked. That in common use comes
from Manchuria and Korea. I was impressed in Tsing-tau to
find that the Germans are using Oregon lumber and to be told
that it is considered the best, and in the long run, the cheapest.
Oregon pine costs more than the Korean and Manchurian, but
it is superior in size and quality. The transportation charges
to the interior, however, are a heavy addition. Manchurian
pine can be delivered at such an interior city as Wei-hsien, via
the junk port of Yang-chia-ko and thence by land, for twenty
dollars, gold, per thousand square feet, which is considerably
less than the Tsing-tau retail price for Asiatic lumber. Oregon
lumber costs in Shanghai, thirty-two dollars gold, per thousand,
but an importer estimated that it could be delivered at Tsingtau
for twenty-five dollars gold per thousand in large quantities.

The exports of the United States to China, according to the
reports of Consul-General Goodnow of Shanghai, increased
from $11,081,146 in 1900 to $18,175,484 in 1901 and $22,698,282
in 1902, while for 1904 they reached the total of about
$24,000,000, a gain of nearly 125 per cent. since 1900 and of
several hundred per cent. as compared with 1894.

Meantime, the United States imported from China goods to
the value of $30,872,244 in 1904, which is an increase of $14,255,956
over the imports for 1901. Silk and tea are the principal
items in this trade, the figures for the former being $10,220,543
and for the latter $7,294,570, though of goatskins we
took $2,556,541, wool $2,325,445, and matting $1,615,838.
The United States is now the third nation in trade relations
with China. This is the more remarkable when we consider
the statement of the late Mr. Everett Frazar of the American
Asiatic Association that in January, 1901, there were only four
American business firms in all China. When our business men
establish their own houses in China instead of dealing as now
through European and Chinese firms, it is not unreasonable to
expect that the United States will outstrip its larger rivals Great
Britain and France, though, as I have already intimated, it is
one thing to ship foreign goods to China and quite another
thing to control them after their arrival, for the Chinese are
disposed to manage that trade themselves and they know how
to do it.

Unfortunately the stream of foreign trade with China has
been contaminated by many of the vices which disgrace our
civilization. The pioneer traders were, as a rule, pirates and
adventurers, who cheated and abused the Chinese most flagrantly.
Gorst says that ``rapine, murder and a constant appeal
to force chiefly characterized the commencement of Europe's
commercial intercourse with China.'' There are many
men of high character engaged in business in the great cities
of China. I would not speak any disparaging word of those
who are worthy of all respect. But it is all too evident that
``many Americans and Europeans doing business in Asia are
living the life of the prodigal son who has not yet come to himself.''
Profane, intemperate, immoral, not living among the
Chinese, but segregating themselves in foreign communities in
the treaty ports, not speaking the Chinese language, frequently
beating and cursing those who are in their employ, regarding
the Chinese with hatred and contempt,--it is no wonder that
they are hated in return and that their conduct has done much
to justify the Chinese distrust of the foreigner. The foreign
settlements in the port cities of China are notorious for their
profligacy. Intemperance and immorality, gambling and Sabbath
desecration run riot. When after his return from a long
journey in Asia, the Rev. Dr. George Pentecost was asked--
``What are the darkest spots in the missionary outlook?'' he

``In lands of spiritual darkness, it is difficult to speak of `darkest
spots.' I should say, however, that if there is a darkness more dark
than other darkness, it is that which is cast into heathen darkness
by the ungodliness of the American and European communities that
have invaded the East for the sake of trade and empire. The corruption
of Western godliness is the worst evil in the East. Of course there are
noble exceptions among western commercial men and their families, but
as a rule the European and American resident in the East is a constant
contradiction to all and everything which the missionary stands for.''

Most of the criticisms of missionaries which find their way
into the daily papers emanate from such men. The missionaries
do not gamble or drink whiskey, nor will their wives and
daughters attend or reciprocate entertainments at which wine,
cards and dancing are the chief features. So, of course, the
missionaries are ``canting hypocrites,'' and are believed to be
doing no good, because the foreigner who has never visited a
Chinese Christian Church, school or hospital in his life, does
not see the evidences of missionary work in his immediate
neighbourhood. The editor of the Japan Daily Mail justly

[29] April 7, 1901

``We do not suggest that these newspapers which denounce the missionaries
so vehemently desire to be unjust or have any suspicion that they
are unjust. But we do assert that they have manifestly taken on the colour
of that section of every far eastern community whose units, for some
strange reason, entertain an inveterate prejudice against the missionary
and his works. Were it possible for these persons to give an intelligent
explanation of the dislike with which the missionary inspires them, their
opinions would command more respect. But they have never succeeded
in making any logical presentment of their case, and no choice offers except
to regard them as the victims of an antipathy which has no basis in
reason or reflection, That a man should be anti-Christian and should de-
vote his pen to propagating his views is strictly within his right, and we
must not be understood as suggesting that the smallest reproach attaches
to such a person. But on the other hand, it is within the right of the
missionary to protest against being arraigned before judges habitually hostile
to him, and it is within the right of the public to scrutinize the
pronouncements of such judges with much suspicion.''

Charles Darwin did not hesitate to put the matter more
bluntly still. He will surely not be deemed a prejudiced witness,
but he plainly said of the traders and travellers who attack

``It is useless to argue against such reasoners. I believe that,
disappointed in not finding the field of licentiousness quite so open as
formerly, they will not give credit to a morality which they do not wish to
practice, or to a religion which they undervalue or despise.''

These facts are a suggestive commentary on the popular notion
that civilization should precede Christianity. The Rev. Dr.
James Stewart, the veteran missionary of South Africa, says that
it is an ``unpleasant and startling statement, unfortunately
true, that contact with European nations seems always to have
resulted in further deterioration of the African races. . . .
Trade and commerce have been on the West Coast of Africa
for more than three centuries. What have they made of that
region? Some of its tribes are more hopeless, more sunken
morally and socially, and rapidly becoming more commercially
valueless, than any tribes that may be found throughout the
whole of the continent. Mere commercial influence by its example
or its teaching during all that time has had little effect
on the cruelty and reckless shedding of blood and the human
sacrifices of the besotted paganism which still exists near that
coast.'' Of his experience in New Guinea, James Chalmers
declared:--``I have had twenty-one years' experience among
natives. I have lived with the Christian native, and I have
lived, and dined, and slept with cannibals. But I have never
yet met with a single man or woman, or with a single people,
that civilization without Christianity has civilized.''

Substantially similar statements might be made regarding
other lands.

``The more we open the world to what we call civilization, and the more
education we give it of the kind we call scientific, the greater are the
dangers to modern society, unless in some way we contrive to make all
the world better. Brigands armed with repeating rifles and supplied with
smokeless gunpowder are brigands still, but ten times more dangerous than
before. The vaste hordes of human beings in Asia and Africa, so long as
they are left in seclusion, are dangerous to their immediate neighbours;
but, when they have railroads, steamboats, tariffs, and machine guns, while
they retain their savage ideals and barbarous customs, they become dangerous
to all the rest of the world.''[30]

[30] Christian Register, December 3, 1903.

A Christless civilization is always and everywhere a curse
rather than a blessing. From the Garden of Eden down, the
fall of man has resulted from ``the increase of knowledge and
of power unaccompanied by reverence.... No evolution
is stable which neglects the moral factor or seeks to shake
itself free from the eternal duties of obedience and of faith.
. . . The Song of Lamech echoes from a remote antiquity
the savage truth that `the first results of civilization are to
equip hatred and render revenge more deadly, . . . a
savage exultation in the fresh power of vengeance which all the
novel instruments have placed in their inventor's hands.' ''[31]

[31] The Rev. Dr. George Adam Smith, D. D., ``Yale Lectures,'' pp. 95-97.

What is civilization without the gospel? The essential elements
of our civilization are the fruits of Christianity, and the
tree cannot be transplanted without its roots. Can a railroad
or a plow convert a man? They can add to his material comfort;
they can enlarge the opportunities of the gospel, but are
they the gospel itself? What does civilization without Christianity
mean? It means the lust of the European and American
soldiers which is rotting the native Hawaiians, the European and
American liquor which is debauching the Africans, the opium
which is enervating the Chinese, 6,000 tons a year coming from
India at a profit of $32,000,000 to the English Government.[32]

[32] The Rev. Dr. Henry van Dyke, Sermon.

How can such a civilization prepare the way for Christianity?
As a matter of fact, the Chinese already have a civilization,
and if our civilization is considered apart from its distinctively
Christian elements, it is not so much superior to the Chinese
as we are apt to imagine. The differences are chiefly matters
of taste and education. The truth is that always and everywhere,--

``civilization, so far from obliterating iniquity, imports into the world
iniquities of its own. It changes to some degree the aspects of iniquity, but
does not make them less. Further than that its effect is rather regularly
to dress iniquity in a less repulsive and more attractive form, and in that
way makes it more difficult to get rid of than before. There is no sin so
insinuating as refined and elegant sin, and of that civilization is the expert
patron and champion. The sin that is the devil's chief stock in trade
is not what is going on in Hester Street, but on the polite avenues.
. . . Evangelization conducts to civilization, but civilization has no
necessary bearing on evangelization; that is to say, there is in civilization
no energy inherently calculated to yield gospel facts. By carrying schools
and arts, trade and manufacture, among people that are now savages you
may be able to refine the quality of their deviltry, but that is not even
the first step towards making angels, or even saints of them.''[33]

[33] The Rev. Dr. Charles H. Parkhurst, Sermon.

Lowell is said to have administered the following stinging
rebuke to the skeptical critics who sneered about missionaries
and declared the adequacy of civilization without them:--

``When the microscopic search of skepticism, which has hunted the
heavens and sounded the seas to disprove the existence of a Creator, has
turned its attention to human society and has found a place on this planet
ten miles square where a decent man can live in decency, comfort and
security, supporting and educating his children unspoiled and unpolluted;
a place where age is reverenced, manhood respected, womanhood honoured,
and human life held in due regard; when skeptics can find such
a place ten miles square on this globe where the gospel of Christ has
not gone and cleared the way, and laid the foundation and made decency
and security possible, it will then be in order for the skeptical literati
to move thither and there ventilate their views.''

But we may add Darwin's conjecture that ``should a voyager
chance to be at the point of shipwreck on some unknown
coast, he will devoutly pray that the lesson of the missionary
may have extended thus far.'' Bishop Thoburn says that no
nation without Christianity has ever advanced a step, and that
while in Washington there are 6,000 models of plows invented
by Americans, India is using the same plow as in the days of
David and Solomon. But wherever Christ's gospel goes, true
civilization appears. ``A better soul will soon make better
circumstances; but better circumstances will not necessarily make
a better soul.''[34]

[34] The Rev. Dr. James H. Snowden.

``We must be here to work,
And men who work can only work for men,
And not to work in vain must comprehend
Humanity, and so work humanly,
And raise men's bodies still by raising souls.''



[35] Part of this chapter appeared as an article in the American Monthly
Review of Reviews, February, 1904.

THE extension of trade has naturally been accompanied
not only by the increase of foreign steamship
lines to the numerous port cities of China, but by the
development of almost innumerable coastwise and river vessels.
Many of these are owned and operated by the Chinese themselves,
but as steamers came with the foreigners and as they
drive out the native junks and bring beggary to their owners,
the masses of the Chinese cannot be expected to feel kindly
towards such competition, however desirable the steamer may
appear to be from the view-point of a more disinterested
observer. But this interference with native customs has been far
less revolutionary than that of the railways.

The pressure of foreign commerce upon China has naturally
resulted in demands for concessions to build railways, in order
that the country might be opened up for traffic and the products
of the interior be more easily and quickly brought to the coast.
The first railroad in China was built by British promoters in
1876. It ran from Shanghai to Woosung, only fourteen miles.
Great was the excitement of the populace, and no sooner was
it completed than the Government bought it, tore up the road-
bed, and dumped the engines into the river. That ended
railway-building till 1881, when, largely through the influence
of Wu Ting-fang, late Chinese Minister to the United States,
the Chinese themselves, under the guidance of an English
engineer, built a little line from the Kai-ping coal mines to
Taku, at the mouth of the Pei-ho River and the ocean gate
way to the capital. Seeing the benefit of this road, the Chinese
raised further funds, borrowed more from the English, and
gradually extended it 144 miles to Shan-hai Kwan on the
north, while they ran another line to Tien-tsin, twenty-seven
miles from Tong-ku, and thence onward seventy-nine miles
direct to Peking. This system forms the Imperial Railway and
belongs to the Chinese Government, though bonds are held by
the English, who loaned money for construction, and though
English and American engineers built and superintended the
system. The local staff, however, is Chinese.

No more concessions were granted to foreigners till 1895,
but then they were given so rapidly that, in 1899 when the
Boxer Society first began to attract attention, there were, including
the Imperial Railway, not only 566 miles in operation,
but 6,000 miles were projected, and engineers were surveying
rights of way through whole provinces. Much of the completed
work was undone during the destructive madness of the
Boxer uprising, but reconstruction began as soon as the tumult
was quelled. According to the Archiv fur Eisenbahnwesen of
Germany, the total length of the railways in use in 1903 in
China was 1,236 kilometers or about 742 miles.

Several foreign nations have taken an aggressive part in this
movement. In the north, Russia, not satisfied with a terminus
at cold Vladivostok where ice closes the harbour nearly half
the year, steadily demanded concessions which would enable
her Trans-Siberian Railway to reach an ice-free winter port,
and thus give her a commanding position in the Pacific and a
channel through which the trade of northern Asia might reach
and enrich Russia's vast possessions in Siberia and Europe.
So Russian diplomacy rested not till it had secured the right to
extend the Trans-Siberian Railway southward from Sungari
through Manchuria to Tachi-chao near Mukden. From there
one branch runs southward to Port Arthur and Dalny and
another southwestward to Shan-hai Kwan, where the great
Wall of China touches the sea. As connection is made at that
point with the Imperial Railway to Taku, Tien-tsin and Peking,
Moscow 5,746 miles away, is brought within seventeen days of
Peking. Thus, Russian influence had an almost unrestricted
entrance to China on the North, while a third branch from
Mukden to Wiju, on the Korean frontier, will connect with a
projected line running from that point southward to Seoul, the
capital of Korea. A St. Petersburg dispatch, dated November
26, 1903, states that a survey has just been completed from
Kiakhta, Siberia, to Peking by way of Gugon, a distance of
about a thousand miles. This road, if built, will give the Russians
a short cut direct to the capital.

In the populous province of Shantung, a German railroad,
opened April 8, 1901, runs from Tsing-tau on Kiao-chou Bay
into the heart of the populous Shantung Province via Weihsien.
The line already reaches the capital, Chinan-fu, while
ulterior plans include a line from Tsing-tau via Ichou-fu to
Chinan-fu, so that German lines will ere long completely encircle
this mighty Province. At Chinan-fu, this road will meet
another great trunk line, partly German and partly English,
which is being pushed southward from Tien-tsin to Chin-kiang.
An English sydicate, known as the British-Chinese Corporation,
is to control a route from Shanghai via Soochow and
Chin-kiang to Nanking and Soochow via Hangchow to Ningpo,
while the Anglo-Chinese Railway Syndicate of London is said
to be planning a railway from Canton to Cheng-tu-fu, the provincial
capital of Sze-chuen. Meanwhile, the original line from
Shanghai to Wu-sung has been reconstructed by the English.

One of the most valuable concessions in China has been obtained
by the Anglo-Italian Syndicate in the Provinces of
Shan-si and Shen-si for it gives the right to construct railways
and to operate coal mines in a region where some of the most
extensive anthracite deposits in the world are located. A beginning
has already been made, and when the lines are completed,
the industrial revolution in China will be mightily advanced.

An alleged Belgian syndicate, to which was formed with then
wholly disinterested assistance of the French and Russian legations,
obtained in 1896 a concession to construct the Lu Han
Railway from Peking 750 miles southward to Hankow, the
commercial metropolis on the middle Yang-tze River. It is significant,
however, that while the Belgian syndicate was temporarily
embarrassed, the Russo-Chinese Bank of Peking aided
the Chinese Director-General of Railways to begin the section
running from Peking to Paoting-fu. The road is open to
Shunte-fu, 300 miles south of Peking and to Hsu-chou, 434
kilometers north of Hankow. The Russo-Chinese Bank is
building a branch line from Ching-ting via Tai-yuen-fu to Singan-fu
in Shen-si, where it will be well started on the beaten
caravan route between north China and Russian Central Asia.
On November 13, 1903, the Belgian International Eastern
Company signed a contract to construct a railway from Kai-
feng-fu, the capital of the Province of Honan, 110 miles west
to Honan-fu.

I found the line running south from Peking well-built with
solid road-bed, massive stone culverts, iron bridges, and heavy
steel rails. The first and second class coaches are not attractive
in appearance, and though the fare for the former is double
that of the latter, the chief discernible difference is that in the
first class compartment, which is usually in one end of a second-
class car, the seats are curved and the passengers fewer in
number, while in the second-class the seats are straight boards
and are apt to be crowded with Chinese coolies. Neither class
is upholstered and neither would be considered comfortable in
America, but after the weeks I had spent in a mule-litter, anything
on rails seemed luxurious. Our train was a mixed one,--
the first-class compartments containing a few French officers,
the second-class filled with Chinese coolies and French soldiers,
while a half-dozen flat cars were loaded with horses and mules.
A large Roger's locomotive from Paterson, New Jersey, drew
our long train smoothly and easily, though the schedule was so
slow and the stops so long that we were seven hours and a half
in making a run of a hundred miles.

Railway-building in South China, outside of French territory,
began with a line from Canton to Hankow which was projected
in 1895 by Senator Calvin S. Brice, William Barclay
Parsons being the engineer. The usual governmental difficulties
were encountered, but in 1902 an imperial decree gave the
concession to the American-China Development Company.
American capital was to finance the road, though with some
European aid. The company had the power, under its concession,
to issue fifty-year five per cent. gold bonds to the amount
of $42,500,000, the interest being guaranteed by the Chinese
Government. The main line will be 700 miles long, and
branches will increase the total mileage to 900. On November
15, 1903, a section ten miles long from Canton to Fat-shan was
formally opened for traffic in the presence of the Hon. Francis
May, colonial secretary and registrar-general of the Hongkong
Government, a large number of Europeans and Americans, and
immense crowds of Chinese who manifested their excitement by
an almost incessant rattle of fire-crackers. By October, 1904,
trains were running regularly to Sam-shui, about twenty-five
miles beyond Fat-shan. This is a branch line. The main
line will run on the other side of the West River. In 1905,
the government decided to complete the line itself and cancelled
the concession, paying the company as indemnity $6,750,000.
A line from Kowloon to Canton has been planned for some
time and it is likely to be hastened by the announcement in the
South China Morning Post, May 12, 1904, that an American-
Chinese syndicate had obtained a concession, granted to the
authorities of Macao by China through a special Portuguese
Minister, to construct a railway from Macao to Canton. The
syndicate hopes to secure American capital and the British
merchants of Hongkong are a little nervous as they think of the
possibility of an independent outlet for the Canton-Hankow
Railway at Macao.

It will thus be seen that if these vast schemes can be realized
there will not only be numerous lines running from the
coast into the interior, but a great trunk line from Canton
through the very heart of the Empire to Peking, where other
roads can be taken not only to Manchuria and Korea but to
any part of Europe.

In the farther south, the French are equally busy. By the
Franco-Chinese Convention of June 20, 1895, a French
company secured the right to construct a railroad from Lao-
kai to Yun-nan-fu. The French had a road from Hai-fong in
Tong-king to Sang-chou at the Chinese frontier, and in 1896
they obtained from China a concession to extend it to Nanning-
fu, on the West River. This privilege has since been enlarged
so that the line will be continued to the treaty port of Pak-hoi
on the Gulf of Tong-king. The French fondly dream of the
time when they can extend their Yun-nan Railway northward
till it taps and makes tributary to French Indo-China the vast
and fertile valley of the upper Yang-tze River. Meanwhile,
the English talk of a line from Kowloon, opposite Hongkong,
to Canton, and of connecting their Burma Railroad, which
already runs from Rangoon to Kun-long ferry, with the
Yang-tze valley, so that the enormous trade of southern interior
China may not flow into a French port, as the French so
ardently desire, but into an English city.

It would be impossible to describe adequately the far-
reaching effect upon China and the Chinese of this extension of
modern railways. We have had an illustration of its meaning
in America, where the transcontinental railroads resulted in
the amazing development of our western plains and of the
Pacific Coast. The effect of such a development in China can
hardly be overestimated, for China has more than ten times the
population of the trans-Mississippi region while its territory is
vaster and equally rich in natural resources. As I travelled
through the land, it seemed to me that almost the whole
northern part of the Empire was composed of illimitable fields
of wheat and millet, and that in the south the millions of paddy
plots formed a rice-field of continental proportions. Hidden
away in China's mountains and underlying her boundless
plateaus are immense deposits of coal and iron; while above
any other country on the globe, China has the labour for the
development of agriculture and manufacture. Think of the
influence not only upon the Chinese but the whole world,
when railroads not only carry the corn of Hunan to the famine
sufferers in Shantung, but when they bring the coal, iron and
other products of Chinese soil and industry within reach of
steamship lines running to Europe and America. To make
all these resources available to the rest of the world, and in turn
to introduce among the 426,000,000 of the Chinese the products
and inventions of Europe and America, is to bring about
an economic transformation of stupendous proportions.

Imagine, too, what changes are involved in the substitution
of the locomotive for the coolie as a motive power, the
freight car for the wheelbarrow in the shipment of produce,
and the passenger coach for the cart and the mule-litter in the
transportation of people. Railways will inevitably inaugurate
in China a new era, and when a new era is inaugurated for
one-third of the human race the other two-thirds are certain to
be affected in many ways.

That the transformation is attended by outbreaks of violence
is natural enough. Even such a people as the English and the
Scotch were at first inimical to railroads, and it is notorious
that the great Stephenson had to meet not only ridicule but
strenuous opposition. Everybody knows, too, that in the
United States stage companies and stage drivers did all they
could to prevent the building of railroads, and that learned
gentlemen made eloquent speeches which proved to the entire
satisfaction of their authors that railways would disarrange all
the conditions of society and business and bring untold evils
in their train. If the alert and progressive Anglo-Saxon took
this initial position, is it surprising that it should be taken with
far greater intensity by Orientals who for uncounted centuries
have plodded along in perfect contentment, and who now find
that the whole order of living to which they and their fathers
have become adapted is being shaken to its foundation by the
iron horse of the foreigner? Millions of coolies earn a living
by carrying merchandise in baskets or wheeling it in barrows
at five cents a day. A single railroad train does the work of a
thousand coolies, and thus deprives them of their means of
support. Myriads of farmers grew the beans and peanuts out
of which illuminating oil was made. But since American
kerosene was introduced in 1864, its use has become well-nigh
universal, and the families who depended upon the bean-oil and
peanut-oil market are starving. Cotton clothing is generally
worn in China, except by the better classes, and China
formerly made her own cotton cloth. Now American manufacturers
can sell cotton in China cheaper than the Chinese can
make it themselves.

All this is, of course, inevitable. It is indeed for the best interests
of the people of China themselves, but it enables us to
understand why so many of the Chinese resent the introduction
of foreign goods. That much of this business is passing into
the hands of the Chinese themselves does not help the matter,
for the people know that the goods are foreign, and that the
foreigners are responsible for their introduction.

Nor are racial prejudices and vested interests the only foes
which the railway has to encounter in China. As we have
seen, the Chinese, while not very religious, are very superstitious.
They people the earth and air with spirits, who, in their
judgment, have baleful power over man. Before these spirits
they tremble in terror, and no inconsiderable part of their
time and labour is devoted to outwitting them, for the Chinese
do not worship the spirits, except to propitiate and deceive
them. They believe that the spirits cannot turn a corner, but
must move in a straight line. Accordingly, in China you do
not often find one window opposite another window, lest the
spirits may pass through. You will seldom find a straight
road from one village to another village, but only a distractingly
circuitous path, while the roads are not only crooked, but
so atrociously bad that it is difficult for the foreign traveller to
keep his temper. The Chinese do not count their own inconvenience
if they can only baffle their demoniac foes. It is the
custom of the Chinese to bury their dead wherever a geomancer
indicates a ``lucky'' place. So particular are they about
this that the bodies of the wealthy are often kept for a considerable
period while a suitable place of interment is being
found. In Canton there is a spacious enclosure where the
coffins sometimes lie for years, each in a room more or less
elaborate according to the taste or ability of the family. The
place once chosen immediately becomes sacred. In a land
which has been so densely populated for thousands of years,
graves are therefore not only innumerable but omnipresent.
In my travels in China, I was hardly ever out of sight of these
conical mounds of the dead, and as a rule I could count hundreds
of them from my shendza.

Every visitor to Canton and Chefoo will recall the hilly
regions just outside of the old city walls that are literally covered
with graves, those of the richer classes being marked by
small stone or brick amphitheatres. Yet these are cemeteries
not because they have been set apart for that purpose, but because
graves have gradually filled all available spaces.

The Chinese reverence their dead and venerate the spots in
which they lie. From a Chinese view-point it is an awful thing
to desecrate them. Not only property and those sacred feelings
with which all peoples regard their dead are involved but
also the vital religious question of ancestral worship. Accordingly
Chinese law protects all graves by heavy sanctions, imposing
the death penalty by strangling on the malefactor who
opens a grave without the permission of the owner, and by decapitation
if in doing so the coffin is opened or broken so as
to expose the body to view. Imagine then their feelings
when they see haughty foreigners run a railroad straight as an
arrow from city to city, opening a highway over which the
dreaded spirits may run, and ruthlessly tearing through the
tombs hallowed by the most sacred associations.

No degree of care can avoid the irritations caused by railway
construction. In building the line from Tsing-tau to Kiao-chou,
a distance of forty-six miles, the Germans, as far as practicable,
ran around the places most thickly covered with graves.
But in spite of this, no less than 3,000 graves had to be removed.
It was impossible to settle with the individual owners,
as it was difficult in many cases to ascertain who they were,
most of the graves being unmarked, and some of the families
concerned having died out or moved away. Moreover, the
Oriental has no idea of time, and dearly loves to haggle,
especially with a foreigner whom he feels no compunction in
swindling. So the railway company made its negotiations
with the local magistrates, showing them the routes, indicating
the graves that were in the way, and paying them an
average of $3 (Mexican) for removing each grave, they to
find and settle with the owners. This was believed to be fair,
for $3 is a large sum where the coin in common circulation
is the copper ``cash,'' so small in value that 1,600 of them
equal a gold dollar, and where a few dozen cash will buy a
day's food for an adult. But while some of the Chinese were
glad to accept this arrangement, others were not. They wanted
more, or they had special affection for the dead, or that particular
spot had been carefully selected because it was favoured
by the spirits. Besides, the magistrates doubtless kept a part
of the price as their share. Chinese officials are underpaid,
are expected to ``squeeze'' commissions, and no funds can
pass through their hands without a percentage of loss. Then,
as the Asiatic is very deliberate, the company was obliged to
specify a date by which all designated graves must be removed.
As many of the bodies were not taken up within that time,
the company had to remove them.

In these circumstances, we should not be surprised that
some of the most furiously anti-foreign feeling in China was in
the villages along the line of that railroad. Why should the
hated foreigner force his line through their country when the
people did not want it? Of course, it would save time, but,
as an official naively said, ``We are not in a hurry.'' So the
villagers watched the construction with ill-concealed anger,
and to-day that railroad, as well as most other railroads in
North China, can only be kept open by detachments of foreign
soldiers at all the important stations. I saw them at almost
every stop,--German soldiers from Tsing-tau to Kiao-chou,
British from Tong-ku to Peking, French from Peking to Paoting-fu,

Nevertheless, railways in China are usually profitable. It is
true that the opposition to the building of a railroad is apt to
be bitter, that mobs are occasionally destructive, and that locomotives
and other rolling stock rapidly deteriorate under native
handling unless closely watched by foreign superintendents.
But, on the other hand, the Government is usually forced to
pay indemnities for losses resulting from violence. The road,
too, once built, is in time appreciated by the thrifty Chinese,
who swallow their prejudices and patronize it in such enormous
numbers, and ship by it such quantities of their produce, that
the business speedily becomes remunerative, while the population
and the resources of the country are so great as to afford
almost unlimited opportunity for the development of traffic.

As a rule, on all the roads, the first-class compartments,
when there are any, have comparatively few passengers, chiefly
officials and foreigners. The second-class cars are well filled
with respectable-looking people, who are apparently small merchants,
students, minor officials, etc. The third-class cars,
which are usually more numerous, are packed with chattering
peasants. The first-class fares are about the same as ordinary
rates in the United States. The second-class are about half
the first-class rates, and the third-class are often less than the
equivalent of a cent a mile. This is a wise adjustment in a
land where the average man is so thrifty and so poor that he
would not and could not pay a price which would be deemed
moderate in America, and where his scale of living makes him
content with the rudest accommodations. Very little baggage
is carried free, twenty pounds only on the German lines, so
that excess baggage charges amount to more than in America.

The freight cars, during my visit, were, for the most part,
loaded with the materials and supplies necessitated by the work
of railway-construction and by the extensive rebuilding of the
native and foreign property which had been destroyed by the
Boxers. But in normal conditions the railways carry inland a
large number of foreign manufactured articles, and in turn
bring to the ports the wheat, rice, peanuts, ore, coal, pelts,
silk, wool, cotton, matting, paper, straw-braid, earthenware,
sugar, tea, tobacco, fireworks, fruit, vegetables, and other
products of the interior. Short hauls are the rule, thus far,
both for passengers and freight. This is partly because the
long-distance lines within the Empire are not yet completed,
and partly because the typical Chinese of the lower classes in
the interior provinces has never been a score of miles away from
his native village in his life, and has been so accustomed to
regard a wheelbarrow trip of a dozen miles as a long journey
that he is a little cautious, at first, in lengthening his radius of
movement. But he soon learns, especially as the struggle for
existence in an overcrowded country begets a desire to take advantage
of an opportunity to better his condition elsewhere.
Once fairly started, he is apt to go far, as the numbers of
Chinese in Siam, the Philippines, and America clearly show.
The literary and official classes are less apt to go abroad, but
they are more accustomed to moving about within the limits
of the Empire, as they must go to the central cities for their
examinations, and as offices are held for such short terms that
magistrates are frequently shifted from province to province.
When this vast population of naturally industrious and commer-
cial people becomes accustomed to railways and gets to moving
freely upon them, stupendous things are likely to happen,
both for China and for the world.

And so the foreign syndicates relentlessly continue the work
of railway-construction. Trade cannot be checked. It advances
by an inherent energy which it is futile to ignore. And
it ought to advance for the result will inevitably be to the advantage
of China. A locomotive brings intellectual and physical
benefits, the appliances which mitigate the poverty and
barrenness of existence and increase the ability to provide for
the necessities and the comforts of life. In one of our great
locomotive works in America I once saw twelve engines in construction
for China, and my imagination kindled as I thought
what a locomotive means amid that stagnant swarm of humanity,
how impossible it is that any village through which it has
once run should continue to be what it was before, how its
whistle puts to flight a whole brood of hoary superstitions and
summons a long-slumbering people to new life. We need regret
only that these benefits are so often accompanied by the
evils which disgrace our civilization.


The Political Force and the National



THE political force was set in motion partly by the
ambitions of European powers to extend their
influence in Asia, and partly by the necessity for protecting
the commercial interests referred to in the preceding
chapters. The conservatism and exclusiveness of the Chinese,
the disturbance of economic conditions caused by the introduction
of foreign goods, and the greed and brutality of foreign
traders combined to arouse a fierce opposition to the lodgment
of the foreigner. The early trading ships were usually armed,
and exasperated by the haughtiness and duplicity of the Chinese
officials and their greedy disposition to mulct the white
trader, they did not hesitate to use force in effecting their purpose.

But the nations of Europe, becoming more and more convinced
of the magnitude of the Chinese market, pressed resolutely
on; and with the hope of creating a better understanding
and of opening the ports to trade, they sent envoys to
China. The arrival of these envoys precipitated a new controversy,
for the Chinese Government from time immemorial
considered itself the supreme government of the world, and,
not being accustomed to receive the agents of other nations except
as inferiors, was not disposed to accord the white man
any different treatment. The result was a series of collisions
followed by territorial aggressions that were numerous enough
to infuriate a more peaceably disposed people than the

The Portuguese were the first to come, a ship of those ven-
turesome traders appearing near Canton in 1516. Its reception
was kindly, but when the next year brought eight armed
vessels and an envoy, the friendliness of the Chinese changed
to suspicion which ripened into hostility when the Portuguese
became overbearing and threatening. Violence met with
violence. It is said that armed parties of Portuguese went into
villages and carried off Chinese women. Feuds multiplied and
became more bloody. At Ningpo, the Chinese made awful reprisal
by destroying thirty-five Portuguese ships and killing 800
of their crews. The execution of one or more of the members
of a delegation to Peking brought matters to a crisis, and in
1534, the Portuguese transferred their factories to Macao,
which they have ever since held, though it was not till 1887
that their position there was officially recognized. Portuguese
power has waned and Macao to-day is an unimportant place
politically, but it is significant that this early foreign settlement
in China has been and still is such a moral plague spot that
the Chinese may be pardoned if their first impressions of the
white man were unfavourable.

The Spaniards were the next Europeans with whom the
Chinese came into contact. In this case, however, the contact
was due not so much to the coming of the Spaniards to China
as to their occupation in 1543 of the Philippine Islands, with
which the Chinese had long traded and where they had already
settled in considerable numbers. Mutual jealousies resulted
and Castilian arrogance and brutality ere long engendered such
bitterness that massacre after massacre of the Chinese occurred,
that of 1603 almost exterminating the Chinese population of

The growing demand for coffee, which Europeans had first
received in 1580 from Arabia, brought Dutch ships into Asiatic
waters in 1598. After hostile experiences with the Portuguese
at Macao, they seized the Pescadores Islands in 1622. But the
opposition of the Chinese led the Dutch to withdraw to Formosa,
where their stormy relations with natives, Chinese from
the mainland and Japanese finally resulted in their expulsion in
1662. Since then the Dutch have contented themselves with a
few trading factories chiefly at Canton and with their possessions
in Malaysia, so that they have been less aggressive in China
than several other European nations.

A more formidable power appeared on the scene in 1635,
when four ships[36] of the English East India Company sailed up
the Pearl River. The temper of the newcomers was quickly
shown when the Chinese, incited by the jealous Portuguese,
sought to prevent their lodgment, for the English, so the record
quaintly runs, ``did on a sudden display their bloody ensigns,
and . . . each ship began to play furiously upon the forts
with their broadsides . . . put on board all their ordnance,
fired the council-house, and demolished all they could.''
Then they sailed on to Canton, and when their peremptory demand
for trading privileges was met with evasion and excuses,
they ``pillaged and burned many vessels and villages . . .
spreading destruction with fire and sword.'' Describing this
incident, Sir George Staunton, Secretary of the first British
embassy to China, naively remarked--``The unfortunate circumstances
under which the English first got footing in China
must have operated to their disadvantage and rendered their
situation for some time peculiarly unpleasant.''[37] But as early
as 1684, they had established themselves in Canton.

[36] Parker, ``China,'' p. 9, places the number of ships at five and the date
as 1637.

[37] Foster, ``American Diplomacy in the Orient,'' p. 5.

June 15, 1834, a British Commission headed by Lord Napier
arrived at Macao, and the 25th of the same month proceeded
to Canton empowered by an act of Parliament to negotiate
with the Chinese regarding trade ``to and from the dominions
of the Emperor of China, and for the purpose of protecting and
promoting such trade.''[38] The government of Canton, however,
refused to receive Lord Napier's letter for the character-
istic reason that it did not purport to be a petition from an inferior
to a superior. In explaining the matter to the Hong
merchants with a view to their bringing the explanation to the
attention of Lord Napier, the haughty Governor reminded them
that foreigners were allowed in China only as trading agents,
and that no functionary of any political rank could be allowed
to enter the Empire unless special permission were given by the
Imperial Government in response to a respectful petition. He

[38] Foster, p. 57.

``To sum up the whole matter, the nation has its laws. Even
England has its laws. How much more the Celestial Empire! How
flaming bright are its great laws and ordinances. More terrible than
the awful thunderbolts! Under this whole bright heaven, none dares
to disobey them. Under its shelter are the four seas. Subject to its
soothing care are ten thousand kingdoms. The said barbarian eye (Lord
Napier), having come over a sea of several myriads of miles in extent to
examine and have superintendence of affairs, must be a man thoroughly
acquainted with the principles of high dignity.''[39]

[39] Foster, p. 59.

As might be expected, the equally haughty British representative
indignantly protested; but without avail. He was asked
to return to Macao, and was informed that the Governor could
not have any further communication with him except through
the Hong merchants, and in the form of a respectful petition.
The Governor indignantly declared:--

``There has never been such a thing as outside barbarians sending a
letter. . . . It is contrary to everything of dignity and decorum. The
thing is most decidedly impossible. . . . The barbarians of this nation
(Great Britain) coming to or leaving Canton have beyond their trade
not any public business; and the commissioned officers of the Celestial
Empire never take cognizance of the trivial affairs of trade. . . . The
some hundreds of thousands of commercial duties yearly coming from the
said nation concern not the Celestial Empire to the extent of a hair or a
feather's down. The possession or absence of them is utterly unworthy
of one careful thought.''[40]

[40] Ibid, p. 60.

Whereupon the proud Briton published and distributed a review
of the case, as he saw it, which closed as follows:--

``Governor Loo has the assurance to state in the edict of the 2d instant
that `the King (my master) has hitherto been reverently obedient.' I
must now request you to declare to them (the Hong merchants) that His
Majesty, the King of England, is a great and powerful monarch, that he
rules over an extent of territory in the four quarters of the world more
comprehensive in space and infinitely more so in power than the whole
empire of China; that he commands armies of bold and fierce soldiers,
who have conquered wherever they went; and that he is possessed of
great ships, where no native of China has ever yet dared to show his face.
Let the Governor then judge if such a monarch will be `reverently obedient'
to any one.''[41]

[41] Foster, pp. 61, 62.

The result of the increasing irritation was a decree by the
Governor of Canton peremptorily forbidding all further trade
with the English, and in retaliation the landing of a British
force, the sailing of British war-ships up the river and a battle
at the Bogue Forts which guarded the entrance of Canton. A
truce was finally arranged and Lord Napier's commission left
for Macao, August 21st, where he died September 11th of an
illness which his physician declared was directly due to the
nervous strain and the many humiliations which he had suffered
in his intercourse with the Chinese authorities. The
Governor meantime complacently reported to Peking that he had
driven off the barbarians!

The strain was intensified by the determination of the
British to bring opium into China. The Chinese authorities
protested and in 1839 the Chinese destroyed 22,299 chests
of opium valued at $9,000,000, from motives about as
laudable as those which led our revolutionary sires to empty
English tea into Boston Harbor. England responded by
making war, the result of which was to force the drug upon an
unwilling people, so that the vice which is to-day doing more
to ruin the Chinese than all other vices combined is directly
traceable to the conduct of a Christian nation, though the
England of to-day is presumably ashamed of this crime of the
England of two generations ago.

It would, however, be inaccurate to represent Chinese objection
to British opium as the sole cause of the ``Opium War''
of 1840, for the indignities to which foreign traders and foreign
diplomats were continually subjected in their efforts to establish
commercial and political relations with the Chinese were rapidly
drifting the two nations into war. Still, it was peculiarly
unfortunate and it put foreigners grievously in the wrong before
the Chinese that the overt act which developed the long-
gathering bitterness into open rupture was the righteous if irregular
seizure by the Chinese of a poison that the English
from motives of unscrupulous greed were determined to force
upon an unwilling people. The probability that war would
have broken out in time even if there had been no dispute
about opium does not mitigate the fact that from the beginning,
foreign intercourse with China was so identified with an iniquitous
traffic that the Chinese had ample cause to distrust and
dislike the white man.

This hostility was intensified when the war resulted in the
defeat of the Chinese and the treaty of Nanking in 1842 with
its repudiation of all their demands, the compulsory cession of
the island of Hongkong, the opening of not only Canton but
Amoy, Foochow, Shanghai, and Ningpo as treaty ports, the
location of a British Consul in each port, and, most necessary
but most humiliating of all, the recognition of the extra-territorial
rights of all foreigners so that no matter what their crime,
they could not be tried by Chinese courts but only by their
own consuls. This treaty contributed so much to the opening
of China that Dr. S. Wells Williams characterized it as ``one
of the turning points in the history of mankind, involving the
welfare of all nations in its wide-reaching consequences.'' It
was therefore a lasting benefit to China and to the world. But
the Chinese did not then and do not yet appreciate the benefit,
especially as they saw clearly enough that the motive of the
conqueror was his own aggrandizement.

Unhappily, too, the next war between England and China,
though fundamentally due to the same conditions as the
``Opium War,'' was again precipitated by a quarrel over
opium, the lorcha Arrow loaded with the obnoxious drug and
flying the British flag being seized by the Chinese. Once
more they suffered sore defeat and humiliating terms of peace
in the treaty of 1858. The effort of the Peking Government to
close the Pei-ho River against an armed force caused a third
war in 1860 in which the British and French captured Peking,
and by their excesses and cruelties still further added to the
already long list of reasons why the Chinese should hate their
European foes.

Nor did foreign aggression stop with this war. In 1861,
England, in order to protect her interests at Hongkong, wrested
from China the adjacent peninsula of Kowloon. In 1886, she
took Upper Burma, which China regarded as one of her dependencies.
In 1898, finding that Hongkong was still within
the range of modern cannon in Chinese waters seven miles
away, England calmly took 400 square miles of additional territory,
including Mirs and Deep Bays.

The visitor does not wonder that the British coveted Hongkong,
for it is one of the best harbours in the world. Certainly
no other is more impressive. Noble hills, almost mountains,
for many are over 1,000 feet and the highest is 3,200, rise on
every side. Crafts of all kinds, from sampans and slipper-
boats to ocean liners and war-ships, crowd the waters, for this
is the third greatest port in the world, being exceeded in the
amount of its tonnage only by Liverpool and New York. The
city is very attractive from the water as it lies at the foot and
on the slopes of the famous Peak. The Chinese are said to
number, as in Shanghai, over 300,000, while the foreign population
is only 5,000. But to the superficial observer the proportions
appear reversed as the foreign buildings are so spa-
cious and handsome that they almost fill the foreground. The
business section of the city is hot and steaming, but an inclined
tramway makes the Peak accessible and many of the
British merchants have built handsome villas on that cooler,
breezier summit, 1,800 feet above the sea. The view is superb,
a majestic panorama of mountains, harbour, shipping, islands,
ocean and city. By its possession and fortification of this
island of Hongkong, England to-day so completely controls
the gateway to South China that the Chinese cannot get access
to Canton, the largest city in the Empire, without running the
gauntlet of British guns and mines which could easily sink any
ships that the Peking Government could send against it, and
the whole of the vast and populous basin of the Pearl or West
River is at the mercy of the British whenever they care to take
it. When we add to these invaluable holdings, the rights that
England has acquired in the Yang-tze Valley and at Wei-hai
Wei in Shantung, we do not wonder that Mr. E. H. Parker,
formerly British Consul at Kiung-Chou, rather naively remarks:--

``In view of all this, no one will say, however much in matters of detail
we may have erred in judgment, that Great Britain has failed to secure
for herself, on the whole, a considerable number of miscellaneous commercial
and political advantages from the facheuse situation arising out
of an attitude on the part of the Chinese so hostile to progress.''[42]

[42] ``China,'' pp. 95, 96.

France, as far back as 1787, obtained the Peninsula of
Tourane and the Island of Pulu Condore by ``treaty'' with
the King of Cochin-China. The French soon began to regard
Annam as within their sphere of influence. In 1858, they
seized Saigon and from it as a base extended French power
throughout Cochin-China and Cambodia, the treaty of 1862
giving an enforced legal sanction to these extensive claims.
Not content with this, France steadily pushed her conquests
northward, compelling one concession after another until in
1882, she coolly decided to annex Tong-king. The Chinese
objected, but the war ended in a treaty, signed June 9, 1885,
which gave France the coveted region. These vast regions,
which China had for centuries regarded as tributary provinces,
are now virtually French territory and are openly governed as

The beginnings of Russia's designs upon China are lost in
the haze of mediaeval antiquity. Russian imperial guards are
frequently mentioned at the Mongol Court of Peking in the
thirteenth century.[43] In 1652, the Russians definitely began
their struggle with the Manchus for the Valley of the Amur, a
struggle which in spite of temporary defeats and innumerable
disputes Russia steadily and relentlessly continued until she
obtained the Lower Amur in 1855, the Ussuri district in 1860
and finally, by the Cassini Convention of September, 1896,
the right to extend the Siberian Railway from Nerchinsk
through Manchuria. How Russia pressed her aggressions in
this region we shall have occasion to note in a later chapter.

[43] Parker, ``China,'' p. 96.



THE 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

``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.''[44]

[44] Foster, ``American Diplomacy in the Orient,'' p. 259.

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:--

``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 Scnptures that Western nations have attained their power and prosperity.
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

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 45,000 Chinese in California and 14,000 in Oregon
and Washington. New York has about 6,300 Chinese, Philadelphia
1,150, Boston 1,250, and many other cities have little
groups, while individual Chinese are scattered all over the
country, though the total for the United States, excluding
Alaska and Hawaii, is only 89,863.

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
Tacoma and other Pacific Coast cities almost as sorely as
Americans have suffered in China. Some years ago, they
were wantonly butchered in Rock Springs, Wyoming, and it
was as difficult for the Chinese to get indemnity out of our
Government as it was for the Powers to get indemnity out of
China for the Boxer outrages.

President Cleveland, in a message to Congress in 1885, felt
obliged to make an allusion to this that was doubtless as humiliating
to him as it was to decent Americans everywhere. The
Chinese Minister to the United States, in his presentation of
the case to Secretary of State Bayard, ``massed the evidence
going to show that the massacre of the subjects of a friendly
Power, residing in this country, was as unprovoked as it was
brutal; that the Governor and Prosecuting Attorney of the Territory
openly declared that no man could be punished for the
crime, though the murderers attempted no concealment; and
that all the pretended judicial proceedings were a burlesque.''
All this Mr. Bayard was forced to admit. Indeed he did not
hesitate to characterize the proceedings as ``the wretched
travesty of the forms of justice,'' nor did he conceal his
``indignation at the bloody outrages and shocking wrongs inflicted
upon a body of your countrymen,'' and his mortification
that ``such a blot should have been cast upon the record of our
Government.'' There was sarcastic significance in the cartoon
of the Chicago Inter-Ocean representing a Chinese reading a
daily paper one of whose columns was headed ``Massacre of
Americans in China,'' while the other column bore the heading,
``Massacre of Chinese in America.'' Uncle Sam stands at his
elbow and ejaculates, ``Horrible, isn't it?'' To which the
Celestial blandly inquires, ``Which?''

In the North American Review for March, 1904, Mr.
Wong Kai Kah, an educated Chinese gentleman, plainly but
courteously discusses this subject under the caption of ``A
Menace to America's Oriental Trade.'' He justly complains
that though the exclusion law expressly exempts Chinese
merchants, students and travellers, yet as a matter of fact a
Chinese gentleman is treated on his arrival as if he were a
criminal and is ``detained in the pen on the steamship wharf
or imprisoned like a felon until the customs officials are

The Hon. Chester Holcombe, formerly Secretary of the
American Legation at Peking and a member of the Chinese
Immigration Commission of 1880, cites some illlustrations of
the harshness and unreasonableness of the exclusion law.[45] A
Chinese merchant of San Francisco visited his native land and
brought back a bride, only to find that she was forbidden to
land on American soil. Another Chinese merchant and wife,
of unquestioned standing in San Francisco, made a trip to
China, and while there a child was born. On returning to
their home in America, the sapient officials could interpose no
objection to the readmission of the parents, but peremptorily
refused to admit the three-months old baby, as, never having
been in this country, it had no right to enter it! Neither of
these preposterous decisions could be charged to the stupidity
or malice of the local officials, for both were appealed to the
Secretary of the Treasury in Washington and were officially
sustained by him as in accordance with the law, though in the
latter case, the Secretary, then the Hon. Daniel Manning, in
approving the action, had the courageous good sense to write:
``Burn all this correspondence, let the poor little baby go
ashore, and don't make a fool of yourself.''

[45] Article in The Outlook, April 23, 1904.

Still more irritating and insulting, if that were possible, was
the treatment of the Chinese exhibitors at the Louisiana Purchase
Exposition at St. Louis in 1904. Our Government
formally invited China to participate, sending a special
commission to Peking to urge acceptance. China accepted in
good faith, and then the Treasury Department in Washington
drew up a series of regulations requiring
``that each exhibitor, upon arrival at any seaport in this country, should
be photographed three times for purposes of identification, and should
file a bond in the penal sum of $5,000, the conditions of which were that
he would proceed directly and by the shortest route to St. Louis, would
not leave the Exposition grounds at any time after his arrival there, and
would depart for China by the first steamer sailing after the close of the
Exposition. Thus a sort of Chinese rogues' gallery was to be established
at each port, and the Fair grounds were to be made a prison pen for
those who had come here as invited guests of the nation, whose
presence and aid were needed to make the display a success. It is only
just to add that, upon a most vigorous protest made against these courteous(?)
regulations by the Chinese Government and a threat to cancel their acceptance
or our invitation, the rules were withdrawn and others more decent
substituted. But the fact that they were prepared and seriously presented
to China shows to what an extent of injustice and discourtesy our mistaken
attitude and action in regard to Chinese immigration has carried

No right-minded American can read without poignant shame,
Luella Miner's recent account[46] of the experiences of Fay Chi
Ho and Kung Hsiang Hsi, two Chinese students who, after
showing magnificent devotion to American missionaries during
the horrors of the Boxer massacres, sought to enter the United
States. They were young men of education and Christian
character who wished to complete their education at Oberlin
College, but they were treated by the United States officials at
San Francisco and other cities with a suspicion and brutality
that were ``more worthy of Turkey than of free Christian
America.'' Arriving at the Golden Gate, September 12, 1901,
it was not until January 10, 1903, that they succeeded in
reaching Oberlin, and those sixteen months were filled with indignities
from which all the efforts of influential friends and of
the Chinese Minister to the United States were unable to protect
them. Whatever reasons there may be for excluding
coolie labourers, there can be none for excluding the bright
young men who come here to study. ``An open door for our
merchants, our railway projectors, our missionaries, we cry,
and at the same time we slam the door in the faces of Chinese
merchants and travellers and students--the best classes who
seek our shores.''

[46] ``Two Heroes of Cathay,'' p. 223 sq.

The fear that the Chinese would inundate the United States
if they were permitted to come under the same conditions as
Europeans is not justified by the numbers that came before the
exclusion laws became so stringent, the total Chinese population
of the United States up to 1880, when there was no obstacle
to their coming except the general immigration law, being
only 105,465--the merest handful among our scores of
millions of people. The objections that they are addicted to
gambling and immorality, that they come only for temporary
mercenary purposes and that they do not become members of
the body politic but segregate themselves in special communities,
might be urged with equal justice by the Chinese
against the foreign communities in the port cities of China.
Segregating themselves, indeed! How can the Chinese help
themselves, when they are not allowed to become naturalized
and are treated with a dislike and contempt which force them
back upon one another?

As for the charge that they teach the opium habit to white
boys and girls, it may be safely affirmed that all the Americans
who have acquired that dread habit from the Chinese are not
equal to a tenth of the number of Chinese women and girls
who have been given foul diseases by white men in China.
Mr. Holcombe declares:--

``Our unfair treatment of China in this business will some day return
to plague us. Entirely aside from the cavalier and insulting manner with
which we have dealt with China, and the inevitably injurious effect upon
our relations and interests there, it must be said that our action has been
undignified, unworthy of any great nation, a sad criticism upon our sense
of power and ability to rule our affairs with wisdom and moderation, and
unbecoming our high position among the leading governments of the
world. . . . We have treated Chinese immigrants--never more than
a handful when compared with our population--as though we were in a
frenzy of fear of them. We have forsaken our wits in this question,
abandoned all self-control, and belittled our manhood by treating each
incoming Chinaman as though he were the embodiment of some huge and
hideous power which, once landed upon our shores, could not be dealt
with or kept within bounds. Yet in point of fact he is far more easily
kept in bounds and held obedient to law than some immigrants from Europe.
. . . It must be admitted as beyond question that the coming
of the Chinese to these shores should be held under constant supervision
and strict limitations. And so should immigration from all other countries.
The time has come when we ought to pick and choose with far
greater care than is exercised, and to exclude large numbers who are now
admitted.... It is this discrimination alone which is unjust to
China, which she naturally resents, and which does us serious harm in our
relations with her people.''

Commenting on the regulations promulgated by the Secretary
of Commerce and Labour, July 27, 1903, regarding the
admission of Chinese, the Hon. David J. Brewer, Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, declared:--

``Can anything be more harsh and arbitrary? Coming into a port of
the United States, as these petitioners did into the port of Malone, placed
as they were in a house of detention, shut off from communication with
friends and counsel, examined before an inspector with no one to advise or
counsel, only such witnesses present as the inspector may designate, and
upon an adverse decision compelled to give notice of appeal within two
days, within three days the transcript forwarded to the Commissioner-
General, and nothing to be considered by him except the testimony obtained
in this star chamber proceeding. This is called due process of
law to protect the rights of an American citizen, and sufficient to prevent
inquiry in the courts....

``Must an American citizen, seeking to return to this his native land, be
compelled to bring with him two witnesses to prove the place of his birth
or else be denied his right to return, and all opportunity of establishing
his citizenship in the courts of his country? No such rule is enforced
against an American citizen of Anglo-Saxon descent, and if this be, as
claimed, a government of laws and not of men, I do not think it should
be enforced against American citizens of Chinese descent....

``Finally, let me say that the time has been when many young men
from China came to our educational institutions to pursue their studies
when her commerce sought our shores and her people came to build our
railroads, and when China looked upon this country as her best friend.
If all this be reversed and the most populous nation on earth becomes the
great antagonist of this Republic, the careful student of history will recall
the words of Scripture, `they have sown the wind, and they shall reap
the whirlwind,' and for cause of such antagonism need look no further
than the treatment accorded during the last twenty years by this country
to the people of that nation.''[47]

[47] Dissenting opinion in the case of the United States, Petitioner vs.
Sing Tuck or King Do and thirty-one others, April 25, 1904.

It is not surprising that while Chinese students are turning
in large numbers to other lands, there are only 146 in the
United States. It is a serious matter and it may have a far
reaching effect upon the future of China and of mankind when
the coming men of the Far East, desiring to place themselves in
touch with modern conditions, are compelled to avoid the one
Christian nation in all the world which boasts the most enlightened
institutions and the highest development of liberty.

Meanwhile, Mr. E. H. Parker rather sarcastically remarks:--

``The United States have always been somewhat prone to pose as the good
and disinterested friend of China, who does not sell opium or exercise any
undue political influence. These claims to the exceptional status of all
honest broker have been a little shaken by the sharp treatment of Chinese
in the United States, Honolulu and Manila.''[48]

[48] ``China,'' p. 105.

The Chinese Government long expostulated against the barbarity
and injustice of the exclusion laws and finally, finding
expostulations of no avail, the scholars and merchants of China
organized in 1905 a boycott against American trade. This
quickly brought public feeling in the United States to its
senses. President Roosevelt sternly ordered all local officials
to be humane and sensible in their enforcement of the law under
pain of instant dismissal, and the press began to demand a new
treaty. It is gratifying to know that in the future Chinese
immigrants are likely to be more justly treated, but it is not
pleasant to reflect that the American people apparently cared
little about the iniquity of their anti-Chinese laws until Chinese
resentment touched their pockets.



IN view of some of the facts presented in the two preceding
chapters, it is not surprising that the efforts of foreign
powers to establish diplomatic relations with the Chinese
Government were rather tempestuous. A full account of the
negotiations would require a separate volume. For two generations,
nation after nation sought to protect its growing interests
in China and to secure recognition from the Chinese Government,
only to be met by opposition that was sometimes courteous
and sometimes sullen, but always inflexible until it was
broken down by force. Each envoy on presenting his letters
was politely told in substance that the Chinese official concerned
was extremely busy, that to his deep regret it would not
be possible to grant an immediate conference, but that as soon
as possible he would have pleasure in selecting a ``felicitous
day'' on which they could hold a ``pleasant interview'';[49] and
when the envoys, worn out by the never-ending procrastination,
finally gave up in disgust and announced their intention of returning
home, the typical Chinese official blandly replied, as
the notorious Yeh did to United States Minister Marshall in
January, 1854,--``I avail myself of the occasion to present my
compliments, and trust that, of late, your blessings have been
increasingly tranquil.''[50]

[49] Foster, ``American Diplomacy in the Orient,'' p. 205,

[50] Foster, p. 213.

Scores of European and American diplomatic agents had
substantially the same experience. United States Minister
Reed, in 1858, truly said that the replies of the Chinese to the
memorials and letters of the foreign envoys were characterized
by ``the same unmeaning profession, the same dexterous
sophistry; and, what is more material, the same passive resistance;
the same stolid refusal to yield any point of substance.''[51]

[51] Foster, p. 236.

Nor can it be denied that the Chinese had some ground for
holding foreign nations at arms' length as long as they could,
for with a few exceptions, prominent among whom were some
American ministers, notably Mr. Burlingame, the foreign
envoys were far from being tactful and conciliatory in their
methods of approach to a proud and ancient people. Mr.
Foster reminds us that in the negotiations which terminated in
the treaty of 1858,

``The British were pushing demands not insisted upon by the other
Powers, and they could only be obtained by coercive measures. The reports
in the Blue Books and the London newspapers show that Mr. Lay,
who personally conducted the negotiations for Lord Elgin, when he found
the Chinese commissioners obdurate, was accustomed to raise his voice,
charge them with having `violated their pledged word,' and threaten
them with Lord Elgin's displeasure and the march of the British troops to
Peking. And when this failed to bring them to terms, a strong detachment
of the British army was marched through Tien-tsin to strike terror
into its officials and inhabitants. Lord Elgin in his diary records the climax
of these demonstrations: `I have not written for some days, but they
have been busy ones. We went on fighting and bullying, and getting the
poor commissioners to concede one point after another, till Friday the
25th.' The next day the treaty was signed, and he closes the record as
follows: `Though I have been forced to act almost brutally, I am China's
friend in all this.' There can be no doubt that notwithstanding the seeming
paradox, Lord Elgin was thoroughly sincere in this declaration, and
that his entire conduct was influenced by a high sense of duty and by
what he regarded as the best interests of China.''[52]

[52] ``American Diplomacy in the Orient,'' pp. 241, 242.

But can we wonder that the Chinese were irritated and humiliated
by the method adopted?

That treaty of 1858 gave some notable advantages to foreigners,
for it conceded the rights of foreign nations to send diplomatic
representatives to Peking, the rights of foreigners to
travel, trade, buy, sell and reside in an increasing number of
places, and on the persistent initiative of the French envoy,
powerfully supported by the famous Dr. S. Wells Williams,
Christianity was especially recognized, and the protection, not
only of missionaries but all Chinese converts to Christianity,
was specifically guaranteed. Of course, by the convenient
``most favoured nation clause'' any concession obtained by
one country, was immediately claimed by all other countries.

It was this treaty which included the famous Toleration
Clause regarding Christian missions as follows:

``The principles of the Christian religion, as professed by the Protestant
and Roman Catholic Churches, are recognized as teaching men to do good,
and to do to others as they would have others do to them. Hereafter
those who quietly profess and teach these doctrines shall not be harassed
or persecuted on account of their faith. Any person, whether citizen of the
United States or Chinese convert, who, according to these tenets, shall
peaceably teach and practice the principles of Christianity shall in no
case be interfered with or molested.''

The charge has been made that the toleration clauses were
smuggled into the treaties without the knowledge of the Chinese,
so that the claims to recognition and protection which were
subsequently based upon it rest upon an unfair foundation. It
is indeed possible, as Dr. S. Wells Williams, the author, frankly
admits[53] ``that if the Chinese had at all comprehended what
was involved in these four toleration articles, they would never
have signed one of them.'' But perhaps the same thing might
be said of most treaties that have been signed in Asia. The
fact remains, however, that the articles referred to were not
placed in them without the knowledge of the Chinese. Dr.
Williams explicitly states that he and the Rev. Dr. W. A. P.
Martin, called upon the Chinese Commissioners and that

``some of the articles of our draft were passed without objection, those
relating to toleration (of Christianity in China) and the payment of claims
were copied off to show the Commissioner, those permitting and regulating
visits to Peking were rejected, and others were amended, the colloquy
being conducted with considerable animation and constant good humour
on his part.''[54]

[53] ``The Life and Letters of Samuel Wells Williams, LL. D.,'' p. 271.

[54] ``The Life and Letters of Samuel Wells Williams, LL. D.,'' p. 261.

In a letter written many years afterwards and dated New
Haven, September 12, 1878, Dr. Williams states that the first
draft of the Toleration Clauses was rejected by the Chinese
Commissioners, as he believes at the instigation of the French
Legation, because the clause recognized Protestant missions.
Dr. Williams then states that as soon as he could, he drew up
another form of the same article and laid it before the Chinese
Imperial Commissioners. He writes:--

``It was quite the same article as before, but they accepted it without
any further discussion or alteration; however, the word `whoever' in
my English version was altered by Mr. Reed to `any person, whether citizen
of the United States, or Chinese convert, who'--because he wished
every part of the treaty to refer to United States citizens, and cared not
very much whether it had a toleration article or not. I did care, and was
thankful to God that it was inserted. It is the only treaty in existence
which contains the royal law.''

In Dr. Williams' Journal for June 18, 1858, the following
record appears:

``I went to sleep last night with the impression that after such a reply
from the Minister it would be vain to urge a new draft, but after a restless
sleep I awoke to the idea of trying once more, this time saying nothing
about foreign missionaries. The article was sketched as soon as I could
write it and sent off by a messenger before breakfast; it was a last
chance, and every hope went with it for success. At half-past nine an
answer came. Permission for Christians meeting for worship and the distribution
of books was erased, while the words open ports were inserted
in such a connection that it was rendered illegal for any one, native or
otherwise, to profess Christianity anywhere else. The design was merely
to restrict missionaries to the ports, but the effect would be detrimental in
the highest degree to natives. I decided at once to go to see the Viscount
and try to settle the question with him personally. Chairs were
called, whose bearers seemed to Martin and me an eternity in coming, but
at last we reached the house where Captain Du Pont and his marines so
unexpectedly turned up last Saturday. Our amendment was handed to
Chang, who began to cavil at it, but he was promptly told that he must
take it to the Commissioners for approval as it stood, since this was the
form we were decided on. Our labour and anxiety were all repaid, and
ended by his return in a few minutes announcing Kweilang's assent to
the article as it now stands in the treaty.''

In order to settle this point beyond all possible doubt, I recently
wrote to the Rev. Dr. W. A. P. Martin, now in China,
asking him to give me his recollection of the incident. He replied
as follows:--

``The charge that the toleration article was `smuggled into the treaty
of 1858' is so far from the truth that those who make it can be shown to
be either superficial or uncandid. If it means that `the Chinese did not
know what they were agreeing to, I answer that they could have no
excuse for ignorance. An edict granting toleration had been issued as
early as 1845. This had been followed by more than ten years of missionary
work at the newly opened ports--quite sufficient to make them
acquainted with the character of Protestant missions. Of Roman Catholic
missions prior to the edict, they had centuries of experience. Moreover,
during our negotiations at Tien-tsin, they had ample time for a fresh study
of the subject, the draft of our treaty being under daily discussion for more
than a week before it was signed. Nor was our draft the first to bring up
the question of toleration. The Russian Treaty signed on June 13th (five
days in advance of ours) contained one explicit provision for the toleration
of Christianity under the form of the Greek Church; but it made no
reference to Protestant or Roman Catholic. Not only was the American
Treaty the first to give these a legal status, it gives the Chinese a sample
of Christian teaching in the Golden Rule, which Dr. Williams inserted in
the article expressly to show them what they were agreeing to. Never
were negotiations more open and above board. In their earlier stages I
gave a copy of my book on the Evidences of Christianity to Jushon, one of
the deputies, who was so much pleased with it, that he became my friend
and greeted me warmly on my removal to Peking. That the Chinese
Ministers had any conception of the new force they were admitting into
their country, I do not assert; but I hold strongly that this spiritual force
is the only thing that can raise the Chinese people out of their present
state of semi-barbarism.
``W. A. P. MARTIN.

``Wuchang, China, February 18, 1904.''

It was not until 1861, that legations were established in
Peking. But while this gave foreign nations a solid foothold
at the capital, it did not by any means give them the recognition
that they demanded, for their intercourse with the court
was still hedged about with innumerable exactions and indignities.
The Hon. Thomas Francis Wade, British Minister at
Peking, in a long note to the Chinese Minister Wen Hsiang,
dated June 18, 1871, discussing the troubles that had arisen
between the Chinese and foreigners, justly said:

``It is quite impossible that China should ever attain to a just appreciation
of what foreign Powers expect of her, or that she should insure from
foreign Powers what she conceives due to her, until she have honestly
accepted the conditions of official intercourse which are the sole guarantees
against international differences. The chief of these is an interchange
of representatives. I do not say that it is a panacea for all evil; but it is
incontestable that without it wars would be of far more frequent recurrence,
and till China is represented in the West, I see no hope of our ever
having done with the incessant recriminations and bickerings between the
Yamen and foreign legations, by which the lives of diplomatic agents in
Peking are made weary. If China is wronged, she must make herself
heard; and, on the other hand, if she would abstain from giving offense,
she must learn what is passing in the world beyond her.''

The Chinese Government was slow in coming to this view,
but western nations steadily persisted. One by one new concessions
were wrung from the reluctant Chinese. Mr. E. H.
Parker[55] has tabulated as follows the treaties of foreign powers
with China from 1689 to 1898:--

[55] ``China,'' pp. 113-115.

{Pages 171 to 173 are these tables... They are formatted landscape-wise on
the pages and should be typed in a viewable format or added as an image file.}



NOT content with innumerable aggressions and
extorted treaty concessions, Western nations boldly
discussed the dismemberment of China as certain to
come, and authors and journalists disputed as to which country
should possess the richest parts of the Empire whose impotence
to defend itself was taken for granted. Chinese ministers in
Europe and America reported these discussions to their superiors
in Peking. The English papers in China republished
some of the articles and added many effective ones of their
own, so that speedily all the better-informed Chinese came to
know that foreigners regarded China as ``the carcass of the

Nor was all this talk empty boasting. China saw that France

Book of the day: