What was the “one third extra”? Money due? No. Was it a theft, then?
Putting aside the “one third extra,” what was the _remainder_ of the
exacted indemnity, if collected from persons not _known_ to owe it, and
without Christian and civilized forms of procedure? Was _it_ theft, was
it robbery? In America it would be that; in Christian Europe it would be
that. I have great confidence in Dr. Smith’s judgment concerning this
detail, and he calls it “theft and extortion”--even in China; for he was
talking about the “thirteen times” at the time that he gave it that
strong name.[15] It is his idea that, when you make guilty and innocent
villagers pay the appraised damages, and then make them pay thirteen
times that, besides, the _thirteen_ stand for “theft and extortion.”
Then what does _one third_ extra stand for? Will he give that one third
a name? Is it Modified Theft and Extortion? Is that it? The girl who was
rebuked for having borne an illegitimate child excused herself by
saying, “But it is such a _little_ one.”
When the “thirteen-times-extra” was alleged, it stood for theft and
extortion, in Dr. Smith’s eyes, and he was shocked. But when Dr. Ament
showed that he had taken only a _third_ extra, instead of thirteenfold,
Dr. Smith was relieved, content, happy. I declare I cannot imagine why.
That editor--quoted at the head of this article--was happy about it,
too. I cannot think why. He thought I ought to “make for the amen corner
and formulate a prompt apology.” To whom, and for what? It is too deep
for me.
To Dr. Smith, the “thirteenfold extra” clearly stood for “theft and
extortion,” and he was right, distinctly right, indisputably right. He
manifestly thinks that when it got scaled away down to a mere “one
third,” a little thing like that was something other than “theft and
extortion.” Why? Only the Board knows! I will try to explain this
difficult problem, so that the Board can get an idea of it. If a pauper
owes me a dollar, and I catch him unprotected and make him pay me
fourteen dollars, thirteen of it is “theft and extortion”; if I make him
pay only a dollar and thirty-three and a third cents the thirty-three
and a third cents are “theft and extortion” just the same. I will put it
in another way, still simpler. If a man owes me one dog--any kind of a
dog, the breed is of no consequence--and I----But let it go; the Board
would never understand it. It _can’t_ understand these involved and
difficult things.
But _if_ the Board could understand, then I could furnish some more
instruction--which is this. The one third, obtained by “theft and
extortion,” is _tainted money_, and cannot be purified even by defraying
“church expenses” and “supporting widows and orphans” with it. It has to
be restored to the people it was taken from.
Also, there is another view of these things. By our Christian code of
morals and law, the _whole_ $1.33 1-3, if taken from a man not formally
_proven_ to have committed the damage the dollar represents, is “theft
and extortion.” It cannot be honestly used for any purpose at all. It
must be handed back to the man it was taken from.
Is there no way, then, to justify these thefts and extortions and make
them clean and fair and honorable? Yes, there is. It can be done; it has
been done; it continues to be done--by revising the Ten Commandments and
bringing them down to date: for use in pagan lands. For example:
_Thou shalt not steal_--except when it is the custom of the country.
This way out is recognized and _approved_ by all the best authorities,
including the Board. I will cite witnesses.
_The newspaper cutting, above_: “Dr. Ament declares that all the
collections which he made were approved by the _Chinese_ officials.” The
editor is satisfied.
_Dr. Ament’s cable to Dr. Smith_: “All collections received approval
_Chinese_ officials.” Dr. Ament is satisfied.
_Letters from eight clergymen_--all to the same effect: Dr. Ament merely
did as the _Chinese_ do. So they are satisfied.
_Mr. Ward, of the “Independent.”_
_The Rev. Dr. Washington Gladden._
I have mislaid the letters of these gentlemen and cannot quote their
words, but they are of the satisfied.
_The Rev. Dr. Smith_, in his Open Letter, published in the _Tribune:_
“The whole procedure [Dr. Ament’s] is in accordance with a custom among
the _Chinese_, of holding a village responsible for wrongs suffered in
that village, and especially making the head man of the village
accountable for wrongs committed there.” Dr. Smith is satisfied. Which
means that the Board is satisfied.
The “head man”! Why, then, this poor rascal, innocent or guilty, must
pay the whole bill, if he cannot squeeze it out of his poor-devil
neighbors. But, indeed, he can be depended upon to try, even to the
skinning them of their last brass farthing, their last rag of clothing,
their last ounce of food. He can be depended upon to get the indemnity
out of them, though it cost stripes and blows, blood-tears, and flesh.