The Political Force and the National
Protest
XII
THE AGGRESSIONS OF EUROPEAN POWERS
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
Chinese.
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
Manila.
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
added:--
[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
such.
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.
XIII
THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA
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
that,
``should at any time the Ta-Tsing Empire grant to any nation or the
merchants or citizens of any nation any right, privileges or favour connected
with either navigation, commerce, political or other intercourse which is
not conferred by this treaty, such right, privilege and favour shall at once
freely inure to the benefit of the United States, its public officers,
merchants and citizens.''
In the settlement of damages, the Chinese agreed to pay to
the United States half a million taels, then worth $735,288.
When the adjustments with individual claimants left a balance
of $453,400 in the treasury, Congress, to the unbounded and
grateful surprise of the Chinese, gave it back to them. Mr. Burlingame,
the celebrated United States Minister to China, became
the most popular foreign minister in Peking within a
short time after his arrival in 1862, and so highly did the
Chinese Government appreciate his efforts in its behalf that
during the American Civil War it promptly complied with his
request to issue an edict forbidding all Confederate ships of
war from entering Chinese ports. Mr. Foster declares that
``such an order enforced by the governments of Europe would
have saved the American commercial marine from destruction
and shortened the Civil War.''[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
States.''
But while the Government of the United States has been
thus considerate and just in its dealings with the Chinese in
China, it has, singularly enough, been most inconsiderate and
unjust in its treatment of Chinese in its own territory, and its
policy in this respect has done not a little to exasperate the
Chinese. The Chinese began to come to America in 1848,
when two men and one woman arrived in San Francisco on
the brig Eagle. The discovery of gold soon brought multitudes,
the year 1852 alone seeing 2,026 arrivals. There are
now about 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
satisfied.''
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
us.''
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.
XIV
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS--TREATIES
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.}
XV
RENEWED AGGRESSIONS
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
East.''
Nor was all this talk empty boasting. China saw that France
was absorbing Siam and had designs on Syria; that Britain was
already lord of India and Egypt and the Straits Settlements;
that Germany was pressing her claims in Asiatic Turkey; that
Russia had absorbed Siberia and was striving to obtain control
of Palestine, Persia and Korea; and that Italy was trying to
take Abyssinia. Moreover the Chinese perceived that of the
numerous islands of the world, France had the Loyalty, Society,
Marquesas, New Hebrides and New Caledonia groups, and
claimed the Taumotu or Low Archipelago; that Great Britain
had the Fiji, Cook, Gilbert, Ellice, Phoenix, Tokelan and New
Zealand groups, with northern Borneo, Tasmania, and the
whole of continental Australia, besides a large assortment of
miscellaneous islands scattered over the world wherever they
would do the most good; that Germany possessed the Marshall
group and Northeast New Guinea, and divided with England
the Solomons; that Spain had the Ladrones, the 652 islands
of the Carolines, the 1,725 more or less of the Philippines,
beside some enormously valuable holdings in the West Indies;
that the Dutch absolutely ruled Java, Sumatra, the greater part
of Borneo, all of Celebes and the hundreds of islands eastward
to New Guinea, half of which was under the Dutch flag; that
the new world power on the American continent took the
Hawaiian Islands and in two swift campaigns drove Spain out
of the West Indies and the Philippines, not to return them to
their inhabitants but to keep them herself; and that in the
Samoan and Friendly Islands, resident foreigners owned about
everything worth having and left to the native chiefs only what
the foreigners did not want or could not agree upon. As for
mighty Africa, the Berlin Conference of 1884 was the signal
for a game of grab on so colossal a scale that to-day out of
Africa's 11,980,000 square miles, France owns 3,074,000,
Great Britain 2,818,000, Turkey 1,672,000, Belgium 900,000,
Portugal 834,000, Germany 864,000, Italy 596,000, and Spain
263,000,--a total of 10,980,000, or ten-elevenths of the whole
continent, and doubtless the Powers will take the remaining
eleventh whenever they feel like it. Well does the Rev. Dr.
James Stewart call this ``the most stupendous and unparalleled
partition of the earth's surface ever known in the world's
history. . . . The vast area was partitioned, annexed, appropriated,
or converted into `spheres of influence,' or `spheres
of interest'; whatever may be the exact words we may use,
the result is the same. Coast lands and hinterlands all went
in this great appropriation, and mild is the term for the deed.''[56]
[56] ``Dawn in the Dark Continent,'' pp. 17, 18.
``Gobbling the globe,'' this process has been forcefully if
inelegantly termed. No wonder that the white race has been
bitterly described as ``the most arrogant and rapacious, the
most exclusive and intolerant race in history.''
We can understand, therefore, the alarm of the Chinese as
they saw the greedy foreigners descend upon their own shores
in such ways as to justify the fear that what remained of the
Celestial Empire, too, would be speedily reduced to vassalage.
Germany, which was among the last of the European powers
to obtain a foothold in China, but which had been growing
more and more uneasy as she saw the acquisitions of her rivals,
suddenly found her opportunity in the murder of two German
Roman Catholic priests in the province of Shantung, December
1897, and on the 14th of that month Admiral Diedrich landed
marines at Kiao-chou Bay. At that time nothing but a few
straggling, poverty-stricken Chinese villages were to be seen at
the foot of the barren hills bordering the bay. But the keen
eye of Germany had detected the possibilities of the place and
early in the following year, under the forms of an enforced
ninety-nine year lease, Germany took this splendid harbour
and the territory bordering it, and at Tsing-tau began to push
her interests so aggressively that the whole province of Shantung
was thrown into the most intense excitement and alarm.
Knowing how recently the city had been founded, I looked
upon it with wonder. It was only three years and a half since
the Germans had taken possession, but no boom city in the
United States ever made more rapid progress in so short a
period. Not a Chinese house could be seen, except a village
in the distance. But along the shores rose a city of modern
buildings with banks, department stores, public buildings, comfortable
residences, a large church and imposing marine barracks.
Landing, I found broad streets, some of them already
well paved and others being paved by removing the dirt to a
depth of twelve inches and then filling the excavation solid
with broken rock. The gutters were wide and of stone, the
sewers deep and, in some cases, cut through the solid rock.
The city was under naval control, the German Governor
being a naval officer. Several war-ships were lying in the harbour.
A large force of marines was on shore, and the hills
commanding the city and harbour were bristling with cannon.
The Germans were spending money without stint. No less
than 11,000,000 marks were being expended that year for
streets, sewers, water and electric light works, barracks, fortifications,
wharves, a handsome hotel and public buildings, while
the Government had appropriated 50,000,000 Mex. (5,000,000
a year for ten years) for deepening and enlarging the inner
harbour. But in addition to these Government expenditures,
many enterprising business men were undertaking large enterprises
on their own account. It was apparent to the most
casual observer that Germany had entered Shantung to stay
and that she considered the whole vast province of Shantung
as her sphere of influence. The railway, already referred to
in a former chapter, was being constructed into the interior
with solid road-bed, steel ties and substantial stone stations.
German mining engineers were prospecting for minerals and
everything indicated large plans for a permanent occupation.
The site of Tsing-tau is beautiful and exceptionally healthful.
While the ports of Teng-chou and Chefoo are also in Shantung,
the first is now of little importance, for it is on the northeastern
part of the promontory with a mountain range behind
it so that it is difficult of access from the interior. Chefoo,
which was not opened as a port until later, rapidly superseded
Teng-chou in importance and continues to grow with great
rapidity. But it is plain that the Germans intend to make
Tsing-tau, only twenty hours distant by steamer, the chief port
of Shantung, and as they have the railroad, they will doubtless
succeed.
From hundreds of outlying villages, the Chinese are flocking
into Tsing-tau, attracted by the remunerative employment
which the Germans offer, for of course, tens of thousands of
labourers are necessary to carry out the extensive improvements
that are planned. The thrifty Chinese are quite willing to
take the foreigner's money, however much they may dislike
him. Since the white man is here, we might as well get what
we can out of him, the Celestials philosophically argue. And
so the Germans, who had ruthlessly destroyed the old, unsani-
tary Chinese villages which they had found on their arrival,
laid out model Chinese villages on the outskirts of the city.
The new Chinese city is about two and a half miles from the
foreign city and is connected with it by a splendid macadamized
road for which the Germans filled ravines, cut through
the solid rock of the hillsides and made retaining walls and
culverts of solid masonry. Some of the old stone houses were
allowed to remain, but many of the poorer houses were demolished,
streets were straightened and the whole city placed under
strict sanitary supervision. The Chinese as they came in were
told where and how their houses must be erected on the regularly
laid out streets. The houses are numbered and many
of the stores have signs in both German and Chinese. At the
time of my visit, the Chinese city had a population of 8,000,
the streets were crowded, and marketing, picture and theatrical
exhibitions and all the forms of life, so common in Chinese
cities, were to be seen on every side. Since then, the population
has greatly increased, while another Chinese city has been
laid out on the open ground on the other side of the foreign
city. There is every indication that Tsing-tau is to become
one of the great port cities of China, and the opportunities for
trade, the coming of steamships and the construction of the
railway are making it an attractive place to multitudes of
ambitious Chinese.
The German Government owns all the land in and about
Tsing-tau, and will not sell save on condition that approved
buildings are erected within three years. The single tax
plan has been adopted, that is, there is no tax on buildings
but there is a six per cent. tax on all land that is sold. This
shuts out the land speculator who has injured so many American
cities. No man can buy cheap land and let it lie idle while
it rises in value as the result of his neighbour's improvements and
the growth of the community. The German Government will
do its own speculating and reap for itself the increment of its
costly and elaborate improvements. It is making a noble city.
Streets, sewers, buildings, docks, sea walls, harbour-dredging,
tree planting--all point to great and far-reaching plans, while
under pretext of guarding the railroad, troops are being gradually
pushed into the interior. The Kaomi garrison, in the hinterland
eighteen miles beyond the Kiao-chou city line and sixty-
four from Tsing-tau, consisted of 100 men when I was there
in the spring of 1901. A few months later it was 1,000.
Plainly the Germans are moving in.