The question has often been asked "Which are the civilized nations?"
And the answer has been, "All Europe and America." To the query, "What
about the nations in the East?" the answer has been made that with the
exception of Japan, who has now become a great civilized power, the
other nations are more or less civilized. When the matter is further
pressed and it is asked, "What about China?" the general reply is, "She
is semi-civilized," or in other words, not so civilized as the nations
in the West.
Before pronouncing such an opinion justifiable, let us consider the
plain facts. I take it that civilization inculcates culture,
refinement, humane conduct, fair dealing and just treatment. Amiel
says, "Civilization is first and foremost a moral thing." There is no
doubt that the human race, especially in the West, has improved
wonderfully within the last century. Many inventions and discoveries
have been made, and men are now able to enjoy comforts which could not
have been obtained before.
From a material point of view we have certainly progressed, but do the
"civilized" people in the West live longer than the so-called
semi-civilized races? Have they succeeded in prolonging their lives?
Are they happier than others? I should like to hear their answers. Is
it not a fact that Americans are more liable to catch cold than
Asiatics; with the least change of air, and with the slightest
appearance of an epidemic are they not more easily infected than
Asiatics? If so, why? With their genius for invention why have they
not discovered means to safeguard themselves so that they can live
longer on this earth? Again, can Americans say that they are happier
than the Chinese? From personal observation I have formed the opinion
that the Chinese are more contented than Americans, and on the whole
happier; and certainly one meets more old people in China than in
America. Since the United States of America is rich, well governed,
and provided with more material comforts than China, Americans, one
would think, should be happier than we are, but are they? Are there
not many in their midst who are friendless and penurious? In China no
man is without friends, or if he is, it is his own fault. "Virtue is
never friendless," said Confucius, and, as society is constituted in
China, this is literally true. If this is not so in America I fear
there is something wrong with that boasted civilization, and that their
material triumphs over the physical forces of nature have been paid
dearly for by a loss of insight into her profound spiritualities.
Perhaps some will understand when I quote Lao Tsze's address to
Confucius on "Simplicity". "The chaff from winnowing will blind a man.
Mosquitoes will bite a man and keep him awake all night, and so it is
with all the talk of yours about charity and duty to one's neighbor, it
drives one crazy. Sir, strive to keep the world in its original
simplicity--why so much fuss? The wind blows as it listeth, so let
virtue establish itself. The swan is white without a daily bath, and
the raven is black without dyeing itself. When the pond is dry and the
fishes are gasping for breath it is of no use to moisten them with a
little water or a little sprinkling. Compared to their original and
simple condition in the pond and the rivers it is nothing."
Henry Ward Beecher says, "Wealth may not produce civilization, but
civilization produces money," and in my opinion while wealth may be
used to promote happiness and health it as often injures both.
Happiness is the product of liberality, intelligence and service to
others, and the reflex of happiness is health. My contention is that
the people who possess these good qualities in the greatest degree are
the most civilized. Now civilization, as mentioned in the previous
chapter, was born in the East and travelled westward. The law of
nature is spiral, and inasmuch as Eastern civilization taught the
people of the West, so Western civilization, which is based upon
principles native to the East, will return to its original source. No
nation can now remain shut up within itself without intercourse with
other nations; the East and the West can no longer exist separate and
apart. The new facilities for transportation and travel by land and
water bring all nations, European, American, Asiatic and African, next
door to each other, and when the art of aviation is more advanced and
people travel in the air as safely as they now cross oceans, the
relationships of nations will become still closer.
What effect will this have on mankind? The first effect will be, I
should say, greater stability. As interests become common, destructive
combats will vanish. All alike will be interested in peace. It is a
gratifying sign that within recent years the people of America have
taken a prominent part in peace movements, and have inaugurated peace
congresses, the members of which represent different sections of the
country. Annual gatherings of this order must do much to prevent war
and to perpetuate peace, by turning people's thoughts in the right
direction. Take, for instance, the Lake Mohonk Conference on
International Arbitration, which was started by a private gentleman,
Mr. A. K. Smiley, who was wont every year to invite prominent officials
and others to his beautiful summer place at Lake Mohonk for a
conference. He has passed away, to the regret of his many friends, but
the good movement still continues, and the nineteenth annual conference
was held under the auspices of his brother, Mr. Daniel Smiley. Among
those present, there were not only eminent Americans, such as Dr. C. W.
Eliot, President Emeritus of Harvard University, Ex-American Ambassador
C. Tower, Dr. J. Taylor, President of Vassar College, and Dr. Lyman
Abbott, but distinguished foreigners such as J. A. Baker, M.P., of
England, Herr Heinrich York Steiner, of Vienna, and many others. Among
the large number of people who support this kind of movement, and the
number is increasing every day, the name of Mr. Andrew Carnegie stands
out very prominently. This benevolent gentleman is a most vigorous
advocate of International Peace, and has spent most of his time and
money for that purpose. He has given ten million dollars (gold) for
the purpose of establishing the Carnegie Peace Fund; the first
paragraph in his long letter to the trustees is worthy of reproduction,
as it expresses his strong convictions:
"I have transferred to you," he says, "as Trustees of the Carnegie
Peace Fund, ten million dollars of five per cent. mortgage bonds, the
revenue of which is to be administered by you to hasten the abolition
of international war, the foulest blot upon our civilization. Although
we no longer eat our fellowmen nor torture our prisoners, nor sack
cities, killing their inhabitants, we still kill each other in war like
barbarians. Only wild beasts are excusable for doing that in this the
Twentieth Century of the Christian era, for the crime of war is
inherent, since it decides not in favor of the right, but always of the
strong. The nation is criminal which refuses arbitration and drives
its adversary to a tribunal which knows nothing of righteous judgment."
I am glad to say that I am familiar with many American magazines and
journals which are regularly published to advocate peace, and I have no
doubt that in every country similar movements are stirring, for the
nations are beginning to realize the disastrous effects of war. If I
am not mistaken, however, Americans are the most active in this matter.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, whose members belong
to nearly every nation, is a significant index of the spirit of the
times. Yet what an irony of fate that while people are so active in
perpetuating peace they cannot preserve it. Look at the recent wars in
Europe, first between Italy and Turkey, and afterward in the Balkans,
to say nothing of disturbances in China and other parts of the world.
It is just like warning a child not to take poison and then allowing
him to swallow it and die. Sensible men should consider this question
calmly and seriously. We all agree as to the wickedness of war and yet
we war with one another; we do not like war yet we cannot help war.
There is surely some hidden defect in the way we have been brought up.
Is not the slogan of nationality, to a great extent, the root of the
evil? Every schoolboy and schoolgirl is taught the duty of devotion,
or strong attachment, to his or her own country, and every statesman or
public man preaches the doctrine of loyalty to one's native land; while
the man who dares to render service to another country, the interests
of which are opposed to the interests of his own land, is denounced a
traitor. In such cases the individual is never allowed an opinion as
to the right or wrong of the dispute. He is expected to support his
own country and to cry at all times, "Our country, right or wrong." A
politician's best chance to secure votes is to gloss over the faults of
his own party or nation, to dilate on the wickedness of his neighbors
and to exhort his compatriots to be loyal to their national flag. Can
it be wondered at that men who are imbued with such doctrines become
selfish and narrow-minded and are easily involved in quarrels with
other nations?
Patriotism is, of course, the national life. Twenty-four centuries
ago, speaking in the Greek Colony of Naxos, Pythagoras described this
emotion in the following eloquent passage: "Listen, my children, to
what the State should be to the good citizen. It is more than father
or mother, it is more than husband or wife, it is more than child or
friend. The State is the father and mother of all, is the wife of the
husband and the husband of the wife. The family is good, and good is
the joy of the man in wife and in son. But greater is the State, which
is the protector of all, without which the home would be ravaged and
destroyed. Dear to the good man is the honor of the woman who bore
him, dear the honor of the wife whose children cling to his knees; but
dearer should be the honor of the State that keeps safe the wife and
the child. It is the State from which comes all that makes your life
prosperous, and gives you beauty and safety. Within the State are
built up the arts, which make the difference between the barbarian and
the man. If the brave man dies gladly for the hearthstone, far more
gladly should he die for the State."
But only when the State seeks the good of the governed, for said
Pythagoras on another occasion: "Organized society exists for the
happiness and welfare of its members; and where it fails to secure
these it stands ipso facto condemned."
But to-day should the State be at war with another, and any citizen or
section of citizens believe their own country wrong and the opposing
nation wronged, they dare not say so, or if they do they run great risk
of being punished for treason. Men and women though no longer bought
and sold in the market place are subjected to subtler forms of serfdom.
In most European countries they are obliged to fight whether they will
or not, and irrespective of their private convictions about the
dispute; even though, as is the case in some European countries, they
may be citizens from compulsion rather than choice, they are not free
to abstain from active participation in the quarrel. Chinese
rebellions are said to "live on loot", i.e., on the forcible
confiscation of private property, but is that worse than winning
battles on the forcible deprivation of personal liberty? This is
nationalism gone mad! It fosters the desire for territory grabbing and
illustrates a fundamental difference between the Orient and the
Occident. With us government is based on the consent of the governed
in a way that the Westerner can hardly understand, for his passion to
expand is chronic. Small nations which are over-populated want
territory for their surplus population; great nations desire territory
to extend their trade, and when there are several great powers to
divide the spoil they distribute it among themselves and call it
"spheres of influence", and all in honor of the god Commerce. In China
the fundamentals of our social system are brotherhood and the dignity
of labor.
What, I ask, is the advantage of adding to national territory? Let us
examine the question calmly. If a town or a province is seized the
conqueror has to keep a large army to maintain peace and order, and
unless the people are well disposed to the new authority there will be
constant trouble and friction. All this, I may say, in passing, is
opposed to our Confucian code which bases everything on reason and
abhors violence. We would rather argue with a mob and find out, if
possible, its point of view, than fire on it. We have yet to be
convinced that good results flow from the use of the sword and the
cannon. Western nations know no other compulsion.
If, however, the acquisition of new territory arises from a desire to
develop the country and to introduce the most modern and improved
systems of government, without ulterior intentions, then it is beyond
praise, but I fear that such disinterested actions are rare. The
nearest approach to such high principle is the purchase of the
Philippine Islands by the United States. I call it "purchase" because
the United States Government paid a good price for the Islands after
having seized the territory. The intentions of the Government were
well known at the time. Since her acquisition of those Islands,
America has been doing her best to develop their resources and expand
their trade. Administrative and judicial reforms have been introduced,
liberal education has been given to the natives, who are being trained
for self-government. It has been repeatedly and authoritatively
declared by the United States that as soon as they are competent to
govern themselves without danger of disturbances, and are able to
establish a stable government, America will grant independence to those
islands. I believe that when the proper time comes she will fulfill
her word, and thus set a noble example to the world.
The British in Hongkong afford an illustration of a different order,
proving the truth of my contention that, excepting as a sphere for the
exercise of altruism, the acquisition of new territories is an illusive
gain. When Hongkong was ceded to Great Britain at the conclusion of a
war in which China was defeated, it was a bare island containing only a
few fishermen's huts. In order to make it a trading port and encourage
people to live there, the British Government spent large sums of money
year after year for its improvement and development, and through the
wise administration of the local Government every facility was afforded
for free trade. It is now a prosperous British colony with a
population of nearly half a million. But what have been the advantages
to Great Britain? Financially she has been a great loser, for the
Island which she received at the close of her war with China was for
many years a great drain on her national treasury. Now Hongkong is a
self-supporting colony, but what benefits do the British enjoy there
that do not belong to everyone else? The colony is open to all
foreigners, and every right which a British merchant has is equally
shared with everyone else. According to the census of 1911, out of a
population of 456,739 only 12,075 were non-Chinese, of whom a small
portion were British; the rest were Chinese. Thus the prosperity of
that colony depends upon the Chinese who, it is needless to say, are in
possession of all the privileges that are enjoyed by British residents.
It should be noticed that the number of foreign firms and stores (i.e.,
non-British) have been and are increasing, while big British hongs are
less numerous than before. Financially, the British people have
certainly not been gainers by the acquisition of that colony. Of
course I shall be told that it adds to the prestige of Great Britain,
but this is an empty, bumptious boast dearly paid for by the British
tax-payer.
From an economic and moral point of view, however, I must admit that a
great deal of good has been done by the British Government in Hongkong.
It has provided the Chinese with an actual working model of a Western
system of government which, notwithstanding many difficulties, has
succeeded in transforming a barren island into a prosperous town, which
is now the largest shipping port in China. The impartial
administration of law and the humane treatment of criminals cannot but
excite admiration and gain the confidence of the natives. If the
British Government, in acquiring the desert island, had for its purpose
the instruction of the natives in a modern system of government, she is
to be sincerely congratulated, but it is feared that her motives were
less altruistic.
These remarks apply equally, if not with greater force, to the other
colonies or possessions in China under the control of European Powers,
as well as to the other colonies of the British Empire, such as
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and others which are called
"self-governing dominions". The Imperial Government feels very tender
toward these colonists, and practically they are allowed to manage
their affairs as they like. Since they are so generously treated and
enjoy the protection of so great a power, there is no fear that these
self-governing dominions will ever become independent of their mother
country; but if they ever should do so, it is most improbable that she
would declare war against them, as the British people have grown wiser
since their experience with the American colonists. British statesmen
have been awakened to the necessity of winning the good-will of their
colonists, and within recent years have adopted the policy of inviting
the Colonial premiers to London to discuss questions affecting Imperial
and Colonial interests. Imperial federation seems to be growing
popular with the British and it is probable that in the future England,
Scotland, Wales, and Ireland will each have its own parliament, with an
Imperial Parliament, sitting at Westminster, containing representatives
from all parts of the British Empire, but America is the only nation
which has added to her responsibilities with the avowed purpose of
making semi-civilized tribes independent, self-governing colonies, and
America is almost the only great power that has never occupied or held
territory in China.
Let me ask again what is the object of nations seeking new possessions?
Is it for the purpose of trade? If so, the object can be obtained
without acquiring territory. In these days of enlightenment anyone can
go to any country and trade without restriction, and in the British
colonies the alien is in the same position as the native. He is not
hampered by "permits" or other "red-tape" methods. Is it for the
purpose of emigration? In Europe, America and all the British
colonies, so far as I know, white people, unless they are paupers or
undesirables, can emigrate to any country and after a short period
become naturalized.
Some statesmen would say that it is necessary for a great power to have
naval bases or coaling stations in several parts of the world. This
presupposes preparations for war; but if international peace were
maintained, such possessions would be useless and the money spent on
them wasted. In any case it is unproductive expenditure. It is the
fashion for politicians (and I am sorry to find them supported by
eminent statesmen) to preach the doctrine of armaments; they allege
that in order to preserve peace it is necessary to be prepared for war,
that a nation with a large army or navy commands respect, and that her
word carries weight. This argument cuts both ways, for a nation
occupying such a commanding position may be unreasonable and a terror
to weaker nations. If this high-toned doctrine continues where will it
end? We shall soon see every nation arming to the teeth for the sake
of her national honor and safety, and draining her treasury for the
purpose of building dreadnaughts and providing armaments. When such a
state of things exists can international peace be perpetuated? Will
not occasion be found to test those war implements and to utilize the
naval and military men? When you purchase a knife don't you expect to
use it? Mr. Lloyd George, the English Chancellor of the Exchequer, in
a speech in which he lamented the ever-increasing but unnecessary
expenditure on armaments, said in Parliament: "I feel confident that
it will end in a great disaster--I won't say to this country, though it
is just possible that it may end in a disaster here." A man with a
revolver sometimes invites attack, lest what was at first intended only
for a defense should become a menace.
When discussing the craze of the Western nations for adding to their
territories I said that white people can emigrate to any foreign
country that they please, but it is not so with the yellow race. It
has been asserted with authority that some countries are reserved
exclusively for the white races, and with this object in view laws have
been enacted prohibiting the natives of Asia from becoming naturalized
citizens, besides imposing very strict and almost prohibitory
regulations regarding their admission. Those who support such a policy
hold that they, the white people, are superior to the yellow people in
intellect, in education, in taste, and in habits, and that the yellow
people are unworthy to associate with them. Yet in China we have
manners, we have arts, we have morals, and we have managed a fairly
large society for thousands of years without the bitter class hatreds,
class divisions, and class struggles that have marred the fair progress
of the West. We have not enslaved our lives to wealth. We like luxury
but we like other things better. We love life more than chasing
imitations of life.
Our differences of color, like our differences of speech, are
accidental, they are due to climatic and other influences. We came
originally from one stock. We all started evenly, Heaven has no
favorites. Man alone has made differences between man and man, and the
yellow man is no whit inferior to the white people in intelligence.
During the Russo-Japan War was it not the yellow race that displayed
the superior intelligence? I am sometimes almost tempted to say that
Asia will have to civilize the West over again. I am not bitter or
sarcastic, but I do contend that there are yet many things that the
white races have to learn from their colored brethren. In India, in
China, and in Japan there are institutions which have a stability
unknown outside Asia. Religion has apparently little influence on
Western civilization; it is the corner-stone of society in all Asiatic
civilizations. The result is that the colored races place morality in
the place assigned by their more practical white confreres to economic
propositions. We think, as we contemplate the West, that white people
do not understand comfort because they have no leisure to enjoy
contentment; THEY measure life by accumulation, WE by morality. Family
ties are stronger with the so-called colored races than they are among
the more irresponsible white races; consequently the social sense is
keener among the former and much individual suffering is avoided. We
have our vices, but these are not peculiar to US; and, at least, we
have the merit of being easily governed. Wherever there are Chinese
colonies the general verdict is: "The Chinese make good citizens."
This is what the late Sir Robert Hart, to whom China owes her Customs
organization, said about us:
"They (the Chinese) are well-behaved, law-abiding, intelligent,
economical, and industrious; they can learn anything and do anything;
they are punctiliously polite, they worship talent, and they believe in
right so firmly that they scorn to think it requires to be supported or
enforced by might; they delight in literature, and everywhere they have
their literary clubs and coteries for learning and discussing each
other's essays and verses; they possess and practise an admirable
system of ethics, and they are generous, charitable, and fond of good
work; they never forget a favor, they make rich return for any
kindness, and though they know money will buy service, a man must be
more than wealthy to win esteem and respect; they are practical,
teachable, and wonderfully gifted with common sense; they are excellent
artisans, reliable workmen, and of a good faith that everyone
acknowledges and admires in their commercial dealings; in no country
that is or was, has the commandment 'Honor thy father and thy mother',
been so religiously obeyed, or so fully and without exception given
effect to, and it is in fact the keynote of their family, social,
official and national life, and because it is so their days are long in
the land God has given them."
The cry of "America for the Americans" or "Australia for the
Australians" is most illogical, for those people were not the original
owners of the soil; with far greater reason we in the far East might
shout, "China for the Chinese", "Japan for the Japanese". I will quote
Mr. T. S. Sutton, English Secretary of the Chinese-American League of
Justice, on this point. "The most asinine whine in the world," he
says, "is that of 'America for the Americans' or 'China for the
Chinese', etc. It is the hissing slogan of greed, fear, envy,
selfishness, ignorance and prejudice. No man, no human being who calls
himself a man, no Christian, no sane or reasonable person, should or
could ever be guilty of uttering that despicable wail. God made the
world for all men, and if God has any preference, if God is any
respecter of persons, He must surely favor the Chinese, for He has made
more of them than of any other people on the globe. 'America for the
aboriginal Indians' was once the cry. Then when the English came over
it changed to 'America for the English', later 'America for the
Puritans', and around New Orleans they cried 'America for the French'.
In Pennsylvania the slogan was 'America for the Dutch', etc., but the
truth remains that God has set aside America as 'the melting pot' of
the world, the land to which all people may come, and from which there
has arisen, and will continue to rise, a great mixed race, a
cosmopolitan nation that may, if it is not misled by prejudice and
ignorance, yet lead the world." Although Mr. Sutton's phraseology is
somewhat strong, his arguments are sound and unanswerable.
I now pass to some less controversial aspects of my theme, and note a
praiseworthy custom that is practically unknown in the Far East. I
refer to the habit of international marriages which are not only common
in cosmopolitan America but are of daily occurrence in Europe also,
among ordinary people as well as the royal families of Europe, so that
nearly all the European courts are related one to the other. This is a
good omen for a permanent world-peace. There have been some marriages
of Asiatics with Europeans and Americans, and they should be
encouraged. Everything that brings the East and West together and
helps each to understand the other better, is good. The offspring from
such mixed unions inherit the good points of both sides. The head
master of the Queen's College in Hongkong, where there are hundreds of
boys of different nationalities studying together, once told me that
formerly at the yearly examination the prizes were nearly all won by
the Chinese students, but that in later years when Eurasian boys were
admitted, they beat the Chinese and all the others, and generally came
out the best. Not only in school but in business also they have turned
out well. It is well known that the richest man in Hongkong is a
Eurasian. It is said that the father of Aguinaldo, the well-known
Philippine leader, was a Chinese. There is no doubt that mixed
marriages of the white with the yellow races will be productive of good
to both sides. But do Chinese really make good husbands? my lady
friends ask. I will cite the case of an American lady. Some years ago
a Chinese called on me at my Legation in Washington accompanied by an
American lady and a girl. The lady was introduced to me as his wife
and the girl as his daughter; I naturally supposed that the lady was
the girl's mother, but she told me that the girl was the daughter of
her late intimate friend, and that after her death, knowing that the
child's father had been a good and affectionate husband to her friend,
she had gladly become his second wife, and adopted his daughter.
Those who believe in reincarnation (and I hope most of my readers do,
as it is a clue to many mysteries) understand that when people are
reincarnated they are not always born in the same country or continent
as that in which they lived in their previous life. I have an
impression that in one of my former existences I was born and brought
up in the United States. In saying this I do not express the slightest
regrets at having now been born in Asia. I only wish to give a hint to
those white people who advocate an exclusive policy that in their next
life they may be born in Asia or Africa, and that the injury they are
now inflicting on the yellow people they may themselves have to suffer
in another life.
While admitting that we Chinese have our faults and that in some
matters we have much to learn, especially from the Americans, we at
least possess one moral quality, magnanimity, while the primal virtues
of industry, economy, obedience, and love of peace, combined with a
"moderation in all things", are also common among us. Our people have
frequently been slighted or ill-treated but we entertain no revengeful
spirit, and are willing to forget. We believe that in the end right
will conquer might. Innumerable as have been the disputes between
Chinese and foreigners it can at least be said, without going into
details, that we have not, in the first instance, been the aggressors.
Let me supply a local illustration showing how our faults are always
exaggerated. Western people are fond of horse-racing. In Shanghai
they have secured from the Chinese a large piece of ground where they
hold race meetings twice a year, but no Chinese are allowed on the
grand-stand during the race days. They are provided with a separate
entrance, and a separate enclosure, as though they were the victims of
some infectious disease. I have been told that a few years ago a
Chinese gentleman took some Chinese ladies into the grand-stand and
that they misbehaved; hence this discriminatory treatment of Chinese.
It is proper that steps should be taken to preserve order and decency
in public places, but is it fair to interdict the people of a nation on
account of the misconduct of two or three? Suppose it had been Germans
who had misbehaved themselves (which is not likely), would the race
club have dared to exclude Germans from sharing with other nations the
pleasures of the races?
In contrast with this, let us see what the Chinese have done. Having
learned the game of horse-racing from the foreigners in China, and not
being allowed to participate, they have formed their own race club,
and, with intention, have called it the "International Recreation
Club". This Club has purchased a large tract of land at Kiangwan,
about five miles from Shanghai, and has turned it into a race-course,
considerably larger than that in Shanghai. When a race meeting is held
there, IT IS OPEN TO FOREIGNERS AS WELL AS CHINESE, in fact
complimentary tickets have even been sent to the members of the foreign
race club inviting their attendance. Half of the members of the race
committee are foreigners; while foreigners and Chinese act jointly as
stewards and judges; the ponies that run are owned by foreigners as
well as by Chinese, and Chinese jockeys compete with foreign jockeys in
all the events. A most pleasing feature of these races is the very
manifest cordial good feeling which prevails throughout the races
there. The Chinese have been dubbed "semi-civilized and heathenish",
but the "International Recreation Club" and the Kiangwan race-course
display an absence of any desire to retaliate and sentiments of
international friendship such as it would, perhaps, be difficult to
parallel. Should such people be denied admission into Australia,
Canada, or the United States? Would not the exclusionists in those
countries profit by association with them?
The immigration laws in force in Australia are, I am informed, even
more strict and more severe than those in the United States. They
amount to almost total prohibition; for they are directed not only
against Chinese laborers but are so operated that the Chinese merchant
and student are also practically refused admission. In the course of a
lecture delivered in England by Mrs. Annie Besant in 1912 on "The
citizenship of colored races in the British Empire", while condemning
the race prejudices of her own people, she brought out a fact which
will be interesting to my readers, especially to the Australians. She
says, "In Australia a very curious change is taking place. Color has
very much deepened in that clime, and the Australian has become very
yellow; so that it becomes a problem whether, after a time, the people
would be allowed to live in their own country. The white people are
far more colored than are some Indians." In the face of this plain fact
is it not time, for their own sake, that the Australians should drop
their cry against yellow people and induce their Parliament to abolish,
or at least to modify, their immigration laws with regard to the yellow
race? Australians are anxious to extend their trade, and they have
sent commercial commissioners to Japan and other Eastern countries with
the view to developing and expanding commerce. Mr. J. B. Suttor,
Special Commissioner of New South Wales, has published the following
advertisement:
"NEW SOUTH WALES. The Land of Reward for Capital Commerce and
Industry. Specially subsidized steamers now giving direct service
between Sydney, THE PREMIER COMMERCIAL CENTER OF AUSTRALIA, AND
SHANGHAI. Thus offering special facilities for Commerce and Tourists.
NEW SOUTH WALES PRODUCTS ARE STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE."
Commerce and friendship go together, but how Australians can expect to
develop trade in a country whose people are not allowed to come to
visit her shores even for the purposes of trade, passes my
comprehension. Perhaps, having heard so much of the forgiving and
magnanimous spirit of the Chinese, Australians expect the Chinese to
greet them with smiles and to trade with them, while being kicked in
return.
I believe in the doctrine of the universal brotherhood of men. It is
contrary to the law (God) of creation that some people should shut out
other people from portions of the earth solely from motives of
selfishness and jealousy; the injury caused by such selfish acts will
sooner or later react on the doers. "Every man is his own ancestor.
We are preparing for the days that come, and we are what we are to-day
on account of what has gone before." The dog-in-the-manger policy
develops doggish instincts in those who practise it; and, after all,
civilization without kindness and justice is not worth having. In
conclusion, I will let the English poet, William Wordsworth, state
"Nature's case".
Listen to these noble lines from the ninth canto of his "Excursion".
"Alas! what differs more than man from man,
And whence that difference? Whence but from himself?
For see the universal Race endowed
With the same upright form. The sun is fixed
And the infinite magnificence of heaven
Fixed, within reach of every human eye;
The sleepless ocean murmurs for all years;
The vernal field infuses fresh delight
Into all hearts. Throughout the world of sense,
Even as an object is sublime or fair,
That object is laid open to the view
Without reserve or veil; and as a power
Is salutary, or an influence sweet,
Are each and all enabled to perceive
That power, that influence, by impartial law,
Gifts nobler are vouchsafed alike to all;
Reason, and, with that reason, smiles and tears;
Imagination, freedom in the will;
Conscience to guide and check; and death to be
Foretasted, immortality conceived
By all--a blissful immortality,
To them whose holiness on earth shall make
The Spirit capable of heaven, assured.
..............................The smoke ascends
To Heaven as lightly from the cottage hearth
As from the haughtiest palace. He whose soul
Ponders this true equality, may walk
The fields of earth with gratitude and hope;
Yet, in that meditation, will he find
Motive to sadder grief, as we have found;
Lamenting ancient virtues overthrown,
And for the injustice grieving, that hath made
So wide a difference between man and man."