present import duty on opium was established not from choice, but because China submitted to the adverse decision of arms. The war must be considered as China's standing protest against legalizing such a revenue. . . . The new treaty with the United States containing the prohibitory clause against opium encourages the belief that the broad principles of justice and feelings of humanity will prevail in future relations between China and the Western nations."
But the action of Dr. Angell and his colleagues in inserting the opium prohibition in that treaty came too late. The success which had attended the efforts of the Japanese, a kindred race, shows that prohibition can be made effective, but the evil had then become too deeply rooted in China, and the revenue derived by India from the trade was too important to be surrendered.
It is gratifying to record that the government of the United States from the beginning has sought to discountenance the traffic. In the first treaty with China, that of 1844, it was provided that "citizens of the United States . . . who shall trade in opium or any other contraband article of merchandise, shall be subject to be dealt with by the Chinese government without being entitled to any countenance or protection from that of the United States." When Mr. Reed was sent out to negotiate the treaty of 1858, he was instructed to say to the Chinese government that its effort "to prevent the importation and consumption of opium was a praiseworthy measure," and "that the United States would not seek for its citizens the legal
