National Geographic Magazine/Volume 16/Number 12/China and the United States
CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES [1]
By Sir Chentung Liang-Cheng, K. C. M. G.
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from China to the United States
FROM the earliest intercourse of the United States with China, the relations between our two countries have been of the friendliest character. When the governments of Europe in the past century, singly or in combination, took aggressive action against China, the United States always refrained from acting with them or following their example. But especially since the days when your distinguished citizen, Anson Burlingame, after having represented the government of the United States at the court of Peking, served so ably as the ambassador of the Imperial Chinese government in making a series of treaties with foreign powers, and particularly the treaty of 1865 with your government, we have been drawn more closely together.
The constant policy of your government in regard to the affairs of the Far East has been one of conspicuous magnanimity and justice. This was amply manifested in the settlement of the difficulties of 1900 and throughout the negotiations with the powers in the following year. I recall with unspeakable pleasure the conduct of President McKinley at that time, through whose wisdom and forbearance my country was saved much humiliation. The policy which he marked out was followed by his successor, President Roosevelt, whose fairness and high sense of justice have been always evinced toward us. Nor can I fail to mention the friendship and protecting care of that eminent and lamented statesman, John Hay, Secretary of State. For these reasons the Chinese, as a government, are under a deep sense of gratitude, and, as a people, are naturally most friendly inclined toward the government and people of the United States. Hence it was that I experienced a feel- ing of no little satisfaction when I was honored with the mission to represent the country of my birth in the country of my education.
The subject about which doubtless you would be glad to hear from me — the commercial possibilities between the two countries — is one respecting which the members of the Commercial Club, with their long experience and keen judgment, are better judges than myself. But I cannot fail to see that, as China is brought more and more closely in contact with foreign countries, as the people come to learn the necessities, the conveniences, and the comforts enjoyed by the people of other lands, as by travel, by education, by long residence abroad, her demand for foreign commodities will be largely increased. China is not, to a great extent, a manuacturing country; nor is she likely to be in the near future. Her people are too easily satisfied with what they can readily purchase in the world's markets. Nor are her people, who have enjoyed art, culture, refinement for centuries, disinclined to modern luxuries and conveniences. The present foreign trade in that ancient empire is chiefly confined to the coast provinces. It is anticipated that the abolition of the likin tax, as provided in the recent commercial treaties, when fully carried out, will forever destroy that formidable barrier to internal commerce so long deplored by merchants, both foreign and native alike. When her immense natural re- sources shall have been developed, her purchasing power will indeed be greatly increased.
It is this commercial growth I long to see established between the two countries, and it has been my pleasure, as well as my duty, to smooth all differences which might threaten its complete realization. But there is one difference now engaging the serious attention of the two governments which I may be pardoned for bringing to your attention. The exclusion question and the administration of the exclusion laws are matters which seem to have engaged very little the consideration of the American people; but they are matters of vital importance to the Chinese directly concerned. While I wish it to be understood that it is not my intention to unduly criticise the laws or the administration of the laws, the mention of some facts may aid you in a proper consideration of this question, which has a direct connection with the improvement of our commercial relations.
When the American Commissioners went to Peking to negotiate the immigration treaty of 1880, in the first memorandum which they submitted to the Chinese plenipotentiaries in setting forth the object of their visit, they stated that the restriction they desired was "entirely of laborers." An examination of their detailed negotiations, which were fully reported to their government, will show that they made no other demands. After receiving most sacred assurances that the restriction shall be "reasonable, and not absolute prohibition," the Chinese government gave consent to the American government's demands. This was considered at the time by the American Commissioners, as their official reports show, as a concession from the Chinese government without any quid pro quo. The Chinese government had good reason to believe that the question would be handled with due leniency, and that the American people would not take advantage of their good nature.
Fourteen years elapsed, and the American government by resolution of the Senate again sought to negotiate a modification of the treaty with the Chinese government. The treaty of 1894, which expired December last by limitation, containing a provision that no Chinese laborer shall enter the United States, was the result. It should be stated that there is no indication in this resolution that the Senate desired the exclusion of any other class of Chinese than laborers. It is evident that the object of the American government was to secure, and the consent of the Chinese government was given to, the prohibition of Chinese laborers only, and no other class. During more than a score of years of restriction and prohibition, abuses have sprung up on both sides. Time will not permit me to enumerate the numerous cases of hardship and unjust treatment of which the exempt classes of Chinese have been made the victims because of the overzealousness of some United States government officials in discharging their duty in keeping out the prohibited class of Chinese. Suffice it to say that prior to the President's order of last June it had so stirred up the feeling of the Chinese people that the boycott against American goods was the regrettable consequence.
In compliance with the wishes of the American government, the Chinese government has issued an imperial decree, warning the people to respect every treaty stipulation under penalty of severe punishment, and urging them to suppress the boycott pending action of Congress to relieve the situation, and the provincial authorities have issued similar proclamations. The Chinese government, while viewing with concern the exclusion of Chinese laborers under undue discrimination is, nevertheless, not unwilling to take into consideration the condition of things alleged to exist in this country. But aside from the laboring class, all other classes should be admitted, and should receive the same treatment as is accorded to similar classes of Europeans entering this "land of freedom." As the laws and the immigration regulations stand today, aside from the five classes named in the expired treaty of 1894, namely, students, merchants, teachers, travelers, and officials, the following classes of Chinese cannot enter the United States, to wit, bankers, lawyers, journalists, priests and the clergy, physicians, dentists, insurance agents, brokers, and traveling commercial agents. Nothing was farther than this from the thought of the original negotiators.
In fact, the laws on the subject seem to be in such a state of hopeless confusion that different attorneys-general have rendered conflicting opinions as to the meaning of certain vital requirements, with the result that the regulations, which should be intended merely to carry into effect the provisions of the laws, impose conditions additional to the laws and unwarranted requirements, which have the force of legal enactments. In consequence Chinese subjects have been made to suffer great hardship in their attempt to land in the United States, and after being admitted they have been incessantly harassed by immigration agents of the government with domiciliary visits and unreasonable interruptions while pursuing quietly and peaceably their lawful vocations in this country. True, every nation has the supreme right to make its own laws, but it is liable to be held accountable in some future day for any wrong done thereby to the subjects of foreign governments. Any new settlement of the exclusion question, therefore, in order to satisfy the Chinese government and to be in accord with the dignity and sense of justice of this great American republic, must have regard to the unsatisfactory manner in which the laws and regula- tions relating to Chinese immigration, made in pursuance of treaty stipula- tions, have been administered, and should correct the abuses that have gradually sprung up, which render the present state of affairs intolerable. What China asks is only fair play and due consideration, and she can well rely on the justice of the American people and on the wisdom of their law-makers, headed by their illustrious President, who is the champion of peace, of hu- manity, of just dealing, to bring this important question to a successful set- tlement and remove the only serious obstacle to the freer development of our commercial relations.
A lamentable event has recently taken place in the murder of several American missionaries in one of the remote localities of China, to which I think it proper to refer. Repeated imperial edicts have recognized that foreign missionaries are lawfully in China; their beneficent work in instruction, hospitals, and charity has been recognized by my government, and the authorities have been enjoined to afford them all possible protection. The cause of the recent mob violence has not yet been definitely ascertained, but the Foreign Office at Peking has hastened to inform the American minister that prompt punishment will be inflicted upon the murderers and full indemnity made for the injuries and losses sustained by the missionaries.
Unfortunately the Chinese government, though influenced by a sincere desire to repress lawlessness, is not always able to anticipate and prevent mob violence; but China is not the only countrywhich is sometimes put to shame by the acts of excited and bad people. It does not excuse the bloody deeds of which the missionaries are the sufferers to say that more Chinese subjects have been cruelly murdered by mobs in the United States during the last twenty-five years than all the Americans who have been murdered in China by similar riots, but it may in some degree palliate the shocking crimes in China. I cannot, however, refrain from saying that in every instance where Americans have suffered from mobs the authorities have made reparation for the losses, and rarely has the punishment of death failed to be inflicted upon some of the guilty offenders. On the other hand, I am sorry to say that I have not been able to recall a single instance where the penalty of death has been visited on any member of the mobs in the United States guilty of the death of Chinese; and in only two instances of mob violence out of many has indemnity been paid by the authorities for the losses sustained by the Chinese.
I am free to say that the United States government has on many occasions exerted its power and authority to secure punishment of the criminals through the courts, but public opinion in the localities has been so strongly against the Chinese that all the murderers have escaped punishment. Let us hope that a better day is coming for our respective peoples, and that the civilization and humanity of both nations will prevail over barbarism and savagery.
- ↑ An address to the Commercial Club of Chicago, November 11, 1905.