SOME POINTS ON THE CHINESE QUESTION.
Rev. WM. C. POND, SAN FRANCISCO.
1. There are two sides to the question. Many Christians, both laymen and ministers, are earnestly opposed to Chinese immigration, for reasons which seem to them ample and even imperative. As against such reasons, vituperation and contempt fall powerless. But it should be observed that these reasons do not—with, at most, two exceptions—apply to Chinese immigration alone. The Irish laborer underbid the native American, and crowded him out of the field. In some cases great suffering temporarily ensued. But the American at length found other and better fields to which, indeed, the Irishman’s toil prepared his way. It would be so again. The Irish, French and German immigrants have brought with them principles and practices sadly at variance with those which gave us free institutions, our Christian Sabbaths, and our happy homes; and thoughtful Christians viewed this influx of an alien element with great alarm for many years. For the same reasons, and some others, they cannot but view with anxiety an influx from the heathen nations over our Western sea. But what did we do about it in the former case? Did we lock the door? Did we attempt to dyke back the incoming tide? No; but we said, We will meet these people with the Gospel; we will bring their children into our public schools; we will make the very air they breathe redolent with the principles of a genuine Christian liberty, and thus we will make them no longer Irish, or French, or Germans, but, in the second generation, if not the first, Americans all. And this process is saving the nation’s life. Why not try it again with the new immigration from the old Orient?
2. But there are two special reasons for opposing this Chinese immigration; one is, that it consists of unmarried men, homeless and vagrant, and our country needs homes; the other is, that they are exceptionally clannish, refuse to associate and assimilate with us, and remain, after thirty years, as much an alien race as when they first arrived. I feel the force of these facts, but is there not a cause? They are, it is true, a very conservative race; slow to change, and ardently attached to their native land; but if it were otherwise, I submit whether the courtesies they have received are of the sort which would specially incline them to fall in love with our country or ourselves. The Chinese can be Americanized; and in response to treatment such as European immigrants receive, would long ago have begun to make homes and to identify themselves with us. And, by the grace of God and the power of the Gospel, they might have been, and may yet be, educated into intelligent, patriotic and useful citizens. He who doubts this ought no longer to profess and call himself a Christian.
3. There is no occasion to be frightened lest we be overwhelmed by a rush of Chinese immigrants. The lapse of thirty years finds about 100,000 in the United States, and to-day they are going faster than they come; going, not because they are frightened, but for the very sensible reason that they can do better elsewhere. The supply has exceeded the demand. The wealthier Chinese find their impoverished countrymen thrown upon their charities, and they use every influence they can bring to bear to restrain others from coming. What if there are 400,000,000 of them just across the sea; they may as well stay there and starve, as to come 10,000 miles and do the same. If the recent bill had become a law, and had been executed, no others in all the land would have profited by it so much as the Chinese in California.
4. The anti-Chinese mania seems to neutralize, even in otherwise honorable men, all scruple about ascertaining the truth of statements before they make them, or even about repeating statements proven to be false. I brand it as a falsehood that the Chinese in this country are in any sense coolies. They are freemen. If they have borrowed money to come here, it has not been of the Six Companies; nor are the terms on which such loans are made in any wise different from those on which a New Englander might borrow in order to “go west.” I brand it as a falsehood that there is among them any imperium in imperio, defying our laws, and meting out to its victims punishment even unto death. The Six Companies are voluntary societies for mutual aid. Sometimes, instead of going to law, our Chinese agree to refer matters in dispute to the presidents of these companies as a board of arbitrators; but such arbitration is in principle and practice exactly that which American business men often resort to; exactly that which between Christians ought to be always a sufficient substitute for suits at law. Some years ago Chinese merchants were able to arrange with the steamship companies to sell no tickets to Chinamen unless they could show what has been incorrectly called a permit from one or the other of these companies. The object was to prevent men from leaving with their debts unpaid. In order to obtain one of these passes, a man must announce at the office of the company to which he belongs his intention of returning to China, and thus give his creditors, if he have any, an opportunity to protest. The result is, I suppose, that the glorious Anglo-Saxon liberty of running away from unpaid bills is, for them, somewhat curtailed. But our Congregational Association of Christian Chinese has the same authority to issue passes that the Six Companies have, and its passes are equally respected. And for years no Christian Chinaman has recognized any obligation to either of these companies in any way. I go into detail on this point, because much has been made of it, as an out-cropping of that imperium in imperio of which so much has been said. It goes the length that I have stated, and no further.
Finally, I brand as falsehoods the representations constantly made as to the success of missionary labor among the Chinese here. I am sure that Mr. Blaine would not wilfully belittle such a work. He is a follower of Christ, and a friend to his fellow-men, but he has listened to those who were neither of these, or he would never have said that “not one in a thousand have even nominally professed a change from heathenism, and of this small number nearly one-half had been taught in missionary schools in China.” The known and counted results are more than five times as large as the “missionary,” (?) whom he quotes, represents, and of them, I venture to say, that not one in a hundred ever entered the door of a mission-school in China; while their conversion has not been merely nominal and negative, “from heathenism,” but real and positive, to a faithful, prayerful, earnest Christian life. Meanwhile, there are grand results that cannot be measured, but which will tell mightily on the future, in the starting of thought, the loosening of the bonds of superstition, the preparation of the way of the Lord.