"I regret to inform you that … I do not see my way to directing the prosecutions of the two persons indicated by you; first … because I do not agree with you in looking upon them as the principal criminals; and, secondly, because I think that after the evidence of these persons has been taken both before the committing magistrate and the Supreme Court without any warning having been given them that their evidence might be used against them, it would appear like a breach of faith to treat them now as criminals." "Should the prosecution of these persons result in their acquittal, which seems to me not improbable, I fear that the good effect produced by the severe reprimand, which I understand that your Honor administered publicly to all the parties concerned in these two cases, might be to a great extent neutralized." (!)
On September 29th, 1879, the Chief Justice sentenced more criminals for trafficking in children. A Japanese girl, Sui Ahing, eleven years old, was brought to the Colony by a Chinaman who had bought the child in Japan of its parents. Needing money to go on to his native place, this Chinaman borrowed $50 of a native resident at Hong Kong, and left the child as security for the debt. The wife of the man in whose custody the child was left beat the child severely and she ran out of the house. She was found wandering on the street late at night, and the finder took her and sold her to another Chinese party, who threatened to send her to Singapore as a prostitute. It was plain the last purchaser intended either to send her to Singapore or keep her at Hong Kong for vile purposes. This case illustrates well the frequency with which children are sold and re-sold in that country. The parties to the last transaction, the finder of the child and the purchaser of the child from the finder, were both found guilty, one of selling, the other of buying a child for the purposes of prostitution. His Lordship, the Chief Justice, said:
"I will call upon the prisoners at another time. This is a case of far larger proportions than the guilt or innocence of the two prisoners at the bar. I take shame to myself that the appalling extent of kidnaping, buying and selling slaves for what I may call ordinary servile purposes, and the buying and selling young females for worse than ordinary slavery, has not presented itself before to me in the light it ought. It seems to me that it has been recognized and accepted as an ordinary out-turn of Chinese habits, and thus that until special attention has been excited it has escaped public notice. But recently the abomination has forced itself on my notice. In some cases convictions have been had; in two notable instances, although I called for prosecution, the criminals escaped. They were Chinese in respectable positions, and I was given to understand that buying children by respectable Chinamen as servants was according to Chinese customs, and that to attempt to put it down would be to arouse the prejudices of the Chinese. The practice is on the increase. It is in this port, and in this Colony especially, that the so-called Chinese custom prevails. Under the English flag, slavery, it has been said, does not, cannot ever be. Under that flag it does exist in this Colony, and is, I believe, at this moment more openly practiced than at any former period of its history. Cyprus has been under our rule for about a year, and already, both in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, questions have been asked, and the Members of the present Ministry have assured the country that slavery in every form shall be speedily put down there. Humanity is of no party, and personal liberty is held to be the right of every human being under English law, by, I believe, every man of note in England. My recent pleasant personal experience in England assures me of that. But here in Hong Kong, I believe that domestic slavery exists in fact to a great extent. Whatever the law of China may be, the law of England must prevail here. If Chinamen are willing to submit to the law, they may remain, but on condition of obeying the law, whether it accords with their notions of right or wrong or not; and, if remaining they act contrary to the law, they must take the consequences…. I shall deal with these people when I shall have more fully considered the case."
During the proceedings of the trial of these two prisoners, the
Attorney General had declared his intention not to call the former
owners of the child, Wai Alan, the woman who beat the child, or Pao
Chee Wan, her husband. The Chief Justice now said:
"I now direct you, Mr. Attorney General, to prosecute these two people, Pao Chee Wan and Wai Alan." Attorney General:—"My Lord, I intimated before that this matter was under consideration; I do not think I am at liberty to say under whose consideration." His Lordship:—"I direct the prosecution, and will take the responsibility. It is the course in England and I will pursue it here." The Attorney General:—"You have publicly directed it; and I will report it to the proper quarter." His Lordship:—"The Attorney General at home is constantly ordered by the Court to prosecute. On my responsibility alone I do this." The Attorney General:—"May I ask your Lordship to say on what charge?" His Lordship:—"Under Sections 50 and 51 of No. 4 of 1865, and also for assault." The Attorney General continued to raise objections, when the Chief Justice said: "I have said as much as I choose to say, and I will not be put to question by the Attorney General. If you have any difficulty, come to the Court in Chambers."
Governor Hennessy, in reporting the incident to the Secretary of State at London, adds: "I sent a note to the Attorney General, saying I thought that the prosecution suggested by the Chief Justice should take place; but it was found that the accused parties were not in the Colony." After this manner many cases brought to the attention of the officers of the law by parents or guardians of children of kidnaping and trading in girls and children failed to secure the attention they deserved. It seems to us not at all amazing, when one reads this past history, that by the time Chinese girls have seen and learned all that they must in the Colony of Hong Kong, when brought to this country they are utterly incredulous as to the good faith of police and other officials. They must enter a complaint at the risk of their lives, and if the officer of the law will not prosecute the case in spite of all its difficulties (which are largely imaginary on the part of lukewarm officials), then the girl must be returned to the master she has informed against, to be in his power for him to vent his wrath upon her. A case in point occurred in Oakland only a few months ago, and we had a chance to interview the girl. The Captain of Police went through the brothels of Oakland's Chinatown, accompanied by some missionary ladies, in order to discover if possible any girls who would acknowledge that they wished to come away. Every girl was questioned, in the absence of the keepers, and not one, or perhaps only one, said she wished to come away. There were some one hundred and fifty Chinese slave girls in Oakland at this time, and one might say they all had a chance to escape, and of their own will chose to remain. But was that the truth? Not at all; the result did not prove at all that one, and only one wished to come away. It proved merely that only one was inspired with sufficient confidence and courage, after her long, hard experience with foreigners, to say what she wished. It is the universal testimony of all the girls who have been rescued, so we have been told, by those who have been engaged in this rescue work for many years—that every slave in Chinatown plans and dreams of nothing else but of the day when, having served long enough to buy her freedom, she will be granted it by her master or mistress, and then she can be honorably married. But unless her freedom is purchased for her by some lover, the cases are rare, indeed, that a girl is allowed to earn her own freedom, though they are kept submissive by constant promises that the goal is just ahead of them. A few days after the Oakland papers had triumphantly asserted that it had been demonstrated that there was not a single slave girl in Chinatown—a statement that everyone who had any intelligence on the subject, including the newspapers themselves, knew to be false—a lady in mission work received a cautious hint in a round-about way that one of the girls she had seen when the rounds were made desired to be set at liberty. "How did you learn this?" we eagerly and quite naturally asked the missionary. She replied that on no account could she tell a human being how the intelligence was conveyed to her, as it might cost others very dearly, even to the sacrifice of life, if the knowledge leaked out. "But," she said, "I will show you the girl and you may talk with her yourselves." We gathered from the girl that she was a respectable widow, the mother of two children, living with her parents not far from Hong Kong on the mainland. As they were very poor, she went to Hong Kong to work at sewing to help support the family. An acquaintance there told her that she could earn as much as thirty dollars a month at sewing in California, and he could secure her passage for her at economical cost. She returned to her home and consulted her parents, and they thought the chance a good one, so bidding her little ones good bye, she returned to Hong Kong and paid for the ticket, being instructed that a certain woman would meet her at the wharf at San Francisco whom she must claim as her "mother," since the immigration laws were so strict that she must pass herself off as the daughter of this woman (for this daughter, who was now in China, having lived in the United States was entitled to return to her mother). Reader, have you ever traveled on another's ticket? If so, or if you have known a professing Christian to have done so, do not be too harsh in your judgment of this heathen, and declare she deserved the terrible fate that overtook her. The "mother" met the sewing-woman, brought her to Oakland, and imprisoned her in a horrible den to earn money for her. With utmost caution our missionary friend rescued her. The Captain of Police and other officers were at hand to help the missionary, and when the girl was taken, she struggled frantically and called for help as though being kidnaped. Had the policemen been there alone they would have let the captors have their slave, believing they had made a mistake. But they had not; the missionary knew that; the girl was only thinking ahead of the possibility of the plot failing and of falling back into the hands of her captors. She must never betray to them, until safely out of their clutches, that she wished to come away. She must make it appear that she was dragged away against her will. And this is free America! Do you wonder that these girls do not tell everybody who asks them that they are unwilling captives? Doubtless they would if our officers of the law showed their good faith by laying hold of these slave dealers. Nothing was done or attempted to punish the horrible creatures who captured this girl. They are going on unmolested with their nefarious business, though many of them could be easily punished. This part of the work—punishing slave-dealers—has never been taken up seriously here on the Pacific Coast. And until these terrible criminals are immured in prison, most certainly these Chinese slave girls will not declare their desire for freedom, for if it were granted them they would not be safe—at least they have no reason to believe they would be, though there are missions where they would be protected. But what reason have they for believing this is the case, after the years of training they have had in the perfidy of all those with whom they come in contact! Many girls have been rescued on this Pacific Coast, by brave missionary workers. But it is to the lasting shame of our country that such wicked creatures are allowed to exist here to import these slaves. Imprison the importers, and the slaves are rescued. That is the short road to freedom. But that was not the path pursued by officials in general at Hong Kong, nor is that course being pursued in the United States. This sewing woman has been returned to her home. Many another woman has at equal peril to herself made her complaint and it has fallen upon the deaf ears of officials, and the poor slave has had to settle with her masters for her fool-hardiness.
Now we will return to Hong Kong, and to past history. We will cite just one more case to show something of the reluctance of officials there to prosecute the traffickers in human flesh. A Chinaman, Tsang San-Fat, petitioned the Colonial Secretary at Hong Kong in regard to the custody of his little daughter, whom, "under stress of poverty," he had given away to a man named Leung A-Tsit, the October previous, the understanding being that the latter should find her a husband when she grew up, and should not send her away to other ports. In May the parents learned from A-Sin, employed by Leung A-Tsit, that the latter was going to take away the little girl to another place. After taxing the man with this, and receiving only excuses in reply, the father petitioned that Leung A-Tsit should be prevented from carrying out his design. Leung A-Tsit filed a counter-petition, stating that Tsang San-Fat, being unable to support a family, handed over to him his little daughter, aged six years; that the little girl was to become his daughter and to be brought up by him, he paying $23 to the parents. He accused the father of trying to extort money from him, and appealed for "protection" from "impending calamities." Later, further facts came out, showing that the father of the child had borrowed $5 three years before from Leung A-Tsit, which, with interest at ten cents per month for every dollar, now amounted to $23. The September before, his creditor came and demanded payment, and when the father told him he had no money, and found it very difficult to provide for his family, Leung A-Tsit said: "Very well, you can give me your daughter instead, and when she is grown up I will find her a husband." It was finally agreed that he should have the little girl for $25, viz., the $23 already owing, and $2 to the mother as "tea-money." The $2 were paid and he took the child away. The mother said: "I was very sorry about it and cried." (But mothers have little to say as to the disposal of the children they bear in the Orient). The Governor, Sir John Pope Hennessy, took a deep interest in this case, when he heard of it, regarding it as "an illegal transaction," and urged upon the Attorney General, Mr. G. Phillipo, to prosecute, on his behalf, the purchaser of the girl, and that both the father of the child and Leung A-Tsit be notified that the father was entitled to the child by British law, and referring the father to the police magistrate. The police magistrate requested of the Colonial Secretary that the Attorney General's opinion be obtained, as to what course the magistrate should pursue. The final outcome of the case is told by Governor Hennessy in a despatch to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
"I made a minute on the petitions, directing them to be sent to the Attorney General, as 'the parties appear to acknowledge being concerned in an illegal transaction.' In a few days the papers were returned to me with the following opinion of the Attorney General: 'The transaction referred to would not be recognized in our laws as giving any rights, except perhaps as to guardianship, but I am unable to say there is anything illegal in the matter beyond that. I do not think it a criminal offence if it goes no further than the adoption of a child and the payment of money to its parents for the privilege.'"
Later, when His Excellency was calling the attention of Acting Attorney General Russell to a somewhat similar case, he states, in reference to this above-described case:
"Mr. Phillipo, before whom the papers were laid, did not seem disposed to enforce the rights of the father, on the ground that he had sold the child. I did not agree with Mr. Phillipo's view of the law."