Articles V. and VI. of the Burlingame treaty, relating to the free immigration and residence of Chinese in the United States. This radical legislation indicated a great change in public opinion since the Burlingame treaty was proclaimed with such gratification ten years before; but this open disregard of international obligations shocked the moral sense of a large part of the American people, and led to such an expression of public sentiment as caused President Hayes to veto the bill, and it thus failed to become a law. The President in his message on the subject, while he appealed to Congress to "maintain the public duty and the public honor," recognized that the working of the Burlingame treaty had demonstrated that some modification of it was necessary to secure the country "against a larger and more rapid infusion of this foreign race than our system of industry and society can take up and assimilate with ease and safety," and he expressed the opinion that, if the Chinese government was approached in the proper spirit, the desired modification might be secured without the discredit to the nation which would result from the proposed legislation. The President, in accordance with this policy, appointed in 1880 a commission, consisting of Dr. James B. Angell, president of Michigan University, John T. Swift, of California, and W. H. Trescot, a former assistant secretary of state, to proceed to Peking and secure by negotiation a change in the provisions of the treaty of 1868 respecting the immigration of Chinese to the United States. This commission was received in a friendly spirit by the Chinese government, and within two months after its arrival at the capital a treaty on immigration was concluded and signed. By its provisions there was conferred upon the government of the United States, whenever in its opinion "the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect the interests of that country, power to regulate, limit, or suspend such coming or residence, but not absolutely to prohibit it." This power to limit immigration was only to apply to Chinese laborers, other classes of Chinese being permitted to enter freely and reside in the United States. -- The Chinese government having in so gracious a spirit yielded to the desires of the American commissioners on the subject of immigration, the latter were very ready to gratify the former in the matter of the opium traffic, a subject of extreme anxiety and embarrassment to the Chinese rulers. At their request a commercial treaty was signed, in which it was stipulated that "citizens of the United States shall not be permitted to import opium into any of the open ports of China, to transport it from one open port to another open port, or to buy and sell opium in any of the open ports of China;" and this absolute prohibition was to be enforced by appropriate legislation. A similar provision was inserted in the treaty of 1882 between the United States and Korea. After the commercial treaty had been executed, Dr. Angell, the American minister at Peking and one of the commissioners, transmitted to the Secretary of State a communication received by him from Mr. W. N. Pethick,' an American citizen long resident in China, and then the private secretary of the Chinese grand secretary, Li Hung Chang, as indicative of the importance which the Chinese attached to the opium prohibition contained in that treaty. The letter is of much interest, for it reviews the history of the opium traffic and the Chinese view of it, and shows the high appreciation in imperial circles of the action of the American commissioners. He states that China has never consented to bear without murmur the great wrong of the opium traffic which was forced upon her; neither has the government been indifferent to the spread of the evil. Blood and treasure were spent freely in combating its introduction, and, though defeated in war, the government has not remained a silent or unfeeling witness of the blight extending over the country. He says that the single article of opium imported equals in value all other goods brought into China, and is greater than all the tea or all the silk (the two chief articles of export) sent out of the country, - which show that the black stream of pollution which has so long flowed out of India into 1 Mr. Pethick, after serving in the Union army during the Civil War, at its close went to China, where he made himself master of its difficult language, was engaged for some time as interpreter in the United States legation and consulates, and for a number of years acted as the confidential secretary of Li Hung Chang. His influence upon that statesman and upon Chinese politics was very decided, and always in the direction of liberal ideas and progress. He was a man of much erudition, and is said to have read in translation to Li several hundred English, French, and German books. He assisted the latter in his peace negotiations of 1901, and died at the close of that year, greatly respected in both Chinese and foreign society. China has been increasing in volume and spreading its baneful influence wider and wider. Americans have been engaged in the trade in common with other foreigners; but the United States, by a bold and noble declaration against opium, now stands in the right before the world and the God of nations. It has, he writes, encouraged long deferred hope, confirmed oftdefeated determination; it has nerved the arm of the government with new strength, and we shall see China once again grappling with the monster that is stealing away the prosperity and energies of her people. But these hopes proved entirely illusory. Prince Kung again urged the British government to stop the importation of opium, upon the stipulation that its cultivation in China would be prohibited, but the proposition was not entertained. An association was organized in England to create a public sentiment in favor of the suppression of the trade; and Li Hung Chang, in an interview with the American minister, Mr. Young, in 1882, spoke hopefully of its influence on the British government, and gave him for transmittal to his government a copy of a letter which he had written to the Anti-Opium Association, which presents the Chinese view of the question with much force. The following extract will indicate the spirit of the letter: "Opium is a subject in the discussion of which England and China can never meet on common ground. China views the whole question from a moral standpoint, England from a fiscal. England would sustain a source of revenue in India, while China contends for the lives and prosperity of her people. . . . The 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 66 |