Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-08-16
JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG ON CHINESE
RESTRICTION ACTS.


Mr. John Russell Young, who has been
a close student of Chinese character and
politics, has no faith in the statement
credited to Ii Hung Chung, that the Chi
nese Government contemplates retaliatory
measures upon Americans in China, be-
cause of the Restriction Act.
The reasons he advances for his belief
are explicit and strong. Nearly all Ameri
cans in Pekin are under the protection of
international law, and if menaced can
easily reach Chefoo or Shanghai and
claim the protection of American men-of-
war. The open ports of Canton, Tientsin,
Shanghai and others, are under Their own
local governments, and the authority Of
China receives no municipal recognition
in them besides, these ports are under
the guns constantly of foreign ships of
war.
Should China attempt reprisals upon
Americans, she must include Russians
Englishmen and French, who have also
restricted Chinese emigration into some
of their colonies. There are no mission
aries in China, he adds, who cannot readily
reach refuge ports. Mr.. Young asserts
that the ''most favored nation" clause of
our treaty gives Americans equal protec-
ton afforded any and all other foreigners
in China. AS to trade relations he says
that the Chinese will never relinquish the
opportunity to make money out of Amer
lean trade He believes that at
no time has China entertained any other
desire than to prevent the egress of
her people from the Empire = indeed,
he goes so far .as to say that the Imperial
Government would welcome any measure
properly passed that would return all
Chinese to their native land, and that
would deport every alien in China, but
that force will never be resorted to or
couDtenanced by China to accomplish that
latter end.
In 1884 Mr.. Young visited every port
in China, but he was not able to ascertain
that Chinese laborer had ever emigrated
to the United States from Chinese port,
or that the Chinese Government had ever
occupied any other position than that of
antagonism to emigration of its subjects
Our Chinese come, he says, from or
through the British port of Hongkong,
only few hours travel by river from
Canton, the capital of provinces having
population of 100000. OF the 100000
people in Hongkong, 10000 are Chinese,
and this number is constantly recruited by
the drift down the river from Canton and
its provinces. From Hopgkong, he adds,
go nineteen-twentieths of all the Chinese
emigration to the several countries of the
globe. He argues that all the threats
about retaliation are fictitious, and ema-
nate from British sources, since the re-
striction of immigration will greatly
affect British interests engaged in trans
porting emigrants.
This is not exactly new light upon the
Chinese question, but it is valuable testi-
mony, and emphasizes the position taken
by the friends of restriction, that the Chi
nese Government has not contemplated
reprisals, that it is adverse to the emigra-
ton of its subjects, and that it has not
manifested any disposition to yield the adj
vantages it enjoys of the commerce be-
tween the United States and China.
Mr.. Young is of the opinion, however,
that the Chinese Government was offended
by the passage of the exclusion Act of
1888, not because of its restrictive features,
but because Of the haste of its passage I'M
der circumstances that, China claims, and
not without reason, amounted to a breach
of courtesy, if not of good faith towards
friendly power. Mr.. Young is free to say
that he views that action as does the
Chinese Government, and that it has had
the effect of breaking down American in
fiuence to great extent in China, and of
Gripping our commercial importance in
Chinese territory to the gain of British COM
mercial interests. He holds that the re.
suit has been to make English influence
potential in China, whereas we had been
steadily gaining ground in the councils at
Pekin. This was due to the peaceful at
titude we had maintained towards China,
to the fact that we had not, as have the
French and English, put the iron hand !
upon China in several wars and many i'm |
positions.
The Oregonian in treating this question !
has the courage to say that our action was !,
worse than folly; it was insult, because at !
he very time the Act of 1883 was passed |
/ treaty was pending which emanated from !
he Chinese Government that was long |
,tep in the direction of rigid exclusion of !
Chinese laborers from the United States. |
Il is true that the Senate proposed some !
to the treaty, necessitating /
It's transmission to Pekin. But in the
meantime the supposed exigencies of u
political campaign led partisans to rush
he matter through, and a Democratic !
President to approve it, in the hope to cap
ure the anti-Chinese vote of the Pacific
cast. All the probabilities were that
China would have ratified the new treaty,
cut political greed would not wait for that,
md action was taken which if directed