The Washington times., 1901-07-01

a teacher of the Gospel ever discovered
anything romantic about a thief
It will be seen that DR.. Reid wishes
it understood that in his opinion the
Chinese deserved TO be deprived If
everything-homes, property. and per-
haps life as well, for it may be noted
that he expresses doubt whether the
city might not better have been Tazed
to the ground. including, of course, the
homes of non-combatant Chinese, as
we'll as the Dowager Empress and her
sympathizers. He further says that tie
Chinese themselves expected this, ana
that even when looted they made lit
tie complaint, being grateful that their
lives were spared or their houses lett
2,anding" His argument IS, therefore,
that since the Chinese deserved death,
they ought to he grateful that they
were merely robbed. One is tempted
10 ask who made him the judge of
what they deserved or did net deserve
There is passage in the old Testa-
ment which declares:
Vengeance is mine; viii repay, saith the
Lord
There is another in the New Testa-
ment TO this effect:
"Judge not. .4that We be not Judged"
Where did DR.. Reid get his authority
to mete out punishment to the people
among whom he is supposed to be
spreading the teachings Of Christ? Not
from the military authorities: so far
as they are concerned he is merely
camp-follower: and certainly rot from
the Bible. 1t is a peculiar problem.
He then goes on to explain that the
looting, which consisted of the confis-
cation of quarters and supplies for the
troops and for the foreigners in the
city. was a necessary part of the cam
paign, and that in the disorganized con-
dition OF the city no other course was
possible whereby the refugees and the
allied troops could be fed. This is, of
course, reasonable; but where did Dr.
Reid or DR.. Ament get their right to
go looting on their own account? After
the city was taken 1t was in charge of
responsible and competent generals,
whose business it was TO take care that
their soldiers and proteges had enough
TO eat but that does not mean that
every Individual connected with the oc-
cupation had a right TO go out and
quarter himself wherever he pleased,
and take whatever he chose. In former
times such a course was considered an
inevitable part OF the saeking of
city; the inhabitants expected to suf-
fer every imaginable indignity. TO have
their homes first plundered and then
buried, their daughters outraged. their
children killed. and themselves tor
tured or put to the sword; but nothing
of the kind is supposed to be part of
modern military tradition. If supplies
are destroyed, or buildings occupied. it
is as part Of a military measure made
necessary by the situation. There was
no such necessity in the case Of Pekin.
The city was in the hands of the troops;
the war was over: all that was needfui
was to provide for the immediate wants
of the destitute, and this could be done
by due process of military government.
Nobody is to blame for the confiscation
of such supplies as were needed TO
avoid general famine.
The looting which DIR. Reid defends
is. however. Of an entirely different
kind 1t consisted in the taking of
valuable goods from the houses of
Chinese residents of Pekin. and keep
ing or selling them, on the ground that
the former owners were Boxers or sym
pathizers with the rebellion, and that
their property belonged to anybody who
chose TO take it. The language which
Dr. Reid uses in describing this per-
formance, and the spirit in which he
approaches it, are certainly curious, in
view of the title attached TO his name.
He says:
s-Owing TO the fact that two Of the missions,
both connected with the American Board,
ceeded in occupying the palaces OF two princes,
there arose opPortunity-the only one Of
life tirne-to put up for sale looted goods 1t
is this affair that has made the stir. One prince
OF the number Of the eight hereditary princes,
among whom Prince Chuang was the most motor
ious; and il seemed to be taken for granted that
none Of these should be spared, or that they az
least should suffer before the common people.
The other prince was MongOl, who lived adJoin-
/ ing the destroyed pteInIses OF the American
( Board md whose palace had been turned into
! Boxer headquarters. Within a day after the
siege was raised Rev. Dr. Arlent boldly dashed
/ in and took possession To conhscate
/ the property Of those who we're enemies in var
may be Theoretically wrong, but precedent estab-
I lishes the right
a somewhat similar method Of looting was
I
pied and taxing the best that could be found
Old residents Of Pekin not only knew where the
wealth was. but generally distinguished between
( the Chinamsn who was a friend and him who WAS
! a foe. For the former they sought protection;
( from the latter loot Personally, ] regret that
J the guilty suffered 50 little at my hands,
/ though Others, Chinese well a foreigners,
I spared nothing when the attack once began. In
fact, for the first four days. io0tiHB all the
lad. The troops Of the different nationalites Sc
cured their rest through change OF occupation.
To them the question not 50 much which
Chinsfnan the worst. but which house was
the richest. There was hardly house or shop
I that Was not entered by one. The Chinese
s0nght immunity whenever possible, hut even
when looted they made little complaint, being
5 grateful that their lives were spared or their
/ houses LETT standing. They expected that the
J whole city would suffer for the crime OF its
( rulers Their solidarity afforded no escape to
{ the individual. Protection, when il came, was
I al the more appreciated.
/ AS soon as the foreign Powers decided on
prcserTing Pekin. with the imperial palaces. the
city divided into sections FOR military control
By the leading Powers. The commanders Of the
/ cnsItingents united in issuing orders which for
bsde all looting- To loot was then 10 p!under-
| As war passed into peace, and order began 10
/ prevail, tie law became more than & formal
! utterancs It was finally enforced
Now, here we have a curious ethical
| problem. Before the military authori-
ties took the matter in hand, looting
Z was right After they took it in hand,
/ Iooting was stealing. A missionary is
| supposed TO be in the business of
teaching people what is right and what
] is wrong. Is il possible that he does