The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-07-05
A NEW WARFARE.

pairing to boycott American kooos ana products there was much skspticism and some ridicule on the part of our people over the matter. It was not believed that tho Chinese could accom- plish anything by such a movement. even if they should be In earnest. Some. also, argued that the Chinese govern ment itself would not permit anything of the kind if 1t should be attempted. and various other arguments and spec ulations wsre entered into to show that nothing could come of such movement.
 That the, Chinese had real ground for engaging in some sort of retaliatory measures no one can doubt. The H. liberal ironclad immigration laws in force were unjust enough to cause i'll feeling among any people It was all we'll enough to guard againstNan influx of vicious criminals and paupers. but that scholars. students. travellers and other unobjsctionable visitors should be treated just as the most degraded Chinese were treated was intolerable. and resentment was natural. The Chi nese government could not make such treatment of their people a casus belli and declare war on us for our filib- erality. The people of that country could not retaliate by driving out or keeping out American citizens. for our government would not stand for any L.. Orientals might have had some show of justice on their side.
 Under such circumstances and ccndi- tions there was but one thing to do. ap- parently. and they did it. We do not understand that the Chinese govern ment was in any way responsible for the boycott nor could 1t prevent it. Neither could any treaty or agreement between China and the United States have any effect in the premises. No treaty could coerce the people of that country into buying American goods unless they choose to do so. Their own government could not force them to do it. Millions of them live and die without ever seeing or using anything made or grown in the United States, and all the others could do the same thing. Hardly any people can exhibit more dogged determination than they when they choose to do so. and If they should mako up their minds to starve and go naked rather than buy anything American, neither their own govern ment nor ours could force them to change.
 That our merchants, producers and manufacturers recognized the import ance of this boycott is certain. and they saw what disastrous results would follow if the movement became gen eral. Our trade with China is com parative1y in its infancy but 1t Is as- suming proportions that render 1t of vast importance to our people Every section of our country is interested. and almost every industry is moro or less affected. The total loss of Chinese trade would be nothing less than disaster, general and complete. It would affect the great manufacturing
 interests of all secsyons, and would also have its effect on the producers. among them being the cotton growers of the South. In short, there was a danger that was both real and imi- nent
 The extent of the alarm was at once apparent, as shown by the protests and demands which went up from all sec of y-i nN ing that the government abandon or reverse its policy so far as the treat ment of Chinese is concerned. The President himself was aroused and in- terested and the government has re- versed long established practices and is making an effort to placste and sat isfy a people whom 1t had treated with contemptuous indifference.
 But are we altogether certain that this is or will be the conclusion of the whole matter?" This is the first time, so far as we now remember. that an economic boycott has been attempted on such a large scale. It is the first time that an entire people has attempt ed to boycott another entire people. but 1t may not be the last. Although this one sprung into existence almost in a day. 1t showed its power and ob- tained almost world d-recognition Tn a very short time. May this not be but the forerunner of a new Kind of war? As a contemporary observes. 'it only requires that a people shall determine to do without the mercnandise of iany nation that does not deal justly with them to make military conquest barren of profitable results. This is a method which does not involve, and cannot be prevented by. the action of govern ments as such. All doors may be bat tered upon with cannon. but what is the use. if the people with general ac- cord refuse to make a market for the merchandise brought to them?"
 The boycott Is generally looked on as an American institution. and in most cases it is an unfair and illiberal attempt to accomplish objects that can not be obtained by fair means, but d national boycott by which an entire people attempts to get even with an- other people is an innovation. It is just possible that others besides the Chinese may resort to 1t and our gov ernment be taught that fairness and liberality pay best in the long run.