THE CHINESE QUESTION.

Auckland Star, Volume XII, Issue 3384, 1 June 1881, Page 3

THE CHINESE QUESTION.

(To tho Editor,)

Silt,—l siiould feel very reluctant to controvert a leading article so weli worthy of consideration as yours of the 25th on this question, but that it raises some points that seem to need a little explanation. May I, therefore, presume onyour courtesy to allow me a little more space. Before till things—that wo as a people should act justly and honourably towards all other peoples is, to my mind, almost infinitely more important than any question of who shall and who shall not form part of our population. That is the feeling that has prompted and does prompt me to write. I have read your article very carefully several times, and think I correctly sum up the argument in these four positions :-0) That consistency lequires one who would suppress the liquor traffic, also to suppress Chinese immigration. (2) That the presence of the Chinese is demoralising to the nation. (3) That this is the ground of the, opposition to their introduction. (4) That the Chinese are not good citizens or colonists. To No. 11 should say, yes, undoubtedly, if the cases were similar. More than that, I should say, uot regulate but prohibit it in toto, for moral considerations overrule all others. Nor could it bo an net of justice to any one to open any lloodgatcs of vice. But how stands the case? While thero are,literally thousands of witnessesmen in high positions, ot large experience and most capable of forming an accurate judgment, who have como forward.and declared the liquor trallic to be the cause of at least three-fourths1 ot all crime and suffering, without contradiction by anyone outside the tirade, I fuid the judgment^ of similur men, similarly capable of judging, on the Cbiucso question, not only divided, hut preponderating in their favour. (2) Which brings me to tho secoud point. I neither questioti nor palliate the evils you speak of in Melbourne aud California. But when we kuow that fully as black spot 3 can be found in almost every large city, without Chinese iuiluence, and that other, Saxon features as deeply dyed can be unveiled iv these same places, Melbourne and|San Francisco, fair reasoning would uot, I think, conclude the cause to be racial. Eiiher of two tests would vindicate your position, to a certain extent: If the Chinese as a people, in their own country, were more immoral than other peoples ; or if their contact with other nations were more demoralising than our own contact with those whom wo call uncivilised. | While the iormer is not allirmed by either missionaries or historians; the latter— allirmed by none—is denied by many whose accurate knowledge is surpassed by the deep regrets aud shame with which they record the facts. Joseph Cook, at one of his far-famed 80-ton Lectures, says:—" Only three men of national reputation for statesmanship have thus far expressed an opinion on the Chinese question. Secretary Seward has put-ou record his firm protest agaainst the exclusive policy. Senator Morton, who was sent to California to investigate tlie Chiuese question, has put himself on the side of the oppressed in California. Mr Phillips is hot usually charged with lack of sympathy for working men, but he has had the courage to disagree utterly with the excltisionists." (Space compels me to abridge.) These men should know; and California is supposed to bo tho very hotbed of Chiuese vice.

(3) I wish I could think that fear of being demoralised wore the ground of anliCninese agitation. It would indeed be a welcome novelty if moral considerations had become a good working watchword tor the political hustings; but things- must have got a little upside down wheu men of the notorious Kearney and Garrard stamp are on the moral side, with men like the above-named statcsnieo, or Moody, the revivalist, or Joseph Cook opposed to them. One more quotation from Cook's lectures : " The vices of the Chinese are dangerous only to tho dissipated, and dissipation begins in San Francisco at the American ga'mblitig-heils.and in the American whiskey-dens. Families with Chiuese servants in them do uot complain of this corruption. What docs California expect us to believe when we aro told that tho Chiuese corrnpt everything they touch, and iv the same breath aro assured that no ono can compete with them as house-servants in the fust families." _;. ,

(4) The strongest part of your article seems to me to be that which charges the Chinese with not being good citizens.; I dp not attempt to deny that it i 3 iv part true ; nind that legislation is needed to bring i'lhinose immigrants under all the rcspousijbilitTbs of good citizens. A carefully-studied article in the "Nineteenth Century" for September, 187S, attributes this defect in Chinese colonists to iiuwisc "treatment by,thc people among whom they settle ; and says that with wiser treatment " the results 'would show themselves iv the iucrca-*cd attraction to foreign shores and happy settlement there of a people who, if properly understood and dealt with, are certainly capable of proving tho most tractable and useful colonists iv the woild." This is strong and decisive language. I think, however, that there are facts even now that amply justify it. A judge (whose name I cannot recall), who has kHown them for years iv San Francisco and the Califoruiau mining district, says that you rarely see a Chinese beggar, or drunken or idle mani and that, in proportion to their number-**, they are far less frequently in tho Police Court than the whites. Californiau statistics • wholly disprove tho assertion that financially or commercially they are not good citizens. " Oilicial statistics shpw that the 60,000 Chinese now in California contribute to tho annual revenue of the State over £3,00O,C0O." " The Surveyor-General of California says the Chinese have increased the value of the property in California £58,000,000, and this property to-day is held by .white men." Remarking on these and similar statistics, Joseph Cook adds: "I undertake to say that, there has not been on tho face of the globe, tince the first immigration of the English into this country (America), as profitable an influx of working men as these oilicial ligurea show."

Now, Mr Editor, what more can I say ? Well, I could add much. Instead of that, however, I must sincerely apologise for the length of this letter. But having a considerable love for New Zealand, I regret any unjust or ungenerous policy that may be pursued ; and having a high estimate of the services Sir George Grey can render to the country, it concerns mo moro than a little, not to be able to find in his treatment of a question like this of the Chiuese, either the exalted principles of a true Statesman, or tho noble-heartedness of a genuine lover of mankind.—lam, &c,

Samuel Edger,