THE ANTI-CHINESE MOVEMENT.

Evening Post, Volume L, Issue 42, 17 August 1895, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE ANTI-CHINESE MOVEMENT.

TO TIES EDITOB. Sm — I notice in your valuable paper of the sth met. a report of a meeting convened by those interested in the Anti- Chinese movement. In that report I also notice that those interested required the services of Jupp's Band, in order to secure an attendance of such a small minority of the ] citizens of Wellington What a-deplorable siate of things! What an interest the large majority of people in the city took in the movement ! Now, sir, in Wellington it is a case of •• jealousy of a few," that few being the fruiterers. Judging from hearsay, the townspeople are only too anxious that the fruit trade in the city should be carried on by the Chinese, asjthey are able to supply a superior article at a much lower price. Of course we can understand the Hon. W. P. Reeves' interest in the movement. It is a matter of gaining popularity in Wellington. He says that he has received letters from gentlemen of learning sympathising with him in the movement. Perhaps so. I wonder who those gentlemen are. Why do not thoße gentlemen in their respective centres convene similar meetings, and head their processions by brass bands? I dare say they might possibly get together the small few who are afraid t'uat the poor Chinaman making his paltry 10/- per week will be robbing them of their bread and butter. What a sad look-out for the hundreds of unemployed in New Zealand ! Some Mrs. Tasker or other states that the "Undesirable Immigrants Bill has been the best measure that had ever been introduced into Parliament, and that the unemployed difficulty could not be solved without such a measure." What has that got to do with the Anti- Chinese movement ? Can she prove that the Chinese are undesirable immigrants f Puir bodie. My own opinion is that if the Government huß done no more good for the country than introduce such a measure, it says very little for the representatives of the people. In the case of the Chinese the Bill is absolutely unnecessary, inasmuch as the Chinese population in New Zealand has decreased by 600 or 700 during the past six years, and now it totals considerably less than 2000. The Hon. (in his own country) Mr. Reeves states that last year the ingress of Chinese exceeded the egress by a few. Now, air, that was owing to the fact that the majority of Chinese arriving in the colony every year are only returning to New Zealand after a visit to their own country. It is absurd to say that the exclusion of the Chinese from New Zealand would solve the unemployed difficulty. The Hon. Mr Beevea says that "every vacancy created by a Chinaman going out of the country will be gladly, promptly, and thankfully filled by an industrious white labourer." Where in New Zealand do you find the Chinese labour interfering with that of the English, except in Wellington, as in the case of a few fruiterers? In almost nil parts of New Zealand the Chinese are engaged in the mining industry. Moreover, the land that they work would not satisfy even the unemployed. As a rule, the ground they turn over in search of gold has generally been gone over by Europeans. Furthermore, the Chinese never were nor never will be a burden to this country. Although they contribute towards the revenue of the colony and local bodies the same as any Europeans do, yet, no /natter how low a position they may be in, they do not seek support from charitable aid, nor ask the Government to find them work Again, the present law in New Zealand restricting the Chinese is contrary to the treaties between England and China, and is \ unjiut. Great Britain boasts that " every man resident in her colonies and abiding by the law shall receive justice irrespective of nation and colour." Why deny the Chinese justice? In America, where there are tens of thousands of Chinese, the law there only rostriots Chinese male labourers, whilst females and other classes of the race have free ingress, egress, and regress. In New Zealand no such provision is made ; the present law U most unjust. As to their not settling in the colony, there is good reason for their not doing so. If they wish to bring their wives and children here they have to pay that abominable tax of £10 per head on every one of them. Iv fact, they are treated as dogs, and as such it is a wonder they are not compelled to j wear a collar with a stamp affixed. What a law for a Christian country ! What a j poor specimen of humanity Mrs. P must be. Now that she has got her franchise, she wanta to see the tax on Chinese raised to £100 ; and no more letters of naturalisation granted to them, and thereby would prevent them from having the franchise— for only naturalised subjects are allowed to vote at a general election. Surely it is more than unjust to restrict their entering into' the country ; and furthermore, to raise the tax and to disenfranchise those already in the colony would be a most cowardly act. No doubt she worked hard for her franchise. Why not let the poor Chinamen have their freedom ? If I were to write at length, I am afraid my reply to the groundless attack on the Chinese by the Anti- Chinese League would be trespassing too much on your valuable space, and therefore I have been reluctantly obliged to curtail it 'By inserting the above few remarks you will greatly oblige. I am, &0., Chtnkse Resident. Greymouth, 12th August, 1895.