CHINESE BOYCOTT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2399, 14 January 1909, Page 2

CHINESE BOYCOTT.

BRITISH ACTION CRITICISED. AN ENGLISH MERCHANT > INDIGNANT . The interference of the British Government- in the boycott of Japanese goods by thts"Chinese has evoked a storm of protest on the part of the Chinese people generally, and those of Hongkong in particular. The intensity of feeling on the part of the promotersiof the boycott is evidenced by a letter -received in Sydney a short time ago from the Shanghai correspondent of the “Tung Wall Times.” That writer says it is doubtful whether any action taken of recent times by the local Government has created such indignation among the merchant class anil literary men of China. No less than ten wel 1-known and respected members of the Chinese community, ho writes, have been condemned within three weeks to banishment without a trial, among them being Chun Lo Chun, insurance broker; Chin Sew Pole, and Ho Jo Wun, partners of Hung AVo Hong, Pun Lan Tzo, editor of the “Shat Po,” Ng Hin Txe, editor of the" “Shoung Po,” Clin Kuan Mon. manager of the “Shewng Po,” Leong Sui Hung, Chun Klim Kew, and Jang Yum Poo, merchants. The editor of the “Shining Po” refused to leave Hongkong without being tried, and retained the services of Sir Henry 'Berkley, K.C., as legal counsel. Intense interest was manifested in the issues involved, and great pleasure was shown when it was stated that the editor had been liberated. The law under which the citizens were ordered into banishment was, it is stated, only intended to he used against “pirates, brigands, and gaol-birds.” ■ “The Obi-nose merchants of Hongkong.” concludes (he despatch, “trust to hear in the near future of the cancellation of the whole of the warrants issued. The tactics now. being adopted to try to supress the boycott are calculated to intensify instead of allay the anti-Japanese sentiments.” Mr Choy Bing (of -Messrs AVing, Sang, and Co., Sydney, stated the other night- that he had been advised that one of his partners, Air A l ark AI. Paul, of the Sincere Company, Hongkong. was to be served with a banishment warrant. The, firm had not encouraged the boycott riots in any way. but had deprecated thefii. Air. Choy •considers that the riots have been mackv the excuse for the authorities taking action against certain of the promoters of the boycott,pimply because they did not. stock Japanese goods. A British, merchant doing business at Hongkong, writing on the subject, of outside influence; says the, freedom the British -administration is supposed to give, is not in evidence at Hongkong. An editor was arrested and imprisoned as the result- of Ids share in the bovcott, and Ids trial fixed for December -t, but on December 3he was suddenly invited to “come outside” the gaol. Having done so lie was then told that he could go. He went. The writer states that this backdown on the part of the Government is duo to the Government offices being held by people who apparently do not understand right methods from wrong. He styles the deportation without trial -as a crying shame, and says the grounds for that course were neither fair nor adequate. Ho states that the Registrar had dealers brought to his office to know why they did not-stock Japanese goods, and spoke in such a manner to them that’they understood that if tlicy did not at once buy Japanese goods they could pack up their baggage and leave the colony. The questions are asked: “Can the Registrar-General tell, how often the benevolent Japanese Government has hauled its subjects up- and asked why they did not stock British goods? Can he tell what the Japanese have done to protect the traile-marks of articles manufactured in Britain?” The writer accuses the Government of one of tlio grossest acts of .unfairness to British trade that any administration could be guilty of, and says that -by its action the Government has generated an ill-feeling against British goods that is on the brink of turning into a boycott, and many merchants considered withdrawing their deposits from British hanks and refraining from buying British goods. Many have decided, he says, to. again revive interest in AVliampoa as a possible mercantile port, and in the ©vent of that course being pursued Hongkong .would suffer severely. The writer considers it time that the British merchants should let the Chinese know that they did not agree with the policy of the Government and do not approve.the steps taken .to cause the Chinese to buy Japanese goods against their will. He concludes with the remark, “The Government action in that particular direction is uncalled for, impolitic and unnecessary.” ———■——i a—