Etc. [pp. 326-334]

1886.]
-Et.
class was superseded by the myriad bondsmen, vic tims of captivity. But they had their revenge: these
bondsmen not only drove the free population to the
cities to subsist on paizeoc et circezses and incite do mestic tumult, but they made possible the cultivation
of those large estates and the creation of monopoly,
which, according to Pliny, ruined Italy-" Latifuzdia
Ital'za perAdidere. "
This is the answer to Mr. Hittells claim that the
Chinese benefit the State. It is impossible for them
to do so in any proper sense; certainly not from
the standpoint of the well-being of the republic. In
this viewv, which is the only tenable one, it matters
very little whether with Chinese labor there is in creased productiveness or not, or whether a greater or
less number of enterprises are initiated. The material
interests of a State must be subordinated to the so cial and political interests of the people. More than
"canned fruits, cheap strawberries and cigars" are
the "life, liberty, and happiness" of the men who
maintain the country's institutions, and add by their
presence to its true wealth.
White men are both producers and large consum ers, but the Chinese are not. Coolie labor appears
to the short-sighted farmer and manufacturer as de sirable, so long as other people find employment for
the white man. But substitute all Chinese labor,
the home market will disappear, and California will
practically be lost to the republic, and wvill become
for most purposes a foreign territory. What political
economy can reconcile this fact with the good of the
State?
But even political economy condemns the Chinese,
as between it and white labor. The Chinese leave
the results of their labor, it is true, but they take
out of the country the equivalent; and contrary to
those economic laws whose due observance is the
nmaterial wealth of nations, their earnings do not circulate, nor are they reinvested. So, what work they
perform is paid for doubly, by the employer and by
the community.
But returning to our point of view, it is urged by
Mr. Hittell that the Chinese, while unprogressive,
are a good laboring class. This we must admit. But
the question is, Can we in this country, and in consonance with our institutions, segregate a labor class
and regard them only by their capacity for work?
Sir Thomas More, in his " Utopia," considers this
very subject. In constructing his ideal State, he
made men equal; but in order to relieve its members
of humiliating labor, which would, he thought, disturb the equality proposed, he provided for a distinct
class, which was to perform all the disagreeable functions of society. If this idea were approved by us,
the Chinese would be the most desirable people for
such a purpose. They work well, they are docile,
and they would not be concerned about their political condition. But we know how repulsive such
suggestions are to American civilization. America
has dignified work and made it honorable. Man
329
hood alone gives title to rights, and the government,
being ruled by majorities, is largely controlled by
that very class which "Utopia" starts out by subor dinating. This political power invested in men fur ther shows the necessity of keeping up the standard
of the population, and not permitting it to deterio rate by contact with the Chinese. In "Utopia"
men are equal in respect to their occupations, while
with us, in the language of the French Declaration
of I 789, nmore explicit than our own, "men are equal
in respect to their rights."
But more objectionable even than the Utopian
helots, are the Chinese who now, in a free country,
are masquerading as men, while they bear every
characteristic of slaves; working for barely living
wages, enjoying no political participation in the gov ernment, inured through centuries to the loss of free dom, and indifferent to every other consideration
than ceaseless and unremitting toil. Unassimiilative,
they are to the body-politic what any extraneous
matter is to the human system. They are not, and
cannot be, incorporated into its being. They are
not a part of the social mechanism, and must sooner
or later throw it out of gear. Is not the terrible
friction today on the Pacific Coast, after a third of a
century's endurance, sufficient evidence of this?
But in the face of every argument, there is a set of
men who stand imperturbably in the way of prompt
and necessary legislation-the representatives of New
England in Congress-and they, strange to say, jus tify themselves by American principles; but, in doing
so, they become-a distinction to which they are wel come The steady patriots of the world alone,
The friends of every country but their own."
Nevertheless, Mr. Editor, by their exclusion the
Chinese are certainly not wronged; rather, their prejudices are respected. By their exclusion, American
principles are not violated, rather preserved.
7. 1D. Phelan.
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. Io, x886.
To THE EDITOR OF THE OVERLAND MONTHLY:
THAT the influx of Chinese is ominous in the extreme, there can be no doubt. But to solve the
question of avoiding the dire results arising from
Oriental immigration by crime and rapine, would increase our guilt, already involved in this question.
In the tirst place, who is to blame for the presence
of the Oriental in the Occident? Did he not ever
proclaim non-intercourse, iuntil our people with force
and arms awed him into cosmopolitan relations?
Now that he is forced into competition, he proposes
to compete.
This is no news to the West, when we take in review the past. Ages ago our fathers migrated to the
West, and why? Because they could not live in the
East, amid a people more skilled in the science of
life. This doctrine may be laughed at, but it is