Etc. [pp. 326-334]

1886.]
2te.
ous and disagreeable element here. We can never
harmonize with John. He would presume to at tempt civilizing us if he remains another decade.
This we can never endure.
Livy tells us vices so numerous and with such wide
ramifications could not be pruned without great
agony, and to lop them entirely would induce death.
Better make some sacrifices now, than be sacrificed
in the future. Let John be dealt with in a just man ner: in expelling him, let him feel that, although
impelled to this arbitrary act by absolute and unre lenting necessity, yet we will protect him in person
and property, and recompense him for all he leaves
behind; and the impecunious must have their passage
paid by the national government. And, my people
(the Aryans), this is the only way we can get out of
the grave dilemma which threatens our very existence
as a people.
Then, good-bye, John; as Uncle Demps used to
say to me, "Jimmie, I was deceived in that man."
7. L. Romaneau.
[Our correspondent forgets that, though it is quite
possible the westward migrations of our people
were the result of competition from those left behind, rather than of adventurousness on their own
part, these competitors were not Turanians, but other
Aryans. It will not do to speak of "Asiatic" as
synonymous with Mongolian, or even Turanian, when
so large tracts of Asia are peopled by Aryan races.]
To THE EDITOR OF THE OVERLAND MONTHLY:
John S. Hittell, in his article on the "Benefits of
Chinese Imnmigration," published in THE OVERLAND
for February, stated some very important facts which
seem to vitiate his reasoning and to entirely disprove
his conclusions.
At the outset, he fairly states the principle upon
which the Chinese problem should be solved, as follows:
"The greatest good of the greatest number must
be the main object of every good government."
He then admits that "The greatest number in
California are the white laborers, and therefore whatever does most for their benefit does most for the
advancement of the State."
Then, in the course of his argument, he gives the
following striking and truthful illustration of the real
effects of Chinese cheap labor:
"A small area of land, near San Jose, irrigated by
artesian wells, has such advantages for strawberry
culture, that it supplies nearly the entire demand of
San Francisco. This land belongs to white men,
who demand ha/f the crop for rent —equivalent to one
hundred dollars an acre annually. The land is worth
more for strawberries than for anything else, and
the Chinaman has added much to its value, because
he will pay a higher rent than any white man would."
After stating that the Chinaman buys boxes and
cases, and pays freight and commission upon his
strawberries, Mr. Hittell proceeds;
331
"If all the Chinamen would leave California, the
value of the strawberry land at San Jose would fall
twenty-five, or perhaps fifty, per cent.; much of it
would be used for other purposes; the rent of that
still cultivated in strawberries would decrease; the
sums paid for boxes, cases, freights, and commission
would be much less; the price of the berries would
increase fifty or one hundred per cent; and half the
people who now can afford to buy strawberries in
the season of their greatest abundance, could no
longer afford to purchase them."
Speaking of another business, he says: "It may
be said that the white men average two dollars a day
for their labor. The Chinamen get one dollar."
I freely admit that land rent is much higher in consequence of Chinese cheap labor than it would otherwise be, and that the rent of "strawberry land "would
be greatly reduced if the Chinamen should leave. But,
how would a reduction of rent injure " white laborers"? Mr. Hittell forgets that a landlord, as such,
is not a "white laborer," but a non-producer, whose
only function is to collect tribute from labor "for the
use of the natural and inherent powers of the soil ";
and he seems also to forget that he is, according to
his own limitation, discussing the effect of Chinese
competition upon white labor. Is it not an absurdity
to contend that white laborers would be injured by
securing the use of land for a smaller share of the
fruits of their labor than that which they are now
compelled to yield?
Cheap labor always enhances the rental value of
land, just as slave labor augmented the royal revenues of Roman landlords, while it crushed and impoverished the free laborers of that republic, driving
them to enforced idleness, destitution, and profligacy,
and ultimately involving the nation in social and political decay.
There is no terror for white laborers in Mr. Hittell's predicted reduction of rent.
Why he fears that much of this particular strawberry land "would be used for other purposes," I am
unable even to guess, since, in a preceding sentence,
he says: "The land is worth more for strawberries
than for anything else." Nor can I understand why
he thinks "the price of berries would increase fifty
or one hundred per cent.," since he tells us that
Chinamen, at the present prices, can afford to give
"half the crop for rent," pay for their boxes, cases,
freight, and commission, and take to themselves
wages at the rate of one dollar per day. If, as he
says, the land will yield, at present prices, two hundred dollars an acre annually, and if half of that sum
will pay all expenses and leave a margin of one dollar per day for wages, surely the other half must be
sufficient to pay another dollar per day for wages,
and enable the cultivator to pay a rent for the land
equal to the entire cost of boxing, casing, shipping,
and selling the goods. This latter rent would be
equal to the entire amount now received by railroad
companies and white laborers for handling the strawberry crops.