"THE CHINESE MUST GO"
A decade before the founding of the Times Los Angeles was the site of the
most violent act yet committed in the United States against immigrants from
China. The 1871 slaughter of 19 Chinese Angelenos by a mob in the city's
infamous "Nigger Alley" would be exceeded only by a similar occurrence at Rock
Creek, Wyoming, in the mid-1880s. But while the Wyoming horror erupted amid
massive anti-Chinese agitation throughout the West, the Los Angeles massacre
occurred before the emergence of anti-Chinese agitation in the city and at a
time when the county's Chinese numbered no more than 300 - less than 2 percent
of the total population. Historian Grace Heilman Stimson argued that the
hostility responsible for the violence was based more on the emotion of racial
prejudice than fear of economic competition and was a carryover from the
lawlessness of an earlier era. As time passed, however, the city's anti-
Chinese agitation came to be closely tied to the workingclass in general and to
the labor movement specifically.
Anti-Chinese protests and violence in California had been primarily
associated with the mines in the 1850s and early 1860s, but the center shifted
when placer mining played out and white miners drifted down out of the Mother
Lode to seek work on farms and in towns and cities, particularly San Francisco.
There the Chinese population in 1870 exceeded 12,000, forty times that of Los
Angeles. Use of Chinese labor for railroad construction had brought great
numbers of immigrants to California in the 1860s. Completion of the first
transcontinental line not only created temporary unemployment for many Chinese
workers but increased the competition for jobs as large numbers of Easterners
rode the rails west seeking employment. Organized anti-Chinese protests broke
out in San Francisco and in other communities with a disproportionately large
number of Chinese when white workers, only a few years removed from a Civil War
that had been fought in part over the specter of competition with slave labor,
saw themselves in danger of vying with "coolie labor" for jobs.
With only a relative handful of Chinese living in Southern California in
the early 1870s there was little reason for organized anti-Chinese activity.
The Chinese population of Los Angeles County in 1860 numbered only 11,
approximately 0.01 percent of the population. By 1870 the number had climbed
to 234 (1.5 percent) and by 1880 reached its 19th century census year peak at
3.5 percent, a total of 1169 Chinese. Historians believe that population
topped out in the early 1880s, perhaps as high as 6000, before falling to 4424
in 1890 after passage of the exclusion act. Those restrictions on Chinese
immigration and an extremely large migration of whites to Los Angeles from
eastern states reduced the Chinese proportion of the county's population to 1.9
percent in 1890.
An organized anti-Chinese movement had emerged in Los Angeles in the mid-
1870s, coinciding with a new influx of Chinese into the state in conjunction
with several major railroad construction projects utilizing Chinese labor.
Alfred Moore, then active in the Greenback Labor Party and later a real estate
developer {see chapter on the river}, organized an Anti-Coolie Club in 1876.
The following year, as San Francisco's Denis Kearney spearheaded anti-Chinese
demonstrations that led to the formation of the Workingmen's Party, Kearney's
battlecry - "The Chinese Must Go!" - was carried into Los Angeles. Moore,
Jesse Butler and others associated with labor's political efforts set up a
local branch of Kearney's party and won the municipal election of 1878.
At the state level Workingmen's Party agitation led to a constitutional
convention in 1878. The convention entertained numerous anti-Chinese proposals
but adopted only two major ones, denying Chinese the right to vote and
prohibiting their employment by corporations or government, both of which were
later declared unconstitutional as was much of California's state and local
anti-Chinese legislation.
For the state election of 1879 the legislature placed on the ballot an
advisory proposition regarding the continuation of Chinese immigration. Over
150,000 voters supported a ban while less than 1000 opposed it. Curtailment of
immigration, of course, was beyond the limit of state or city government. As a
result, the focus of agitation moved to the national level with a demand for
abrogation of the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, which had legalized the movement of
Chinese workers to the U.S. and by treaty protected them from discrimination.
Early in 1882 Senator John Miller, whose election by the California
legislature was partly due to his anti-Chinese position, pushed through
Congress a bill to prohibit importation of Chinese laborers for 20 years. His
bill was made possible by a revision that year of the Burlingame Treaty,
eliminating treaty obstacles to immigration restriction. President Chester
Arthur vetoed the bill, however, citing the 20 year clause as a major
objection. Miller quickly authored a new version calling for a ten year ban.
Miller's initial exclusion bill reached the floor of Congress shortly after
the founding of the Times. At its inception the paper had been sympathetic to
the anti-Chinese movement. During his tenure in 1882 Editor Mathes frequently
published letters in support of efforts to halt immigration. Despite his
personal position he also ran letters condemning the anti-Chinese agitation, as
evidenced by a communication from "Progress," who commented on the 1879
referendum on Chinese exclusion. Governor George Stoneman, praised by
"Progress" for hirng only native labor, was accused elsewhere of having
employed Chinese household help. Stoneman claimed his wife did the hiring.
{Times, April 14, 1882, p. 2}
Pasadena, April 13, 1882.
Mr. Editor: Can you find space in your paper for the
enclosed spicy and humorous article on the Chinese? I have
never yet noticed in any California paper a single reprint of
any of the interesting speeches made in Congress, notably by
Senators Horr, Dawes, McDill, Hawley, or Representatives
Kasson, Carpenter, Browne and others in opposition to the
Miller bill. Would it not be fair for you to give the people
of California a chance to read a little on both sides of the
Chinese question? Is the press of California under duress?
Is Denis Kearney all omnipotent over the State? Do Irishmen
or Americans rule this country, or do the poltroon
politicians? A California editor stated to me, that the
almost unanimous vote against the Chinese was secured by not
printing a single ticket in their favor, and that the few who
voted "nay" had to write their tickets, and that thousands
voted aye without noticing how their tickets were printed.
In conversing with a citizen of San Francisco he said it
was true, and moreover that the press did not dare to print
any other kind of a ticket. Furthermore, allow me to say
that in a three months residence in different parts of
California, that a very large majority of the citizens with
whom I have conversed, are bitterly opposed to the Miller
bill, and that without a single exception, the visitors and
travelers here from other States with whom I have spoken on
the subject, are equally opposed to the bill. We all,
however, would be willing to see some restrictions made as to
the number that shall come in any one year, but are opposed
to any entire suspension for any time. Why don't the people
of California refuse to hire Chinese laborers? Would not
that stop the immigration? If they don't want them, don't
hire them. Let them do as Gen. Stoneman does, hire and
employ only natives "to the manor born," and the coming of
the heathen Chinee will be a thing of the past.
PROGRESS.
Jesse Butler had been elected to the city council when the Workingmen's
Party, with an anti-Chinese plank in its platform, swept the 1878 city
elections. Consequently, his response to "Progress" was not unexpected.
Accompanying "Progress'" letter was a clipping, reprinted by the editor, from
the Chicago Tribune reporting a sermon by Henry Ward Beecher in support of the
Chinese. In commenting on Beecher's sermon Butler referred to a statement
attributed to Beecher during the 1877 nationwide railroad strike. Beecher had
been quoted to the effect that an honest man ought to be able to support a wife
and five children on one dollar a day, and any man who was not willing to live
on bread and water in doing so was not fit to live.
Butler's reference to the Chinese "urinary abomination" reflected another
argument frequently raised by the anti-Chinese movement - that the Chinese
presented a health hazard. San Francisco doctor Charles O'Donnell, the city's
coroner and an associate of Kearney, had incited anti-Chinese feeling there by
displaying a purported Chinese leper to the public on the city streets.
Historian William Bullough noted that in reality "Doctor" O'Donnell was a
veterinarian.
{Times, April 15, 1882, p. 3}
A GRATIFIED CONTRIBUTOR.
He Explains Some Things--Bread and Water Beecher.
Editor Times: I am exceedingly gratified at your
liberality and fairness in giving room in your paper this
morning to a Pasadena correspondent signed "Progress," and am
satisfied that this discussive mode is to be the future
system in newspaper editorialship and correspondence, and
therefore hail you as (locally) its enlightened pioneer.
But let us see: He says "the almost unanimous vote
against the Chinese was secured by not printing a single
ticket in their favor, and that the few who voted nay had to
write their tickets." Now if my memory serves me, it was
thus: no party indeed dared to print on their tickets, "In
favor of," or "For Chinese immigration," and why? Simply
because had they done so, the Workingmen's Party would have
swept the State with a wide besom of victory; and to prevent
that dire (?) result, every ticket in the field had on it
"Against Chinese immigration" (this was written from memory,
but by politeness of Postmaster Dunkelberger and County Clerk
Potts, I have just looked at the tickets of the different
parties and found myself correct, "Against Chinese
immigration" being printed on the bottom of all party
tickets, so that the voter had not to say "yea" or "nay," but
voted "against" on every ticket, unless he simply crossed off
the proposition with his pen, which would of course be equal
to saying nothing, and leaving them free to come as before
that vote was taken). So much for your enlightened
correspondent, but one word for poor Beecher and for poor
human nature -- on the average. When his salary was from
$800 to $1,500 a year, he eloquently preached that poor men
and slaves were the beloved children of God; but now when
getting thirty thousand a year and over, he consigns the poor
man to bread and water, and a competition in labor with the
slaves of the lowest race and the oldest, meanest, dying-out
civilization that remains to afflict every large-souled
intelligent philanthropist, and every aspiring laboring man
and woman in the land of the old Washingtonian Eagle; and in
the burning--aye, thank God, in the consuming light of this
grand nineteenth century, Poor Beecher! Poor Yorick! Thus
you see, Mr. Editor, this discussion brings out the cold
facts, and "truth always destroys error if left free to
combat it." For the exposition of the Chinese nuisance
including the urinary abomination, thank you; and the council
of two years since knew it all to be true through the
inspection of Dr. Lindley and the police, but refused to act
on that knowledge, though pledged to do so in their platform.
JESSE H. BUTLER.
A) "THE CHINESE QUESTION"
Historians of the anti-Chinese movement in California are in general
agreement that many Easterners, other than wage-earners, entering the state
during the boom decade were not in sympathy with those calling for an immediate
end both to Chinese immigration and to their employment in the state's labor
force. Usually those Easterners added that they were willing to accept
immigration restrictions less draconian than a total prohibition and looked
forward to the day when white labor would be abundant enough to satisfy the
needs of California's employers. But they cautioned that that day had not
arrived. They appealed for those protesting to use peaceful means, agreeing
that the Chinese presented a threat to western culture but warning that the
danger did not require mob action. Typical of that view was this letter from a
recent arrival from Ohio.
{Times, May 11, 1882, p. 3}
AN OHIO REPUBLICAN.
His Views are Sound on the Chinese Question.
To the Editor of the Times:-- I find since my sojourn in
this portion of your flourishing State, that there is some
excitement and no inconsiderable diversity of opinion on what
is usually termed the "Chinese question." I fine my own
views have been modified by a careful consideration of the
subject, and I have come to regard it as a matter of far
greater importance, and worthy of more careful investigation
than is usually given to it in the Middle and Eastern states.
The question of the immigration of the Chinese and their
settlement, whether temporary or permanent, in the country is
usually regarded, simply as a labor question, and from this
doubtless has arisen much of the diversity of opinion now
existing between the people of the East and the West. We
frequently hear well informed men saying, that very much of
the improvement of the West has been brought about by Chinese
labor; that by this labor, rail roads have been constructed,
cities built up, farms opened and cultivated, and a degree of
advancement and prosperity attained in a very few years which
could not have been reached but for the introduction of this
peculiar element. Let this be admitted, it is very probably
true. Let us go a step farther, and say that the
continuation of this species of labor, and the increase of
Chinese population to a point very much above what it has yet
attained, may still continue to advance the material and
physical prosperity of the country. That cheap labor has its
advantages in building up a new country none will deny. The
interests of labor and of capital are not necessarily opposed
to each other, because, as the price of labor diminishes, the
greatness and power of capital is increasing. Such a state
of things may be and frequently is, entirely consistent with
the material growth, advancement and actual well being of a
country demanding a large and rapidly increasing population
to assure its development. This has been felt and recognized
in the East for many years. Every State east of the
Mississippi river has been largely dependent on foreign
immigration for its material progress. The question of the
good and the evil arising from this immigration has been
freely discussed, has entered into our state and national
politics, and has much to do in the divisions and acerbities
of political parties. And yet it is doubtful it if has ever
been considered in its most important bearings. It has
usually been looked upon as simply a labor question, or as a
question how far one or another political party could be
benefited or impaired by its continuance. Seldom indeed have
we taken the trouble to enquire how far all the interests of
society, moral, social, political and material were to be
affected by the introduction among us of a foreign element
with feelings, habits, modes of living and thinking, and
moral and social tendencies, diverse from and frequently
opposed to those under which our country has grown up, and
gone forward, in the road of progress for nearly three
centuries. And yet this is precisely the point which demands
consideration.
Few men will deny that what we are endeavoring to work
out in this land of ours, is a civilization which shall
develop in every point the highest characteristics, and at
the same time advance the best interest of the human race.
We will assume then, what also few will deny, and what the
history of our race, if we take the time carefully to
investigate it, will fully uphold--namely, that the
civilization of the Anglo-Saxon, or speaking in a broader
sense, as well say the civilization of the Aryan race, is
that which is to-day bringing mankind up to the highest point
of moral and civil improvement and well being. This
proposition admitted, which can not only be readily
substantiated, but which I apprehend our federal legislators
will not be prone to dispute, and then it follows that
whatever stands in the way of the complete establishment and
perfection of this civilization, should be viewed with a
jealous eye, and its introduction to any undue extent
carefully guarded. European immigration, while it has added
so much to our material advancement, has not been by any
means free from objections in its moral and civil relations,
yet the fact that the subjects of this immigration, poured so
freely upon our shores, because in no great length of time
assimilated to, and largely identified with our own people,
casting in their lot among us and uniting with us in
endeavoring to work out the great problem of the greatest
good for the greatest number, and in many cases becoming
leaders among us, in social and civil reforms and progress,
these facts have smoothed the way for their reception, and
have soon, in a good degree, obliterated the marks of
difference which at one time seemed likely to block our way.
But the question arises can we afford to admit into our ranks
simply in social and business life, saying nothing of their
political status, which is a question for after
consideration, a large body of men and women, who from the
time they came among us have not, and in the nature of
things, we may say, cannot and will not now, or hereafter,
mingle themselves with us, and become assimilated to "our"
modes of living, thinking and acting. This brings us to the
very core of the Chinese question. The Chinese civilization
is older than ours, it is far more fixed, more immovable. It
is so completely indurated, crystallized by the accretions of
ages, that it has become inpenetrable. We cannot impress
ourselves upon it, we can change none of its features, none
of its facts. Such as it is to-day, such it will remain, so
every new thousand of immigrants increases its power, but
does not change its form. If it is a less perfect
civilization than ours to-day, so it will be to-morrow, next
year and forever. Established among us it blocks the way of
progress. If we value the progress we have made, and desire
to go forward, this obstacle must be removed out of our way.
It is folly to say, we want Chinese labor we must have it and
we shall not permit them to interfere with our manners, our
institutions or our business. Had four millions of negroes
no effect on the manners, institutions or business affairs of
the twelve millions of whites among whom they lived? Let
history answer the question. Yet these negroes were only
manual laborers, forbidden to think, without civilization and
without progress; but the Chinese are a nation of thinkers,
shrewd calculators, insinuating themselves into every avenue
of business, and forcing every species of business or trade
in which they engage to conform to their modes and habits of
life and thought. The question is not a narrow one, shall we
have Mongolian civilization or Anglo-Saxon? shall we go
forward or shall we stand still? shall the American or the
Asiatic rule on the Pacific coast? We may as well look the
matter calmly in the face and determine what we wish to do
before we are forced to act whether we wish it or not. It is
no time to bring in political parties to settle a question
which belongs to the nation and is above all parties. The
Republican has the same interest here as the Democrat--no
more, nor no less. We can tolerate the Chinaman so long as
he is not so powerful, by his numbers, as to outweigh us in
the social or commercial scale. Whenever he is so, his
presence is an unmitigated evil. There is no call for force,
no need of mob law, the worst of all laws; no need of any
organization or system or action outside of the laws of the
State or the nation. Clear, cool, careful, deliberate
investigation and action are what is needed, and these will
arrest the evil, nay, may do, what God's providence is
continually doing in this world, may adduce great good, from
what without careful direction will certainly become the
source of evil irremediable.
The President will in all probability sign the bill
which the Congress just passed, it may not be the best which
could have been made, but it gives the nation and your own
State time to think, time to act carefully and deliberately.
From it, as we believe, no harm can arise, while wisdom and
prudence may found on its provisions a cause of action from
which the world will be the gainer. If the bill does not
become a law now, it will at least cause the question to be
thoroughly investigated, and if all rash measures be
repressed, time will bring us to a correct solution of its
difficulties.
AN OHIO REPUBLICAN.
Los Angeles, May 5, 1882.
B) MORE THAN EXCLUSION
With the signing by Arthur of the revised Exclusion Act in May, 1882, anti-
Chinese agitation largely disappeared, but despite the exclusionists' initial
enthusiasm the law eventually proved less than satisfactory from their
viewpoint. Lax enforcement, corruption in the issuance of immigration permits
and the failure of large numbers of Chinese to return to their homeland led to
a resurgence of anti-Chinese feeling in 1885.
The principal demand of California workingmen was a ban on importation of
Chinese laborers and the deportation of those already here. Since that
required federal action, anti-Chinese forces attempted to achieve that end
indirectly through state laws and city ordinances designed to drive out Chinese
residents through harassment. In numerous cities and towns workingmen sought
ordinances that would force Chinese beyond the city limits. In Los Angeles an
Anti-Chinese Union gathered 1200 signatures calling for the council to evict
the Chinese. When the city attorney challenged the constitutionality of such
an ordinance the council shelved the proposal. Elsewhere residents took the
matter into their own hands, resorting to mob action to hound the Chinese out.
Based on letters in the Times future historians would be unaware of any
renewed hostility to the Chinese in the mid-1880s. While about half of the
paper's issues for 1883-84 are missing from the microfilm, those extant do not
contain a single letter on the "Chinese Question," although one letter
denounced the importation of opium into the country. Those years, of course,
comprised a period in which exclusionists briefly believed that the law had
solved the immigration problem. But even in 1885, when they realized that
legislation had not accomplished its goal, the Times printed only four letters
on the Chinese. One, by R. M. Beach, roundly condemned the violence used
against them.
Two weeks before Beach's letter ran in the Times a Pasadena mob had burned
a Chinese laundry and several other buildings, and the Chinese were forced to
vacate the central portion of that city in 24 hours. Initial reports, even in
the Times, held the Chinese responsible for the fire, but subsequently the
paper declared that local citizens had determined that the fire broke out when
a rock thrown from outside the laundry overturned a lamp. Since Beach's letter
dealt with two unrelated topics, thus violating one of the editor's cardinal
rules, only the portion pertaining to the Chinese question is printed below.
Richard M. Beach was listed in the city directories of the mid-1880s as a Los
Angeles clergyman.
{Times, Nov. 21, 1885, p. 4}
The Stead and Chinese Questions
To the Editor of The Times--Sir: ... Now just one word
more, and that on the Chinese question. What are we coming
to? Must we concede that, with all our boasted intelligence,
refinement and Christianity, we are a nation of mobocrats?
The question is not whether the Chinese are good or bad: a
blessing or a curse. They are here. They came without
protest. If they are inimical to the interests of our
country, we must make the best of it, unless some compromise
could be made with China to free us from them. Mob law is
the most cruel, heartless, unjust, unmanly redress for
supposed or real evil that any individual or community ever
resorted to. Prejudice blinds, totally blinds, the eye of
Justice, and of all prejudice, race prejudice is the
bitterest.
Was there ever a more striking illustration of this
statement than the Pasadena mob. It turns out that the
Chinamen, after all, were innocent of the offense, that so
aroused the ire of that supposed peaceable suburb. And what
will they do about it? Will they say, as the old woman did
who whipped her boy for what she afterwards learned he was
not guilty of, "Well, he's guilty of a thousand other things
worse and let the whipping be turned to that account?" The
Pasadenians certainly ought to be on their knees at the
mourners' bench, every last one of them, bringing forth
fruits meet {meant? - Ed.} for repentance.
Why, Mr. Editor, do not the friends of law and order, to
say nothing of the friends of a helpless race in our midst,
call meetings to redress the indignation of good citizens at
this outrage on decency and Justice on this coast?
R. M. BEACH.
Critics of the anti-Chinese movement suspected that those most vocal in
their call for removal of the Chinese were themselves not "native Americans," a
term that then referred to whites born in the United States. Historian
Alexander Saxton found that the state's wage-earning labor force by nation of
birth in 1870 consisted of only 40 percent native Americans, 25 percent
Chinese, 15 percent Irish and the rest scattered among several nationalities.
There are no comparable figures for Los Angeles in the early 1880s before the
boom, but with a Chinese population of 605 in 1880, accounting for only 5.4
percent of the city's residents, it is unlikely that the Chinese made up more
than 10 percent of the wage earners.
While conceding that a slow removal of the Chinese was a desirable goal,
"Justice" questioned the role of foreigners in the anti-Chinese movement.
"Foreigner," writing a few weeks later, made a similar observation, referring
to "North American Chinamen." The Trades Council's "Appeal," referred to by
"Foreigner," was an endorsement of the boycott of Chinese-made goods, discussed
below. Labor leader Arthur Vinette, whose letters appear elsewhere in this
volume, was a French Canadian.
{Times, Feb. 27, 1886, p. 2}
The Native-American Movement.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: The writer is not
ambitious for office, so, he feels quite safe in speaking his
mind on all subjects.
I venture the assertion that the most bitter enemies of
the Mongolian are themselves foreigners, and it is a question
in my mind whether those same officious persons have any
better right on American soil than a Chinaman, provided that
Chinaman behaves himself as well in all particulars. Then,
if John becomes a permanent citizen, acquires property, pays
his taxes, becomes naturalized, and in other respects behaves
himself, I ask, who has a better right to live and breathe in
our land of equal rights, unless it be the native-born?
Will you please stop and think one moment? Of what
nationality are all these tramps which infest our land? Did
you ever see a Chinaman begging for something to eat? I
never did. Did you ever see one who was not willing to work?
I never did. Comparatively few are to be seen in our State
prisons? We call them heathen--true, they are. They are not
all the heathen we have in our midst.
Has not a Chinaman as good a right on American soil as
an American on China soil? Drive out all our Chinamen and
China will drive out all Americans from her country, and we
will lose the entire commerce between the two countries,
which is many millions yearly. Let us go a little slow!
Look well to our very best interest.
We need servants of some kind, and I very much doubt if
we can do better than to use John, if we can make him acquire
property and become a citizen.
The ultra form taken by the native American movement
will not do, of course, but it seems to me that all
foreigners, would do well to remember that it is not wise for
those who live in glass houses to get "too fresh" about
throwing stones.
Such fierce persecution--such uncontrolled hatred
towards one alien, comes with very poor grace from another
aliens
Too many Chinese in our land would be very bad, but none
at all--all expelled at once, would be a calamity. Let us go
a little slow, be not rash.
JUSTICE.
{Times, Mar. 18, 1886, p. 2}
A Foreigner's Idea About Foreigners.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I was much amused when
I read the article in your Thursday's issue headed "An
Appeal," issued, I believe, by the Trades Council. I think
it is about time the law-abiding people of Los Angeles should
study the matter a little, and try and find out what class of
men compose the "Trades Council" of Los Angeles. To my
certain knowledge a majority of them are foreigners. I know
some of the loudest-speaking members are French Canadians,
who do a good deal of talking in the neighborhood of the
Natick House. This same class of men are called, in the New
England States, "North American Chinamen." Back there in the
factory towns, they work for the lowest wages, and live just
as cheap as Chinamen. It is nothing unusual there to see a
family of twelve or sixteen living and doing their own
cooking in two rooms. Most every factory village in New
England has its "Frenchtown" similar to the Chinatowns on the
Pacific coast. What amuses me is, that this same class of
men, when they arrive on the Pacific coast, join some trades
union to enable them to get work, and then shout loudest "the
Chinese must go." Now the people of Los Angeles must not get
the idea that all the intelligent working men of this city
belong to labor unions. More than one half of the workingmen
of Los Angeles have got independence enough to do their own
thinking, and are men enough not to be bulldozed into joining
trades unions, or to be pulled around by the nose by
demagogues. I am a foreigner myself, and am glad that I have
the privilege of living in this glorious country. When I get
dissatisfied I will not try and expel other foreigners who
are satisfied, but will go myself.
A FOREIGNER.
C) THE BOYCOTT
Protests continued. On Feb. 27, 1886, the Times reported that 6000 people,
approximately 10 percent of the city's population, attended an anti-Chinese
rally in the Tabernacle at Fourth and Main, the largest such rally ever to
occur in Los Angeles. Among the speakers were Col. H. H. Boyce, co-proprietor
of the Times, Joseph D. Lynch of the Herald, Henry Z. Osborne of the Express,
Dr. Joseph P. Widney, Congressman Reginald F. del Valle, Mayor Henry Hazard and
future senator Stephen White. In the course of the evening a majority voted to
impose a boycott, commencing May 1st, withdrawing their patronage from Chinese
vegetable gardens and laundries and withholding patronage from all who employed
Chinese or sold Chinese-made goods. Another resolution endorsed the use of all
legal and peaceful means for "ridding the city of Chinese."
While supporting the use of peaceful and legal methods and acknowledging
that workingmen had the right to withhold their patronage where they saw fit,
Times co-proprietor Boyce said he did not like the word "boycott." "It doesn't
sound well to American ears." Instead, he urged workers to use persuasion.
Boyce's partner at the Times, Otis, refused to attend the meeting. In an
editorial directed at those who did plan to go, Otis cautioned that expulsion
of the Chinese would be harmful to the economy. While agreeing that native
labor would be preferable to that of the "benighted heathen, which of course
these sons of Asia are," he warned that any change in the labor supply must
wait for the development of a domestic labor supply that was adequate to
replace the Chinese in those occupations that they then dominated. In
subsequent editorials Otis came out strongly in opposition to the boycott.
Historian Grace Stimson believed this difference of opinion on the Chinese
question was a factor leading to the termination of the Boyce-Otis joint
ownership of the Times.
Joining Otis in denunciation of the boycott was Andrew J. Wells, minister
at the Congregational church, whose letter drew responses from Jordan Cox, who
was a contractor-builder and the writer of several letters advocating
exclusion, and from Rabbi Emanuel Schreiber, who challenged Wells from a
different perspective. In turn, "Stranger," "Old Miner" and "Justice" defended
the Chinese.
{Times, Feb. 28, 1886, p. 5}
THE "LITTLE BROWN MAN" UNDER DISCUSSION.
A Manly Plea For National Honor.
Some Points for Patriots to Ponder-
"John" Not a Good Quantity, But He Must Not Be Crucified.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I am unable to
understand how gentlemen who so earnestly, and with such
evident sincerity, deprecate violence or unlawful methods of
dealing with the Chinese, but who advocate peaceful and
lawful measures which contemplate the same end, viz., the
expulsion of the obnoxious Mongols, can justify their action,
as good citizens of this republic. If citizens band
themselves together to withhold from the Chinaman the means
of livelihood, and seek to compel others in a like course by
a system of unmanly, un-American and tyrannical proscription,
termed "boycotting," the end must be the expulsion of the
Chinese as certainly, if more slowly, as if driven out by
violence.
The argument used against violent methods has never, I
think, risen to the level of righteousness, or been urged in
the name of justice, but has been the low and selfish plea
that violence would disgrace us as a State, and would
prejudice the anti-Chinese cause in the East! But did it
never occur to these excellent gentlemen who cry, "Peace!
peace!" and declare themselves on the side of law, that this
whole business of getting rid of these foreigners is
dishonorable to the citizen, because in violation of the
solemn compact which this government has made with China? Do
gentlemen deceive themselves by the cry of "peaceful and
lawful means?" Do they not know that Congress alone can deal
with this question, and that the faith of the government and
the honor of the nation is pledged to maintain the Chinese
"in the exercise of their treaty privileges against any
opposition, whether it takes the shape of popular violence or
of legislative enactment?" (See Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1881.)
The Angell treaty or Restriction act of 1880 said that
"Chinese laborers now in the United States shall be accorded
all the rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions which
are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored
nations."
Have we regarded that compact? Have we not, to our
shame, violated it upon the landing of every steamer from
China, and in the peaceful or violent expulsion of the
Chinese from the small towns and villages of the State?
Article III of that treaty pledges the government of the
United States, if the Chinese "meet with ill-treatment at the
hands of any other persons," to exert all its power to devise
measures for their protection."
Are not reputable citizens of this commonwealth
deliberately proposing to ill-treat the Chinese? They may
not think so, but they deceive themselves. I am ill-treated
if driven from my home by violence; I am ill-treated if
driven out by peaceful methods, for no crime, by combinations
of society against me which make starvation inevitable if I
remain, and which combinations are devised for this purpose.
Does not the movement here and throughout the State mean just
this, and is it not a cowardly method of evading the letter
of the law while violating its spirit?
These considerations are strengthened by remembering
that we compelled unwilling China to enter into treaty
obligations and relations with us; that our presence in China
has been distasteful and irritating; that American and
English steamers in Chinese waters have thrown out of
business a vast fleet of Chinese junks, and out of employment
an army of Chinese larger than the total Mongol population of
the United States; that for ill-treatment of the hated
foreigners in her midst, China has punished her citizens and
paid large sums as indemnity, while we have ignored Chinese
claims, or refused satisfaction and been remiss in the
execution of our laws against those who plundered and
murdered Chinamen.
This Christian nation should suffer shame to-day, and
loss of character and moral power, as she faces these heathen
people.
Do gentlemen who advocate peaceful and lawful methods of
evicting the Chinese, who are here by our invitation, by our
treaty, and by the policy and principles of our government,
feel complacent in view of their want of faith in this
heathen nation? Do they consider, at all, the question of
retaliation and the bloody expulsion of white residents from
China, which may follow the "peaceful and lawful methods"
devised for starving men out of our land?
It is freely granted that the Chinese are the
unendurable element of our population, but when all has been
said against them that can be said, only one course remains
for us that is honorable and lawful in the best sense, viz.
to wait the action of the government, whose citizens we are
and whose laws and pledges of faith we must regard.
"Nothing is safer than justice, and nothing is settled
that is not right" and we cannot settle this vexed question
and secure peace and quiet by methods which dishonor the
nation and override those human impulses which are the best
part of human nature, and which urges in behalf of those whom
it is proposed to starve out, that they are men--men with
their own sorrows, their own burdens and perplexities, and
their own problems of destiny to solve.
A. J. WELLS.
Feb. 27, 1886.
{Times, Mar. 2, 1886, p. 2}
A Boycott Both Ways.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: The temperate and
wise, yet firm, utterances of the Times on the Chinese
crusade, and their indorsement by the people, or a large
majority of them, at the Tabernacle Saturday night, are
matters of congratulation, and speak loudly in our behalf as
justice-loving law-abiding citizens. We have but two classes
of obstructionists to meet and brush aside: those with
misguided, morbid sympathy for the "stranger within our
gates," and the wealthy, who prefer them as servants to those
of their own nation or color. The labor market in the United
States is now overstocked, and every Chinaman employed sends
a male or female tramp upon society. Sympathy for the Mongol
is very cruelty and death to sons and daughters of our own
blood and nation. Away with this sickly sympathy! True,
healthy empathy expresses itself for the poor of our own
country, who are daily growing poorer. Our sympathies
sometimes make fools of us. We don't owe the Chinese
anything. In early days in California, when the State had a
small population and needed laborers, we invited a few--or
hired a few--to work for us. We now have more than enough
laborers of our own and have a right to discharge "our
Chinese help" without doing them injustice. In remaining
here when not wanted they become intruders. They are, as
Rev. A. J. Wells says, an "unendurable element," and the
overflowing Chinese hive must not select America to settle
upon. I am surprised at the reasoning of Mr. Wells, based
upon the false assumption that Congress alone has the right
to regulate this thing! It is a matter between the laborer
and his employer, outside of treaty stipulations; and the
people have to move, and that vigorously, before Congress
finds out that there is anything wrong. The people govern
Congress--not Congress the people. An American citizen has a
right to buy vegetables of Americans, to get his washing done
by Americans, has he not? He has a right to employ white
help in his kitchen, has he not? If so, where is the
injustice to Chinamen? When you employ Chinese you are
boycotting Americans, to the same extent! Girls, boys, men
and women of our our {own? - Ed.} color and nation. Oh, yes,
employ Chinese and boycott our own sons and daughters, making
hoodlums of them thereby! Labor must be made respectable and
remunerative. Would the reverend gentleman class the hiring
of an American young woman in his kitchen as boycotting the
Chinese? If so, the employment of Chinese is boycotting
American labor. Which would he have, and where are his
sympathies, and where is his "justice and righteousness,"
that he speaks of as so foreign to the conceptions and
motives of the anti-Chinese movement? Let this "unendurable
element" return to their own country, and work out the labor
problem there. Respectfully,
JORDAN COX.
{Times, Mar. 3, 1886, p. 3}
Reasoning of a Rabbi.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: In your issue of
Sunday the Rev. A. J. Wells pleads for the Chinese, and,
while on the one hand conceding that "Congress can deal with
the question," he says that the Chinese must be maintained,
even "against legislative enactment"--which would exclude
even Congress from dealing with the question; for if, as the
reverend gentleman states, "The honor of the nation is
pledged to maintain the Chinese in the exercise of their
treaty privileges against any opposition, whether it takes
the shape of popular violence or legislative enactment," it
is difficult to see how Congress can deal with the question.
The reverend gentleman further says that only one honorable
and lawful course remains, viz.: To wait the action of the
Government; but forgets to explain how such action is
possible, if "legislative enactment" against the Chinese is
also considered a wrong.
Now, it is not the Chinese question which calls my
attention to the article; for, being only several months in
this blessed State of California, I must confess that I
cannot yet definitely say whether Rev. Wells is right--who
calls the Chinese "men"--the italics are his--"with their own
problems of destiny to solve" or whether they are right who
style them "beasts."
But I take decided exception to one point of his
argument, where he declares: "This Christian nation should
suffer shame to-day and loss of character and moral power as
she faces these heathen people." Now, how can Mr. W., who
lays so much stress upon a few words in a "treaty," "law,"
etc., so utterly disregard the constitution of the United
States which excludes the word "God," "religion," "sect" in
order to save future generations from such unjustifiable
claims as these of Rev. Wells? If America would be a
"Christian nation," the Jews, dissenters, infidels, atheists,
agnostics, theosophists, spiritualists, etc., could not be
citizens of this country. It would cease to be a "Republic,"
and would in time share the fate of Spain, which is a
laughing stock of the world, and the only Christian nation.
"Christian nation?" Now, Mr. Wells is no Christian from the
standpoint of Catholicism; the Unitarians are none from his
own point of view, and every sect has a Christianity of its
own, and within the sects so many who do not believe much.
How, then, can a man talk of America as a "Christian nation?"
This would be the beginning of religious persecutions, as
history proves, and the beginning of the end of this glorious
Republic, this bulwark against intolerance and fanaticism.
E. SCHREIBER, RABBI.
Los Angeles, March 1, 1886.
{Times, Mar. 3, 1886, p. 3}
The Anti-Chinese Crusade.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Will you allow a
stranger to say a few words in the people's column? Being a
stranger, it is natural I should see many strange things.
But as I know I must be brief, in order to he heard at all in
your valuable paper, I will mention only one.
The strangest thing I have yet heard in California is
that the State is suffering, financially and otherwise, on
account of the labor of an admittedly industrious and
economical class of laboring men, and is engaged in a crusade
to drive them out, in order to make room for tramps.
All political economists have taught that the laboring
man was the real and only creator of wealth and the true
foundation of national prosperity. But, of course, they are
all wrong, and as soon as California can expel 100,000
industrious laborers from her mines, her wheat fields, her
orchards, her vineyards and her vegetable gardens--although
her productions must necessarily decrease to the amount of
many million dollars annually--yet she will, according to our
new school of political economists, immediately become
prosperous and happy.
But we are told they must be driven out because their
labor comes in competition with white labor. So does the
steam engine, the power press, the threshing machine, the
sewing machine and every other labor-saving invention that
was ever made. There is a machine in Boston that does the
work of 40,000 shoemakers. It must be thrown like the
British tea, into Boston harbor. If the Chinese are a curse
to white labor, so are labor-saving machines. It is no
uncommon thing for the tramp in the Eastern States, who would
not work if he had the best chance in the world, to go over
the country setting fire to the farmers' reapers and mowers
because he considers that in some way they have deprived him
of the means of living well. That seems to be the school of
political economy that we are all coming to in this State.
God save the State when such men as Kearney and O'Donnell
mould and become the leaders of public opinion.
Notwithstanding the open sympathy of nearly all the
newspapers and the silence of the pulpit, I assert that
thousands of the intelligent, moral and religious people of
California are opposed to this unlawful, inhuman and
unchristian crusade.
We have an abundance, if not a superabundance, of
churches. Where are the ministers of that religion which
teaches the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man?
Why are they silent? Let faith, baptism, grace and other
dogmas have a rest and let us have a few practical sermons,
yes, thousands of them, on such texts as, "Love thy neighbor
as thyself;" and let us not forget those other words of
fearful import which will be pronounced at the last day:
"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these,
my children, ye have done it unto Me."
The movers in these crusades take great pains to
inculcate the idea that they are proceeding lawfully. There
never was a more false or ridiculous assumption. The Chinese
are here in accordance with the provisions of a treaty which
is as much the supreme law of the land as any act of
Congress. It guarantees to them protection and the same
treatment that is accorded to the subjects of the most
favored nation. A "boycott" is just as much an unlawful
combination as a mob. And here let me say that, as an
American, I blush for my country, and especially for the
proud State of California, if we are descended so low, if
free government has become such a failure that we are driven
to adopt the language and proceedings of Irish bondmen after
centuries of tyranny and degradation. While I have never
regarded the Chinese as desirable permanent citizens, and was
and am in favor of the restriction act, I am convinced that
that act, thoroughly enforced, is all that California ought
to ask or can safely have. By that act you would get rid of
the Chinese gradually, and other laborers would take their
places, so that the change would injure no one. To drive
them out suddenly will unsettle every thing and cause a
financial loss of many million dollars to the people of
California.
If the Chinese are driven out because they work, who can
tell where this insane delusion will end? May not labor-
saving machinery be the next to be condemned? And why should
not the patient ox, mule and horse be banished also? They
bear your burdens and perform labor that might be done by
man; and like the despised Chinaman they, too, fail to buy
your groceries, wear your clothes, drink your whiskey or chew
your tobacco. When will men learn the important truth that
the wants of mankind increase as fast as the power of
production, and that the condition of the laborer has always
been made better and not worse by cheapening production.
This crusade is an outrage on the Chinese, because they
have property here, lands rented, crops planted and many
other interests that would be sacrificed if they were driven
out on a few weeks' or months' notice. We claim to be a
civilized and Christian people. Let us not imitate the
barbarism of the Middle Ages--of Spain's expulsion of the
Jews or France's infamous expulsion of the Huguenots. The
people of this State will be ashamed of this movement. It
will disgrace us in the opinion of the whole civilized world.
It will involve an immense loss financially, and greatly
cripple our production. Let us, then, act lawfully and with
moderation, and through the general government, which alone
has any authority in the matter; and let the departure of the
Chinese be effected gradually, peaceably and honorably, and
without violating the precepts of religion or the dictates of
humanity.
STRANGER.
P. S.--Since writing the foregoing I see, with
satisfaction, the noble and courageous stand taken by the
Times in your issue of the 27 inst. California needs more
such newspapers and fewer of the base sheets which fawn upon
every so-called popular movement as they fawned upon Kearney
and O'Donnell.
Pomona, Feb. 27, 1886.
{Times, Mar. 4, 1886, p. 3}
An Old Miner's Words.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: You published a good
letter from a stranger. Now will you give an old miner space
to say a few words on the boycott? Mr. Cox says that we are
boycotting the Americans by employing the Chinese. I think
that statement rather sweeping. There is perhaps no American
in this county that would prefer a Chinaman to an American.
But they are often compelled to employ Chinese or do without
help. I know a family in West Los Angeles that tried for one
month to get a girl to do general housework, and failed,
because there are small children in the family and part of
the washing had to be done at home.
Now, does any one expect that family to boycott their
Chinese servant and do without help when the family is
dependent on said help? I think no reasonable person would
expect any such thing.
This may not be a Christian country. But I trust there
are some Christians in it, and if so, will they violate the
teachings of Christ by boycotting a helpless and despised
race of strangers (aliens) that are among us, and who came
here under treaty stipulations of protection from our own
government? I think they will do no such thing.
The Master says: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for
this is the law and the prophets."
Now, will any man say that he can obey this command of
the Savior while engaged in boycotting his fellow-men? Or
can anyone say that they can be a Christian and violate the
commands of Christ? These are times that try men's souls. I
suggest the propriety of calling another meeting for the
purpose of testing the matter and proving how many there are
in Los Angeles city that will stand firm for the command of
Christ.
OLD MINER.
{Times, Mar. 4, 1886, p. 3}
Help for Rabbi Schreiber.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: In this morning's
Times, Rabbi E. Schreiber says that he cannot yet definitely
say whether he is right who calls the Chinese men, or whether
they are right who style them beasts. Now, if the Rabbi will
turn to Shakespeare's play of the Merchant of Venice (Act
III. Scene 1), he will find an argument by one Shylock which
may aid him in making up his mind before the next time that
he "must confess." The argument is by analogy, for "Shylock"
does not say "Has a Chinaman eyes?" but "Hath a Jew eyes?
Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections,
passions?" etc.
He was addressing that vast multitude in Europe that for
many generations did not know whether a Jew had any rights
that a white man was bound to respect; who baited and
badgered the Jews for their sport, and considered it a joke
to strip them, as the Jews had plundered the Egyptians.
Shylock's argument has not yet convinced the masses in Russia
and some parts of Germany. Has Rabbi Schreiber heard of the
plunderings and murders and ravishings of recent years done
against the Jews in those countries?
The Jews call themselves the chosen people of God, and
say they have the books to prove it, written in a crosseyed
alphabet without vowels, nearly as funny as the bill of fare
on a Chinese tea chest. And the Chinese still more
arrogantly style themselves Celestials. But since Darwin has
told us that our ancestor was a hairy quadruped, with pointed
ears and a tail, how all this grates on the ears of a
scientific man!
JUSTICE.
Two appeals issued in mid-March further polarized the community. The
Trades Council, speaking for organized labor, circulated an order calling for
the discharge of Chinese labor, warning that failure to do so might throw the
control of the anti-Chinese movement into the hands of a less patient element,
resulting in violent actions. The Times printed that appeal on Mar. 11.
Three days later Otis ran two separate editorials condemning the boycott as
conspiracy, revolutionary, bigotry, un-American, the offspring of despotism and
oppression, ultimately leading to violence. "J. C." {Jordan Cox?} replied
with a defense of the boycott in which he took the claim by critics that the
boycotters contained a hoodlum element and turned that charge into an argument
for removal of the Chinese.
The second appeal appeared on Mar. 12 when the Times printed eight
resolutions signed by 33 ministers, among them some of the most prominent
clergymen in the city, denouncing the boycott as an un-American, un-Christian
act of "unjust discrimination against a class of men who are entitled to fair
treatment in the struggle for daily bread."
Writing a rebuttal that also included a denunciation of the existing social
order, Jordan Cox answered the ministers. In the course of his response, Cox
invited them to recall the role of the church in the slavery debate, in which
many of them had been active. "B" also remembered the position of the church
on that issue, but saw it in a different light.
{Times, Mar. 18, 1886, p. 2}
A Defender of the Boycott.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I have just seen an
article in your Sunday edition relative to the Chinese, with
which I must say I cannot agree. You seem to be under the
impression (and I am aware quite a number of the citizens of
Los Angeles concur with you) that the boycotters, if
encouraged, are apt to resort to violence. I can safely
state that the contrary is the case. They, to a man, have no
such intentions. The very fact of their preferring the
peaceful method system of boycotting to the forcible means
used in the northern part of the State is of itself a
sufficient proof of my statement. You are also afraid that
white labor could not be procured in time enough to fill the
places of the Chinese. Now, the floating population of this
State is a large one, and when the report reaches the East
that the Chinese will no longer be employed in California you
may rest assured of a large immigration of Eastern labor.
More (in all probability) than will be required.
You need not leave Los Angeles to solve the problem.
Look on the streets of your city any day in the week and you
will see numbers of men seeking employment. The fierce
competition for the most insignificant job proves that those
men are sincere in their search for work. No matter where
they go, "John" has preceded them. Hunger is a fearful spur,
and is it to be wondered at that, too proud to beg (which is
also a crime in the eyes of the law), rendered desperate by
the pangs of hunger, and (oftentimes) the sight of his
starving wife and children, the unfortunate victim of
circumstances, created by the avarice of his fellow-man, is
finally driven to crime to preserve the vital spark in his
family and himself? We will suppose for a moment that the
man gets off safely with his plunder; he may get work before
the proceeds of his crime are spent; he tries to lead an
honest life again, but remorse for his crime still haunts
him; he makes the acquaintance of a criminal, or again finds
himself in distress through lack of work, he remembers the
ease with which he once before supplied his wants, falls
again. Arrest, conviction and imprisonment follow. He is a
criminal. His children, with no protector over them, become
hoodlums (his daughters perhaps worse); and meantime the
sleek John sends the money to China that would have left this
unfortunate man a decent member of society.
With regard to the preachers, their action reminds me of
the case of the woman who had no time to attend to the wants
of her own family, as she was busy making clothes for the
heathen. I think charity should begin at home. According to
the resolutions passed at the Tabernacle meeting, boycotting
was not to be commenced till the 1st of May, giving (I think)
ample time for the change from Mongolian to white labor.
Moreover when you employ or deal with Chinamen, you virtually
boycott the American to the extent of the patronage you give
the Chinese. Is it likely that the white laborer will attack
the Chinaman when he finds that, by the boycott, he has got
that employment he so much desired? Is he apt to leave his
work or risk his life or liberty in a silly attack on a class
who have nothing whatever to excite his cupidity? On the
contrary, keep him in enforced idleness and you may drive him
to acts which, under more favorable circumstances, he would
never contemplate.
J. C.
{Times, April 1, 1886, p. 2}
The Pope and Ministers vs. The Knights of Labor.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: In the contests
between labor and capital, it is a matter of sorrow and
regret to all the lovers of their kind to see both the
Catholic and Protestant clergy on the side of wealth,
aristocracy and privilege, against every step of the toiling
masses toward a position where they shall receive for their
labor, of head and hand, simple justice.
The fulminations from the Vatican against the Knights of
Labor meet a welcome in the temples of Protestantism which
reverberate, in subdued cadence, their little thunders
against American labor, in its contest for bread against the
Chinese among us. The thirty-three Los Angeles ministers,
whose manifesto appeared in the Times of the 12th inst., are
on record as having taken the side of the Mongolian against
their own countrymen and women--entrenched behind a paper
treaty which our agents were swindled into signing by the
Chinese diplomats, who are noted as getting the best of all
nations with whom they treat, and concerning the terms of
which treaty the people were not consulted, and which they
now desire amended or annulled.
It is reasonable to expect that ministers, when they
engage in a contest against such a large majority of the
people, will lay bare the subject and strip it of all
disguises and reduce it to first principles--scientific,
moral, social or religious--that, if they advocate an open
door to all tribes and colors, they would openly base their
arguments upon the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of
Man, no ownership in land, the equality and unity of all men,
each for all and all for each, no exclusive ownership for
anything; the needy, benighted, sick and besotted hunted and
cared for and lifted to as high a heaven as they are prepared
for, and thus inaugurate the millenium. But they do not take
such ground, ask no concession of the land-holders or
property-owners. They only ask that labor, want, and in
tatters, divide its bread with this alien horde. Do they
remember a text from the lips of Jesus, which will, I think,
offset the text of a Chinese treaty: "Give not the
children's bread to dogs." That the clergy have no sympathy
with labor in general nor labor reform movements, their
opposition to the anti-Chinese movement is but one
indication. Among the hundreds of Knights of Labor in this
city, from whose assemblies only two classes are prohibited
from joining, the lawyer and the saloon keeper, not a
minister is enrolled. The movement to improve the condition
of the laboring classes has to face the combined opposition
of the ministers; but while our Los Angeles ministers would
join to protest against the assumptions of the Pope to crush
out private opinion and private liberty, the members of the
Protestant churches may protest against their own little
popes taking the side of the Chinese against the poor of
their own congregations; (if poor people cam afford to belong
to a church now) and compel them to surrender the industrial
field to their enemies. Can priestly assumption go farther?
It is well in them that they do not claim infallibility. I
wonder whether they would admit that they are sometimes
biased by mercenary considerations? To show how the minds of
ministers may be swayed by such influence, the Methodist
church furnishes a good illustration. South of Mason and
Dixon's line they were almost to a man pro-slavery; north of
that line they were almost to a man anti-slavery. Interested
motives made southern ministers see chattel slavery as a
divine institution--and they proved it by the Bible; while
northern ministers, without pecuniary bias, came to a truer
opinion. Slavery and secession and Book Concern and
coercion, (civil and military) with their terrible
association, and what they have said about each other are
enough to keep the militant churches apart; and if they tell
the truth on each other, I don't blame them for rearing a
gate between them, over which is inscribed on both sides this
scripture text: "Be ye separate; touch not the unclean
thing,"--and they don't touch--except on the Chinese
question, in which they have common interests, as ministers,
with the substantial men of their respective congregations.
But they say the boycott will cause "ill feelings." It
may--even in some of the pulpits. It would be interesting to
know how many ministers in this city keep Chinese servants
and patronize Chinese laundries? They say, also, "that the
boycott is an unjust discrimination against a peaceable and
law-abiding people in their struggle for daily bread,"
We answer: The ministers discriminate unjustly against
our own workers. They oppose the driving out of the Chinese.
Do they believe in grafting an inferior on to a superior
stock, or civilization?
But I imagine they have in their minds some of that
foreign mission romance. They want to christianize them.
They have tried that on the Indian, and they disappear like
grass before a paririe fire.
They have Christianized the Sandwich Islanders from
150,000 to 35,000 in forty or fifty years. Do they want to
turn loose on these "peaceable" people? We shall beg them in
the name of humanity, if this is their design, to desist!
They know this is the uniform effect of our religion and
civilization upon people of their grade. According to their
own Buddhism, they are an evolutionary cycle behind the white
race, and our religion, like water, takes the shape of the
vessel it is poured into; and learning the catechism is not
quite the same as a few thousand years' development. But if
these ministers have missionary designs on the Chinese, for
one, I should say they had better go over there to
work--don't bring them here to Christianize them!
Now, I am not authorized to speak but for myself, but I
think I represent the rank and file of society, workers of
all grades, as well as others, when I say: No injustice to
the Mongol is intended; no treaty is to be violated, nor our
honor tarnished, individual or national.
JORDAN COX.
{Times, April 1, 1886, p. 2}
Pro-Chinese and Anti-Slavery.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: In the discussion upon
the Chinese question I have noticed a most singular confusion
of things. An example of what I refer to may be seen in one
of your evening dailies of a week ago. The editor was
criticising pretty severely Rev. Bresee's address, the Sunday
night previous, on the vexed subject, and seemed to think the
reverend gentleman had assumed a very inconsistent position
for one who had been, in the days of slavery, so radical an
anti-slavery advocate. Here is the singular thing about it,
that an editor, or any intelligent man, does not perceive
that the logical and only consistent position for a former
abolitionist to take in this regard--as the question is being
put before the people with its boycotting attached and
insisted upon--is what is termed the pro-Chinese side. And
having for months heard, read and observed the drift of
sentiment among the people of this coast, it has been evident
to me that this same spirit in its animus, now animates the
pros and antis as in the times of slavery, only the positions
are reversed. And I think that any careful observer, without
prejudice or selfish interest to bias his judgment, will have
been impressed in the same way. I have noticed, with no
little satisfaction, that you have some heroic spirits who
dare to stand up, as did the early anti-slavery men, in the
face of a mob, and defend the rights of the unprotected
against the majority. Another fact, unless I am greatly at
fault in my observation and reading, there is the leaven of a
public sentiment at work, quietly, but surely growing, which
will crystalize into some organized form, to withstand the
"violence of the masses," as evinced in conventions, etc.
Your ministers, whose late action you published last week,
have taken a just and righteous position in this regard, and
they can well afford to be persecuted for righteousness sake.
The evening daily to which I refer quite kindly excuses the
ministers for "honest intentions, because they were educated
in theological seminaries, and away from the people." How
considerate of the editor to let the ministers off so
tenderly. But what will he say of the men who were not
"educated in theological seminaries," but who indorse and
hold the same sentiments? I see in this anti-Chinese furore
the spirit of ostracism, abuse and brick-bats of the early
anti-slavery times. Boycotting and bricks are nearly
related as weapons, and those who favor and employ them will
in the end find them dangerous factors in any political or
moral cause. Of one thing we may all be assured. Uncle
Samuel may be a little conservative, but he will keep the
treaty with China and protect its subjects in America.
B.
D) WANING OF THE CHINESE ISSUE
Despite an initial strong show of support, the anti-Chinese agitation of
1886 swiftly evaporated. It could not overcome the fear that Chinese vegetable
peddlers, who had a virtual monopoly on the market, would boycott families that
had dismissed Chinese domestic help and the belief that white labor was not
available in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of employers. The Chinese
question would resurface again periodically until exclusion was made permanent
early in the 20th century. While both political parties became committed to
exclusion each attempted to blame the other for failure to resolve the issue.
"Workingman," writing an anti-Chinese letter during the campaign of 1888 in an
era when virtually all such letters had disappeared from the Times, drew a
distinction between the Republican presidential candidate's stand and that of
the incumbent Democrat, Grover Cleveland. The Wyoming reference is to the Rock
Creek massacre, which had occurred early in Cleveland's first term.
{Times, Mar. 9, 1888, p. 2}
Cleveland's Administration.
Pomona, Aug. 20.--[To the Editor of The Times.] Did not
Grover Cleveland send United States troops into Wyoming to
protect the Chinese, and did he not fill other Territories
with troops without any cause whatever, for the especial
protection of the Chinese? Did not Secretary Bayard send an
official communication to Gov. Stoneman, directing the
latter's attention to the protection of Cleveland's beloved
Chinese? Did not Grover Cleveland send one or two messages
to the United States Congress, urging vigorously a good round
sum be paid to the Chinese Government for the few deceased
Wyoming pigtails? Has any Democratic President ever sent
messages to Congress requesting that body to pay damages for
deceased Germans, Irish or other foreigners killed by a mob?
It would please us to know, though we believe nothing of the
kind was ever thought of until the Chinese champion,
Cleveland, urged and procured from Congress an appropriation
for his celestial friends. This bulky fellow was in his
glory while aiding the cheap coolie laborer to override the
American workingman on this coast. The Army was sent out to
shed the blood of American citizens because they could not
starve and stand by while the Chinese usurped their places
and their wages. The Cleveland-Bayard Chinese Administration
is now on its odious record before the people to be passed
upon in November, and the workingmen whom the army would have
shot down like so many dogs if they had stood in Chinese way
will be able to vote it out of existence. Elect Harrison,
who, after a thorough study of the Mongolian question, firmly
concludes they are a curse, and put in everlasting obscurity
the only President who has used the military arm of the
Government to protect leprosy, low wages and the hordes of
Chinese that overwhelm us. The Cleveland Administration
stands out in bold and nasty relief as the especial champion
of Chinese cheap labor, low wages and free trade. In
November let us put brains in charge and send bullbeef to the
rear.
WORKINGMAN.
The final letter of the decade on the Chinese question, and the only one
printed in 1889, would sound amazingly familiar a century later. At the
beginning of the 1890s the state legislature enacted the registration proposal
suggested in "B's" letter below. Although the state supreme court ruled it
unconstitutional, the federal Geary Act of 1892, which incorporated the
registration requirement, was upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court. With
additional restrictive legislation and treaty adjustments in the next decade,
the Chinese question would give way to other issues. Since Otis left no
record of the true names of those correspondents who used pseudonyms, we are
left to wonder if the "B" of 1886 is the "B" of 1889, but writing now from an
anti-Chinese position.
{Times, May 26, 1889, p. 6}
Photographers, Come to the Front.
Los Angeles, May 21.--[To the Editor of The Times.] In
view of the danger to our welfare through the smuggling of
Chinese across the border from Mexico and the British
possessions on our northern border would it not be a good and
practicable plan to photograph and register every Chinaman
now in the United States, so that there would be a
possibility of discovering any of the heathens who might
obtain entrance to our country illicitly? Each Chinaman
should be furnished with a passport containing his
photograph, which he might be required to produce on demand
of any one in authority. It might further be made an offense
for residents of the United States to employ any Chinaman
unable to produce his papers. I offer this as a suggestion
that you can elaborate.
B.