America Through the Spectacles of an Oriental Diplomat [Note on text: Italicized sections are capitalized. A few obviouserrors have been corrected. Some footnotes have been added, and areclearly marked. ] Introduction: While this book is by no means famous, it is a remarkable chance tolook at America of 1914 through the eyes of an outsider. Wu Tingfangshows evidence of having thought through many issues of relevance tothe United States, and while some of his thoughts are rather odd--suchas his suggestion that the title of President be replaced by the titleof Emperor; and others are unfortunately wrong--such as his hopes forpeace, written on the eve of the First World War; they are allwell-considered and sometimes show remarkable insight into Americanculture. Even so, it should be remarked that he makes some errors, includingsome misunderstandings of American and Western ideas and anidealization of Chinese culture, and humanity in general, in somepoints--while I do not wish to refute his claims about China, I wouldsimply point out that many of the things he praises have been seendifferently by many outside observers, just as Wu Tingfang sometimeslooks critically at things in America which he does not fullyunderstand (and, unfortunately, he is sometimes all too correct)--inall these cases (on both sides) some leeway must be given to accountfor mutual misunderstandings. Still, his observations allow us to seeourselves as others see us--and regardless of accuracy thoseobservations are useful, if only because they will allow us to bettercommunicate. The range of topics covered is also of particular interest. WuTingfang wrote this book at an interesting juncture inhistory--airplanes and motion pictures had recently been invented, (andhis expectations for both these inventions have proven correct), andwhile he did not know it, a tremendous cultural shift was about to takeplace in the West due to the First World War and other factors. I willleave it to the reader to see which ideas have caught on and which havenot. The topics include: Immigration; the Arms Race and changes in technology; one-time six year terms for the office of President; religion and/or ethics in the classroom; women's equality; fashion; violence in the theatre (violence on television); vegetarianism; and, cruelty to animals. I will also note that a few passages seem satiric in nature, though Iam not certain that it isn't merely a clash of cultures. Alan R. Light. Birmingham, Alabama. May, 1996. AMERICA Through the Spectacles of an Oriental Diplomat by Wu Tingfang, LL. D. Late Chinese Minister to the United States of America, Spain, Peru, Mexico and Cuba; recently Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Justice for the Provincial Government of the Republic of China, etc. Preface Of all nations in the world, America is the most interesting to theChinese. A handful of people left England to explore this country:gradually their number increased, and, in course of time, emigrantsfrom other lands swelled the population. They were governed byofficials from the home of the first settlers, but when it appeared tothem that they were being treated unjustly, they rebelled and declaredwar against their rulers, the strongest nation on the face of theearth. After seven years of strenuous, perilous, and bloody warfare, during which thousands of lives were sacrificed on both sides, theyounger race shook off the yoke of the older, and England was compelledto recognize the independence of the American States. Since then, inthe comparatively short space of one hundred and thirty years, thoserevolutionists and their descendants, have not only made thecommonwealth the richest in the world, but have founded a nation whoseword now carries weight with all the other great powers. The territory at first occupied was not larger than one or twoprovinces of China, but by purchase, and in other ways, thecommonwealth has gradually grown till now it extends from the Atlanticto the Pacific Ocean, from the north where ice is perpetual to thesouth where the sun is as hot as in equatorial Singapore. This youngrepublic has already produced many men and women who are distinguishedin the fields of literature, science, art and invention. There hostsof men, who in their youth were as poor as church mice, have, by dintof perseverance and business capacity, become multi-millionaires. There you may see the richest man in the world living a simple andabstemious life, without pomp and ostentation, daily walking in thestreets unattended even by a servant. Many of them have so much moneythat they do not know what to do with it. Many foreign counts, dukes, and even princes have been captured by their wealthy and handsomedaughters, some of whom have borne sons who have become high officersof state in foreign lands. There you find rich people who devote theirtime and wealth to charitable works, sometimes endowing libraries notonly in their own land, but all over the world; there you will findlynching tolerated, or impossible of prevention; there one man may killanother, and by the wonderful process of law escape the extreme penaltyof death; there you meet the people who are most favorably disposedtoward the maintenance of peace, and who hold conferences andconventions with that object in view almost every year; there anAmerican multi-millionaire devotes a great proportion of his time tothe propaganda of peace, and at his own expense has built in a foreigncountry a palatial building to be used as a tribunal of peace. [1] Yetthese people have waged war on behalf of other nationalities who theythought were being unjustly treated and when victorious they have notheld on to the fruits of their victory without paying a reasonableprice. [2] There the inhabitants are, as a rule, extremely patriotic, and in a recent foreign war many gave up their businesses andprofessions and volunteered for service in the army; one of her richestsons enlisted and equipped a whole regiment at his own expense, andtook command of it. In that country all the citizens are heirsapparent to the throne, called the White House. A man may become thechief ruler for a few years, but after leaving the White House hereverts to private citizenship; if he is a lawyer he may practise andappear before a judge, whom he appointed while he was president. Therea woman may become a lawyer and plead a case before a court of justiceon behalf of a male client; there freedom of speech and criticism areallowed to the extreme limit, and people are liable to be annoyed byslanders and libels without much chance of obtaining satisfaction;there you will see women wearing "Merry Widow" hats who are not widowsbut spinsters, or married women whose husbands are very much alive, andthe hats in many cases are as large as three feet in diameter;[3] thereyou may travel by rail most comfortably on palace cars, and at nightyou may sleep on Pullman cars, to find in the morning that a young ladyhas been sleeping in the berth above your bed. The people are mostingenious in that they can float a company and water the stock withoutusing a drop of fluid; there are bears and bulls in the Stock Exchange, but you do not see these animals fight, although they roar and yellloudly enough. It is certainly a most extraordinary country. Thepeople are wonderful and are most interesting and instructive to theChinese. Such a race should certainly be very interesting to study. During mytwo missions to America where I resided nearly eight years, repeatedrequests were made that I should write my observations and impressionsof America. I did not feel justified in doing so for several reasons:first, I could not find time for such a task amidst my official duties;secondly, although I had been travelling through many sections of thecountry, and had come in contact officially and socially with manyclasses of people, still there might be some features of the countryand some traits of the people which had escaped my attention; andthirdly, though I had seen much in America to arouse my admiration, Ifelt that here and there, there was room for improvement, and to becompelled to criticize people who had been generous, courteous, andkind was something I did not wish to do. In answer to my scruples Iwas told that I was not expected to write about America in a partial orunfair manner, but to state impressions of the land just as I had foundit. A lady friend, for whose opinion I have the highest respect, saidin effect, "We want you to write about our country and to speak of ourpeople in an impartial and candid way; we do not want you to bestowpraise where it is undeserved; and when you find anything deserving ofcriticism or condemnation you should not hesitate to mention it, for welike our faults to be pointed out that we may reform. " I admit thesoundness of my friend's argument. It shows the broad-mindedness andmagnanimity of the American people. In writing the following pages Ihave uniformly followed the principles laid down by my American ladyfriend. I have not scrupled to frankly and freely express my views, but I hope not in any carping spirit; and I trust American readers willforgive me if they find some opinions they cannot endorse. I assurethem they were not formed hastily or unkindly. Indeed, I should not bea sincere friend were I to picture their country as a perfect paradise, or were I to gloss over what seem to me to be their defects. [1] This magnificent building at The Hague, which is aptly called thePalace of Peace, was formally opened on the 28th of August, 1913, inthe presence of Queen Wilhelmina, Mr. Carnegie (the founder) and alarge assembly of foreign representatives. [2] I refer to the Spanish-American War. Have captured the PhilippineIslands, the United States paid $20, 000, 000, gold, for it to theSpanish Government. [3] This was several years ago. Fashions change every year. Thepresent type is equally ludicrous. Contents Preface Chapter 1. The Importance of Names Chapter 2. American Prosperity Chapter 3. American Government Chapter 4. America and China Chapter 5. American Education Chapter 6. American Business Methods Chapter 7. American Freedom and Equality Chapter 8. American Manners Chapter 9. American Women Chapter 10. American Costumes Chapter 11. American versus Chinese Civilization Chapter 12. American versus Chinese Civilization (Continued) Chapter 13. Dinners, Banquets, Etc. Chapter 14. Theaters Chapter 15. Opera and Musical Entertainments Chapter 16. Conjuring and Circuses Chapter 17. Sports AMERICA Through the Spectacles of an Oriental Diplomat Chapter 1. The Importance of Names "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet. " Notwithstanding these lines, I maintain that the selection of names isimportant. They should always be carefully chosen. They are apt toinfluence friendships or to excite prejudices according to theirsignificance. We Chinese are very particular in this matter. When ason is born the father or the grandfather chooses a name for the infantboy which, according to his horoscope, is likely to insure him success, or a name is selected which indicates the wish of the family for thenew-born child. Hence such names as "happiness", "prosperity", "longevity", "success", and others, with like propitious import, arecommon in China. With regard to girls their names are generallyselected from flowers, fruits, or trees. Particular care is taken notto use a name which has a bad meaning. In Washington I once met a manin an elevator whose name was "Coffin". Was I to be blamed forwondering if the elevator would be my coffin? On another occasion Imet a man whose name was "Death", and as soon as I heard his name Ifelt inclined to run away, for I did not wish to die. I am notsuperstitious. I have frequently taken dinner with thirteen persons atthe table, and I do not hesitate to start on a journey on a Friday. Ioften do things which would not be done by superstitious persons inChina. But to meet a man calling himself "Coffin" or "Death" was toomuch for me, and with all my disbelief in superstition I could not helpshowing some repugnance to those who bore such names. Equally important, if not more so, is the selection of a name for astate or a nation. When the several states of America becameindependent they called themselves the "United States of America"--avery happy idea. The Union was originally composed of thirteen states, covering about 300, 000 square miles; it is now composed of forty-eightstates and three territories, which in area amount to 3, 571, 492 squaremiles, practically as large in extent as China, the oldest nation inthe world. It should be noted that the name is most comprehensive: itmight comprise the entire continent of North and South America. It issafe to say that the founders of the nation did not choose such a namewithout consideration, and doubtless the designation "United States ofAmerica" conceals a deep motive. I once asked a gentleman who said hewas an American whether he had come from South or North America, orwhether he was a Mexican, a Peruvian or a native of any of thecountries in Central America? He replied with emphasis that he was anAmerican citizen of the United States. I said it might be the UnitedStates of Mexico, or Argentina, or other United States, but he answeredthat when he called himself a citizen it could not mean any other thanthat of the United States of America. I have asked many otherAmericans similar questions and they all have given me replies in thesame way. We Chinese call our nation "The Middle Kingdom"; it wassupposed to be in the center of the earth. I give credit to thefounders of the United States for a better knowledge of geography thanthat possessed by my countrymen of ancient times and do not assume thatthe newly formed nation was supposed to comprise the whole continent ofNorth and South America, yet the name chosen is so comprehensive as tolead one naturally to suspect that it was intended to include theentire continent. However, from my observation of their nationalconduct, I believe their purpose was just and humane; it was to set anoble example to the sister nations in the Western Hemisphere, and toknit more closely all the nations on that continent through the bondsof mutual justice, goodwill and friendship. The American nation is, indeed, itself a pleasing and unique example of the principle ofdemocracy. Its government is ideal, with a liberal constitution, whichin effect declares that all men are created equal, and that thegovernment is "of the people, for the people, and by the people. "Anyone with ordinary intelligence and with open eyes, who should visitany city, town or village in America, could not but be impressed withthe orderly and unostentatious way in which it is governed by the localauthorities, or help being struck by the plain and democratic characterof the people. Even in the elementary schools, democracy is taught andpractised. I remember visiting a public school for children inPhiladelphia, which I shall never forget. There were about three orfour hundred children, boys and girls, between seven and fourteen yearsof age. They elected one of their students as mayor, another as judge, another as police commissioner, and in fact they elected for thecontrol of their school community almost all the officials who usuallygovern a city. There were a few Chinese children among the students, and one of them was pointed out to me as the police superintendent. This not only eloquently spoke of his popularity, but showed goodwilland harmony among the several hundred children, and the entire absenceof race feeling. The principals and teachers told me that they had nodifficulty whatever with the students. If one of them did anythingwrong, which was not often, he would be taken by the student policemanbefore the judge, who would try the case, and decide it on its merits, and punish or discharge his fellow student as justice demanded. I wasassured by the school authorities that this system of self-governmentworked admirably; it not only relieved the teachers of the burden ofconstantly looking after the several hundred pupils, but each of themfelt a moral responsibility to behave well, for the sake of preservingthe peace and good name of the school. Thus early imbued with the ideaof self-government, and entrusted with the responsibilities of itsadministration, these children when grown up, take a deep interest infederal and municipal affairs, and, when elected for office, invariablyperform their duties efficiently and with credit to themselves. It cannot be disputed that the United States with its democratic systemof government has exercised a great influence over the states andnations in Central and South America. The following data showing thedifferent nations of America, with the dates at which they turned theirrespective governments from Monarchies into Republics, all subsequentto the independence of the United States, are very significant. Mexico became a Republic in 1823, Honduras in 1839, Salvador in 1839, Nicaragua in 1821, Costa Rica in 1821, Panama in 1903, Colombia in1819, Venezuela in 1830, Ecuador in 1810, Brazil in 1889, Peru in 1821, Bolivia in 1825, Paraguay in 1811, Chile in 1810, Argentina in 1824, and Uruguay in 1828. These Republics have been closely modelled upon the republican form ofgovernment of the United States; thus, nearly all the nations or stateson the continent of America have become Republics. Canada stillbelongs to Great Britain. The fair and generous policy pursued by theImperial Government of Great Britain accounts for the Canadians'satisfaction with their political position, and for the fact that theydo not wish a change. It must be noted, however, that a section of theAmerican people would like to see Canada incorporated with the UnitedStates. I remember that at a public meeting held in Washington, atwhich Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Premier of Canada, was present, aneminent judge of the Federal Supreme Court jocularly expressed a wishthat Canada should be annexed to the United States. Later, Mr. ChampClark, a leader of the Democratic party in the House ofRepresentatives, addressed the House urging the annexation of Canada. Even if these statements are not taken seriously they at least show thefeelings of some people, and he would be a bold man who would prophesythe political status of Canada in the future. There is, however, nopresent indication of any change being desired by the Canadians, and itmay be safely presumed that the existing conditions will continue formany years to come. This is not to be wondered at, for Canada thoughnominally a British colony practically enjoys almost all the privilegesof an independent state. She possesses a constitution similar to thatof the United Kingdom, with a parliament of two houses, called the"Senate", and the "House of Commons". The Sovereign of Great Britainappoints only the Governor General who acts in his name, but theDominion is governed by a responsible Ministry, and all domesticaffairs are managed by local officials, without interference from theHome Government. Canadians enjoy as many rights as the inhabitants ofEngland, with the additional advantage that they do not have to bearthe burden of maintaining an army and navy. Some years ago, if Iremember rightly, in consequence of some agitation or discussion forindependence, the late Lord Derby, then Secretary of State for theColonies, stated that if the Canadians really wished for independence, the Home Government would not oppose, but that they should consider ifthey would gain anything by the change, seeing that they already hadself-government, enjoyed all the benefits of a free people, and thatthe only right the Home Government reserved was the appointment of theGovernor-General, although it assumed the responsibility of protectingevery inch of their territory from encroachment. Since this sensibleadvice from the Colonial Secretary, I have heard nothing more of theagitation for independence. From a commercial point of view, and for the welfare of the people, there is not much to choose to-day between a Limited Monarchy and aRepublic. Let us, for instance, compare England with the UnitedStates. The people of England are as free and independent as thepeople of the United States, and though subjects, they enjoy as muchfreedom as Americans. There are, however, some advantages in favor ofa Republic. Americans until recently paid their President a salary ofonly $50, 000 a year; it is now $75, 000 with an additional allowance of$25, 000 for travelling expenses. This is small indeed compared withthe Civil List of the King or Emperor of any great nation. There aremore chances in a Republic for ambitious men to distinguish themselves;for instance, a citizen can become a president, and practically assumethe functions of a king or an emperor. In fact the President of theUnited States appoints his own cabinet officials, ambassadors, ministers, etc. It is generally stated that every new president hasthe privilege of making more than ten thousand appointments. Withregard to the administration and executive functions he has in practicemore power than is usually exercised by a king or an emperor of aConstitutional Monarchy. On the other hand, in some matters, theexecutive of a Republic cannot do what a king or an emperor can do; forexample, a president cannot declare war against a foreign nationwithout first obtaining the consent of Congress. In a monarchicalgovernment the king or the cabinet officials assume enormousresponsibilities. Lord Beaconsfield (then Mr. D'Israeli), while he wasPrime Minister of England, purchased in 1875 from the Khedive of Egypt176, 602 Suez Canal shares for the sum of 3, 976, 582 Pounds on his ownresponsibility, and without consulting the Imperial Parliament. WhenParliament or Congress has to be consulted about everything, greatnational opportunities to do some profitable business must undoubtedlybe sometimes lost. No such bold national investment as that made byLord Beaconsfield could have been undertaken by any American presidenton his own responsibility. Mr. Cleveland, when president of the UnitedStates, said that "the public affairs of the United States aretransacted in a glass house. " Washington, in his farewell address, advised his compatriots that onaccount of the detached and distant situation of their country theyshould, in extending their commercial relations with foreign nations, have as little political connection with them as possible; and he askedthis pertinent and pregnant question, "Why, by interweaving our destinywith that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity inthe toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, orcaprice?" In 1823, twenty-seven years after Washington's celebratedaddress, President Monroe in his annual message to Congress warned theEuropean Powers not to plant any new colonies on any portion of theAmerican hemisphere, as any attempt on their part to extend theirsystem in that part of the world would be considered as dangerous tothe peace and safety of the United States. This "Monroe Doctrine", asit has since been called, practically protects every state and countryon the American continent from attack or interference by any foreignpower, and it cannot be denied that it has been and is now the chieffactor in preserving the integrity of all the countries on thatcontinent. Thus the United States is assuming the role of guardianover the other American nations. In the city of Washington there is anInternational Bureau of the American Republics, in which all theRepublics of Central and South America are represented. It is housedin a magnificent palace made possible by the beneficence of Mr. AndrewCarnegie, the American multi-millionaire and philanthropist, and thecontributions of the different governments. It cost 750, 000 golddollars, and Mr. John Barrett, the capable and popular director of theBureau, has well called it "a temple of friendship and commerce and ameeting place for the American Republics. " The Bureau is supported bythe joint contributions of the twenty-one American Republics, and itsaffairs are controlled by a governing board composed of theirdiplomatic representatives in Washington, with the American Secretaryof State as chairman ex officio. This institution no doubt strengthensthe position of the United States and is calculated to draw theAmerican Republics into closer friendship. Chapter 2. American Prosperity One of the main causes of the prosperity of the great American Republicis its natural resources. It possesses coal, oil, silver, gold, copper, and all the other mineral ores. Nature seems, indeed, to haveprovided almost everything that man needs. The soil is rich; wheat andevery kind of fruit can be grown; but favorable as are these nativeconditions they could not be turned to any great advantage without theskill and industry of enterprising men. Many countries in Africa andAsia possess equal advantages, but they are not equally prosperous. This leads me to the consideration of another reason for America'sgrowth. The men who have migrated to the United States have not beenrich people. They went there to make a living. They were prepared towork, their purpose was to improve their condition, and they werewilling to undertake any manual or mental labor to accomplish theirobject. They were hardy and strong and could bear a heavy strain. Their children inherited their good qualities, and so an American isgenerally more hard working and enterprising than most of the people inEurope and elsewhere. Another reason for America's success is the great freedom which eachcitizen enjoys. Every man considers himself the equal of every other, and a young man who is ambitious will not rest until he reaches the topof his profession or trade. Thousands of Americans who were once verypoor, have become millionaires or multi-millionaires. Many of them hadno college education, they taught themselves, and some of them havebecome both literary and scholarly. A college or university educationdoes not necessarily make a man learned; it only gives him theopportunity to learn. It is said that some college men have proventhemselves to be quite ignorant, or rather that they do not know somuch as those who have been self-taught. I do not in any way wish todisparage a college education; no doubt men who have been trained in auniversity start in life with better prospects and with a greaterchance of success, but those men who have not had such advantages havedoubtless done much to make their country great and prosperous, andthey ought to be recognized as great men. The general desire of the American people to travel abroad is one oftheir good traits. People who never leave their homes cannot knowmuch. A person may become well-informed by reading, but his practicalknowledge cannot be compared with that of a person who has travelled. We Chinese are great sinners in this regard. A Chinese maxim says, "Itis dangerous to ride on horseback or to go on a voyage": hence untilvery recently we had a horror of going abroad. A person who remainsall his life in his own town is generally narrow-minded, self-opinioned, and selfish. The American people are free from thesefaults. It is not only the rich and the well-to-do who visit foreigncountries, but tradesmen and workmen when they have saved a littlemoney also often cross the Atlantic. Some years ago a Senator inWashington told me that he crossed the Atlantic Ocean every summer andspent several months in Europe, and that the next trip would be histwenty-eighth voyage. I found, however, that he had never gone beyondEurope. I ventured to suggest that he should extend his next annualjourney a little farther and visit Japan, China, and other places inthe Far East which I felt sure he would find both interesting andinstructive. I have travelled through many countries in Europe andSouth America, and wherever I have gone and at whatever hotel I haveput up, I have always found some Americans, and on many occasions Ihave met friends and acquaintances whom I had known in Washington orNew York. But it is not only the men who go abroad; in many casesladies also travel by themselves. On several occasions lady friendsfrom Washington, Philadelphia, and New York have visited me in Peking. This is one of the Americans' strong points. Is it not wiser and muchmore useful to disburse a few hundred dollars or so in travelling andgaining knowledge, coming in contact with other peoples and enlargingthe mind, than to spend large sums of money in gaudy dresses, preciousstones, trinkets, and other luxuries? In a large country like America where a considerable portion of theland still remains practically uncultivated or undeveloped, hardy, industrious, and patient workmen are a necessity. But the almostunchecked influx of immigrants who are not desirable citizens cannotbut harm the country. In these days of international trade it is rightthat ingress and egress from one country to another should beunhampered, but persons who have committed crimes at home, or who areignorant and illiterate, cannot become desirable citizens anywhere. They should be barred out of the United States of America. It is wellknown that foreigners take part in the municipal and federal affairs ofthe country as soon as they become citizens. Now if such personsreally worked for the good of their adopted country, there could be noobjection to this, but it is no secret that many have no such motives. That being so, it is a question whether steps should not be taken tolimit their freedom. On the other hand, as many farms suffer from lackof workmen, people from whatever country who are industrious, patient, and persevering ought to be admitted as laborers. They would be agreat boon to the nation. The fear of competition by cheap labor iscauseless; regulations might be drawn up for the control of theseforeign laborers, and on their arrival they could be drafted to thoseplaces where their services might be most urgently needed. So long ashonest and steady workmen are excluded for no reason other than thatthey are Asiatics, while white men are indiscriminately admitted, Ifear that the prosperity of the country cannot be considered permanent, for agriculture is the backbone of stable wealth. Yet at present it isthe country's wealth which is one of the important factors of America'sgreatness. In the United States there are thousands of individualswhose fortunes are counted by seven or eight figures in gold dollars. And much of this money has been used to build railways, or to developmanufactories and other useful industries. The country has grown greatthrough useful work, and not on account of the army and navy. In 1881America's army numbered only 26, 622 men, and her navy consisted of only24 iron-clads, 2 torpedo-boats, and 25 tugs, but in 1910 the peacestrength of her army was 96, 628 and the navy boasted 33 battleships and120 armored cruisers of different sizes. Within the last few years it has been the policy of many nations toincrease the army and to build as many Dreadnaughts andsuper-dreadnaughts as possible. Many statesmen have been infected bythis Dreadnaught fever. Their policy seems to be based on the ideathat the safety of a nation depends on the number of its battleships. Even peaceful and moderate men are carried away by this hobby, andsupport it. It is forgotten that great changes have taken place duringthe last twenty or thirty years; that a nation can now be attacked bymeans quite beyond the reach of Dreadnaughts. The enormous sums spenton these frightful monsters, if applied to more worthy objects, wouldhave a greater effect in preserving the nations' heritages thananything these monstrosities can do. The nation which has a large army and a strong navy may be calledpowerful, but it cannot be considered great without other goodrequisites. I consider a nation as great when she is peacefully, justly, and humanely governed, and when she possesses a large number ofbenevolent and good men who have a voice in the administration. Thegreater the number of good men that a nation possesses the greater shebecomes. America is known to have a large number of such men andwomen, men and women who devote their time and money to preaching peaceamong the nations. Mr. Andrew Carnegie is worth a hundredDreadnaughts. He and others like him are the chief factors insafeguarding the interests and welfare of America. The territory ofthe United States is separated from Europe and other countries by vastoceans; so that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a foe tosuccessfully attack any portion of that country. But who wishes toattack her? She has scarcely an enemy. No country is invaded byanother without cause, and as the United States is in friendlyrelations with all the Powers, there is no reason to fear foreigninvasion. Even should a foreign power successfully attack her andusurp a portion of her territories, a supposition which is mostimprobable, would the enemy be able to hold what he seized? Historyshows that no conquered country has ever been successfully andpermanently kept without the people's consent, and there is not theleast chance that the Americans will ever consent to the rule of aforeign government. It is to be hoped that the United States will not follow the example ofother nations and unduly increase her armaments, but that she will takethe lead in the universal peace movement and show the world that agreat power can exist and maintain her position without force of arms. I am aware that general disarmament is not popular among statesmen, that it has been denounced by an eminent authority as a "will-o'-thewisp", that arbitration has been styled a "Jack-o'-lantern", but thisis not the first time a good and workable scheme has been branded withopprobrious names. The abolition of slavery was at one time consideredto be an insane man's dream; now all people believe in it. Will thetwentieth century witness the collapse of our present civilization? Why are the world's armaments constantly increasing? To my mind it isdue to two causes, one of which is mistrust. One nation begins tobuild Dreadnaughts, another does the same through fear and mistrust. The second cause is that it is the fashion of some nations to followthe example of others that they may preserve their position as greatnaval powers. But it is unnecessary for the United States to show suchmistrust or to follow such fashion. She should rather, as becomes agreat and powerful nation, take an independent course of her own. Ifshe sets the example other nations in due time will follow her. Thepeace of the world will be more surely guarded, and America will winthe approbation, the respect, and the gratitude of all peace-lovingpeople. Chapter 3. American Government Democratic principles were enunciated by Chinese philosophers as longago as 4, 500 years, and from time to time various emperors andstatesmen have endeavored to apply them to the government of China, butthese principles in all their minute details have been exemplified onlyby the wisdom of the statesmen in the West. In the United States theyare in full swing. As China has now become a Republic, not in nameonly but in fact, it will be well for her statesmen and politicians toexamine the American constitution, and to study its workings. To dothis at close range it will be necessary for the student to visitWashington, the Capital of the United States of America. Here he willfind the President, or the chief of the nation. With the co-operationof his Cabinet and a large staff of assistants, the Presidentadministers the affairs of the Federal Government. He may be a new manand have had no previous training in diplomacy, and littleadministrative experience, but in all probability he is a man ofresource and adaptability, who has mastered every detail of his highoffice. All important matters are referred to him, so that his dailywork taxes his whole strength and energy. Another part of his functionis to see the Congressmen, Senators, or Representatives, and others whocall to see him on business, and this takes up a great part of histime. In fact, he is expected to be, and generally is, 'Suaviter inmodo, fortiter in re'. In Washington the National Congress, which is composed of the Senateand of the House of Representatives, holds its sittings in the Capitol, and passes bills subject to the approval of the President. If he signsa bill it becomes law, and binds the nation. The basic principle ofdemocracy is the sovereignty of the people, but as the people cannot ofthemselves govern the country, they must delegate their power to agentswho act for them. Thus they elect the Chief Magistrate to govern thecountry, and legislators to make the laws. The powers given to theseagents are irrevocable during their respective terms of office. Theelectors are absolutely bound by their actions. Whatever laws Congressmay pass, the people must strictly obey; thus the servants of thepeople really become their masters. There is no fear, however, thattheir masters pro tempore will betray their trust, as any neglect ofduty on their part, or disregard of the wishes of their constituents, would most likely destroy their chances of re-election. According to the terms of the Constitution, the senators andrepresentatives must be residents of the states for which they arechosen. This is an excellent provision, insuring that the people'sdelegates possess local knowledge and know how to safeguard theinterests and welfare of the states which sent them to Washington. Onthe other hand, as each state, irrespective of its size, is entitled toelect only two Senators, and to send only a limited number ofRepresentatives to the House, proportionally to its population, unfortunately it frequently happens that eminent, capable, andwell-known public men, of large experience, are deprived of anopportunity to serve their country. In England, and in some otherlands, the electors may choose as their representative a resident ofany city, borough, or county as they please, and it only occasionallyhappens that the member of Parliament actually lives in the districtwhich he represents. Is it advisable to adopt a similar system in theUnited States? It could not be done without amending the Constitution, and this would not be easy; but every nation, as well as eachindividual, should be prepared, at all times, to receive fresh light, and be willing to change old customs to suit new conditions, and so Imake the suggestion. The fixing of four years as the term of office for the President was anexcellent idea, intended no doubt to prevent an unpopular or badPresident from remaining too long in power. It is, however, graduallydawning on the minds of intelligent people that this limited term, though excellent in theory, is very inconvenient in practice. Howeverintelligent and capable a new President may be, several months mustelapse before he can thoroughly understand all the details incidentalto his exalted position, involving, in addition to unavoidable socialfunctions, the daily reception of callers, and many other multifariousduties. By the time he has become familiar with these matters, and thework of the office is running smoothly, half of his term has gone; andshould he aspire to a second term, which is quite natural, he mustdevote a great deal of time and attention to electioneering. Fouryears is plainly too short a period to give any President a chance todo justice either to himself or to the nation which entrusted him withhis heavy responsibilities. Presidential elections are nationalnecessities, but the less frequently they occur the better for thegeneral welfare of the country. Those who have been in the UnitedStates during campaign years, and have seen the complicated working ofthe political machinery, and all its serious consequences, will, I feelconvinced, agree with what I say. During the greater part of the yearin which a President has to be elected the entire nation is absorbed inthe event, all the people, both high and low, being more or less keenlyinterested in the issue, and the preparations leading up to it. Theyseem to put everything else in the shade, and to give more attention tothis than to anything else. Politicians and officials who have apersonal interest in the result, will devote their whole time andenergy to the work. Others who are less active, still, directly orindirectly, take their share in the electioneering. Campaign fundshave to be raised and large sums of money are disbursed in manydirections. All this sadly interrupts business; it not only takes manybusiness men from their more legitimate duties, but it preventsmerchants and large corporations from embarking in new enterprises, andso incidentally limits the demand for labor. In short, the wholenation is practically hurled into a state of bustle and excitement, andthe general trade of the country is seriously affected. A young man inWashington, who was engaged to be married, once told me that he was toobusy to think of marriage until the election was over. If the French system were followed, and the President were elected by amajority of the combined votes of the Senate and the House ofRepresentatives, the inconveniences, the excitements and expense aboveenumerated might be avoided, but I think the people of America wouldrather endure these evils than be deprived of the pleasure of electingtheir President themselves. The alternate remedy, so far as I can see, is to extend the presidential term to, say, six or seven years, withoutany chance of a re-election. If this proposal were adopted, thePresident would be more free and independent, he would not be hauntedby the bugbear of losing his position by temporarily displeasing hispolitical friends, he could give his undivided attention, as he cannotdo now, to federal affairs, and work without bias or fear, and withoutinterruption, for the welfare of his nation. He would have more chanceof really doing something for his country which was worth while. Afurther advantage is that the country would not be so frequentlytroubled with the turmoil and excitement arising from the presidentialelection. If I were allowed to prophecy, I should say that the youngRepublic of China, profiting by the experiences of France and America, will most likely adopt the French system of electing its President, ordevelop a system somewhat similar to it. One of the defects in the American way of government is the spoilssystem, in accordance with the maxim, "To the victor belongs thespoils. " The new President has the right of dismissing a large numberof the holders of Federal Offices, and to appoint in their places hisfriends, or men of his party who have rendered it services, or who haveotherwise been instrumental in getting him elected. I am told thatthousands of officials are turned out in this way every four years. President Jackson introduced the practice, and almost every succeedingPresident has continued it. This spoils system has been adopted byalmost every state and municipality; it forms indeed the corner-stoneof practical politics in the United States. In every country, all overthe world, there are cases where positions and places of emolument havebeen obtained through influential friends, but to dismiss publicservants who are doing useful work, for no better reason than simply tomake room for others, is very bad for the civil service, and for thecountry it serves. Attempts to remedy these evils have been madewithin recent years by the introduction of what is called "CivilService Reform", by which a candidate is appointed to a post after anexamination, and the term of his service is fixed. If this is to bestrictly adhered to in all cases, the President will be, to a greatextent, deprived of the means of rewarding his political friends. Inthat case I doubt if the professional politicians and wire pullers willbe so active and arduous as they have hitherto been, as the chief aimin securing the election of the nominee will have been taken away. Great credit is due to President Taft for his courage and impartiality, in that after assuming the duties of the high office to which he waselected, he gave appointments to men according to their ability, irrespective of party claims, and even went so far as to invite one ortwo gentlemen of known ability, who belonged to the opposite party, tobecome members of his Cabinet. In America men are not anxious for official offices. Men possessingtalent and ability, with business acumen, are in great demand, and candistinguish themselves in their several professions in various ways;they can easily attain a position of wealth and influence, and so suchmen keep out of politics. It must not, however, be inferred from thisthat the government officials in America are incompetent. On thecontrary I gladly testify from my personal experience that the workdone by them is not only efficient, but that, taken as a whole, theycompare most favorably with any other body of government officials inEurope. Still, on account of the small salaries paid, it is not to bewondered at that exceptionally good men cannot be induced to acceptofficial positions. I have known several Cabinet Ministers who, afterholding their offices for two or three years, were obliged to resignand resume their former business, and a President has been known toexperience great difficulty in getting good and competent men tosucceed them. These remarks do not apply to the President, not because thePresident's salary is large, for compared with what European Kings andEmperors receive it is very small, but because the position is, far andabove any other, the largest gift the people can bestow. No one hasever been known to refuse a presidential nomination. I believe anyoneto whom it was offered would always gladly accept it. I have conversedwith some in America who told me that they were heirs apparent to theWhite House, and so they are, for they are just as eligible candidatesfor the position, as is the Crown Prince to succeed to a throne in anyEuropean country. Even a lady was once nominated as a presidentialcandidate, although she did not obtain many votes. One of the things which arouses my admiration is the due observance bythe people of the existing laws and the Constitution. Every one obeysthem, from the President to the pedler, without any exception. Sometimes, however, by a too strict and technical interpretation of thelaw, it works a hardship. Let me quote a case. According to Article1, Section 6, of the Constitution, "no Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civiloffice under the authority of the United States, which shall have beencreated, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, duringsuch time. " A certain Senator was appointed by the President to aCabinet office, but it happened that the salary attached to that officehad been raised during the time he was in the Senate, and so it washeld that he could draw only the salary which was allowed before hebecame a Senator, and that he was not entitled to the increase whichwas sanctioned by Congress while he was in the Senate, although at thetime he had not the slightest notion that the increase would everaffect his own pocket. The relation of the states to the Federal Government is peculiar andunique. I will illustrate my point by correcting a mistake often madeby foreigners in regard to the different provinces of China. It isgenerally assumed by Western writers that each province in China isself-governed, and that the provincial authorities act independentlyand in defiance of the injunctions of the Peking Government. Thefacts, however, are that until the establishment of the Republic, allthe officials in the Provinces were appointed or sanctioned by thePeking Government, and that by an Imperial decree even a Viceroy orGovernor could, at any moment, be changed or dismissed, and that noimportant matter could be transacted without the Imperial sanction. How does this compare with the states in America? Every Americanboasts that his state is independent of the Federal Government. Allofficials, from the Governor downward, are, in every state, elected bythe people. Each state is provided with a Legislature consisting of aSenate and a House of Representatives, also elected by the popularvote. The state has very large, and almost absolute, legislative andexecutive powers, and is competent to deal with all matters notreserved by the Constitution for the Federal Government. Each state isalso independent of every other state. The criminal and civil laws, including all matters pertaining to the transfer of and the successionto property, as well as marriage, divorce and fiscal laws, are withinthe scope of the state administrations. The authorities of each statenaturally do their best to make their own state as populous andprosperous as possible. Thus in some states the laws concerningdivorce, corporations, and landed property, are more favorable than inother states. A person, for example, unable to obtain a divorce in hisown state, can, without difficulty, attain his object in another state. What is expressly prohibited by statute in one state may be perfectlylegitimate in the neighboring state. It is the same with the localtaxes; fees and taxes are not uniform; in one state they are heavy, while in another they are comparatively light. A stranger wouldnaturally be surprised to find such a condition of things in a greatnation like America, and would wonder how the machinery of such agovernment can work so well. Nevertheless he will find that everythinggoes on smoothly. This can be explained only by the fact that theinhabitants of one state often remove to other states, and bycommercial and other dealings and social associations they mixtogether, so that, notwithstanding the dissimilarity of conditions indifferent states, the people easily adapt themselves to the localsurroundings, and, so far as I can find, no friction or quarrel hasever arisen between two states. However, would it not be better forall the states to appoint an interstate committee to revise and codifytheir laws with a view to making them uniform? Foreigners living in America sometimes find themselves at adisadvantage, owing to the state being independent of the control ofthe Federal Government. This point can be better illustrated by a casewhich happened some years ago in one of the states. A foreigner, whowas the subject of a European country, was attacked by a mob, and hisproperty destroyed. He laid his complaint before the localauthorities, but it appeared that he could not obtain the redress hesought. His consul did all he could for him by appealing to the localauthorities, but without success; finally the matter was reported tohis ambassador in Washington, who immediately interested himself in theaffair and brought it before the Secretary of State. The Secretary, after going into the facts of the case, said that all he could do wasto write to the Governor of that state and request him to take thematter up, but the Governor, for some reason or other, did not take anysuch action as would have given satisfactory redress to the foreigner. His ambassador made frequent appeals to the Secretary of State, but theSecretary was powerless, as the Constitution does not empower theFederal Government to interfere in state matters. This seems a blemishin the administration of foreign affairs in the United States ofAmerica. Suppose a foreigner should be ill-treated or murdered in astate, and no proper redress be given, the Federal Government cannotsend its officers to arrest the culprit. All it can do is to ask theGovernor of that state to take action, and if he fail to do so there isno remedy. Fortunately such a case rarely happens, but for the moreefficient carrying on of their state affairs, is it not better inspecial cases to invest the Federal Government with larger powers thanthose at present possessed by it? I am aware that this opens up aserious question; that Congress will be very reluctant to confer on theFederal Government any power to interfere in the state affairs, knowingthat the states would not tolerate such an interference; but as thereis a large and ever increasing number of aliens residing in the UnitedStates, it naturally follows that riots, and charges of ill treatmentof foreigners now and then do occur. Now state officials can, as arule, be trusted to deal with these matters fairly, but where localprejudice against a class of aliens runs high, is it not advisable toleave to the Federal officials, who are disinterested, the settlementof such cases? For the sake of cordial foreign relations, and to avoidinternational complications, this point, I venture to suggest, shouldbe seriously considered by the Federal and the State Governments. The question as to what form of government should be adopted by anycountry is not easy to decide. The people of America would no doubtclaim that their system is the best, while the people of the monarchialgovernments in Europe would maintain that theirs is preferable. Thisis mostly a matter of education, and people who have been accustomed totheir own form of government naturally like it best. There arecommunities who have been long accustomed to the old system ofmonarchial government, with their ancient traditions and usages. Thereare other communities, with a different political atmosphere, where allthe people share in the public affairs of State. It would bemanifestly improper to introduce a democratic government among theformer. It would not suit their tastes nor fit in with their ideas. What is good for one nation is not necessarily good for another. Eachsystem of government has its good points, provided that they arefaithfully and justly carried out. The aim to secure the happiness andcomfort of the people and to promote the peace and prosperity of thenation should always be kept in view. As long as these objects can besecured it does not matter much whether the government is monarchial, republican, or something else. It may pertinently be asked why China has become a Republic, since fromtime immemorial she has had a monarchial form of government. Theanswer is that the conditions and circumstances in China are peculiar, and are different from those prevailing in Japan and other countries. In Japan it is claimed that the Empire was founded by the firstEmperor, Jummu Tenno, 660 B. C. And that the dynasty founded by him hascontinued ever since. It is well known that the Chinese Imperialfamily is of Manchu origin. The Ching dynasty was founded in 1644 byconquest, not by succession. Upon the recent overthrow of the Manchudynasty it was found very difficult to find a Chinese, however popularand able, who possessed the legal right of succeeding to the throne. Jealousy and provincial feelings placed this suggestion absolutelybeyond discussion. Disagreements, frictions, and constant civil warwould have ensued if any attempt had been made to establish a Chinesedynasty. Another fact is that a large majority of the intelligentpeople of China were disgusted with the system of monarchialgovernment. Thus it will be seen that for the sake of the peace andwelfare of the nation there was no other course for the people but totake a long jump and to establish the present Republic. The law ofevolution has been very actively at work in China, and no doubt it willbe for her ultimate good, and therefore for the benefit of all mankind. China is now an infant republic, but she will grow into a healthy andstrong youth. Her people have the kindest feeling for the people ofthe elder republic across the Pacific. There are excellent reasons whythe two republics should be in closer friendship. It is well knownthat there are great potentialities for the expansion of trade inChina, and as the Philippine Islands are close to our shores, and thecompletion of the Panama Canal will open a new avenue for theenlargement of trade from America, it will be to the interest of bothnations to stretch out their hands across the Pacific in the clasp ofgood fellowship and brotherhood. When this is done, not only willinternational commerce greatly increase, but peace, at least in theEastern Hemisphere, will be better secured than by a fleet ofDreadnaughts. Chapter 4. America and China America has performed great service for the Orient and especially forChina. If, however, the people of the latter country were asked toexpress their candid opinion on the matter, the verdict would not bealtogether pleasant, but would be given with mixed feelings ofgratitude and regret. Since the formal opening of China to foreigntrade and commerce, people of all nationalities have come here, some totrade, some for pleasure, some to preach Christianity, and others forother purposes. Considering that the Chinese have a civilization oftheir own, and that their modes of thoughts, ideas, and habits are, inmany respects, different from those of the western people, it is notsurprising that frictions and disputes have occasionally occurred andthat even foreign wars have been waged between China and the Occident, but it is gratifying to observe that no force has ever been resorted toagainst China by the United States of America. Now and thentroublesome questions have arisen, but they have always been settledamicably. Indeed the just and friendly attitude taken by the Americanofficials in China had so won the esteem and confidence of the ChineseGovernment that in 1867, on the termination of Mr. Anson Burlingame'sterm as American Minister to Peking, he was appointed by the ManchuGovernment as Chief of a special mission to America and Europe. Inthat capacity he performed valuable services for China, although hiswork was unfortunately cut short by his untimely death. The liberaland generous treatment accorded to the Chinese students in America isanother source of satisfaction. They have been admitted freely to alleducational institutions, and welcomed into American families. Inwhatever school or college they enter they are taught in the same wayas the American boys and girls, and enjoy equal opportunities oflearning all that the American students learn. [1] That America has nodesire for territorial acquisition in China is well known. During theBoxer movement the American Government took the lead in initiating thepolicy of maintaining the open door, and preserving the integrity ofChina, a policy to which the other great powers readily consented. Itwas well known at the time, and it is no breach of confidence tomention the fact here, that Mr. John Hay, American Secretary of State, with the permission of President McKinley, was quite willing thatAmerica's indemnity demanded from China as her share of thecompensation for losses sustained during the Boxer upheaval, should bereduced by one-half, provided the other powers would consent to similarreductions. Unfortunately, Mr. Hay's proposal could not be carried outfor want of unanimity. However, to show the good faith, and the humaneand just policy of America, she has since voluntarily refunded to Chinaa considerable portion of her indemnity, being the surplus due to herafter payment of the actual expenses incurred. This is the secondoccasion on which she has done this, although in the previous case therefund was smaller. These are some of the instances for which thepeople of China have good reasons to be grateful to America and herpeople. There is, however, another side to the picture; the Chinese students inAmerica, who may be roughly calculated by the thousands, and whosenumber is annually increasing, have been taught democratic principlesof government. These could not but be detrimental to the welfare ofthe late Manchu Government. They have read the history of how theAmerican people gained their independence, and naturally they have beenimbued with the idea of inaugurating a similar policy in China. Chinese merchants, traders, and others who have been residing inAmerica, seeing the free and independent manner in which the Americanpeople carry on their government, learned, of course, a similar lesson. These people have been an important factor in the recent overthrow ofthe Manchu dynasty. Added to this, the fact that America has affordeda safe refuge for political offenders was another cause ofdissatisfaction to the Manchus. Thus it will be seen that the ManchuGovernment, from their point of view, have had many reasons forentertaining unfavorable sentiments toward America. This view I need hardly say is not shared by the large majority ofChinese. Persons who have committed political offenses in their owncountry find protection not only in America but in all countries inEurope, Japan, and other civilized lands. It is an irony of fate thatsince the establishment of the Chinese Republic, Manchu and otherofficials under the old regime, now find secure asylums in Hongkong, Japan, and Tsingtao, while hundreds of ex-Manchu officials have fled tothe foreign settlements of Shanghai, Tientsin, and other treaty ports, so reluctantly granted by the late Manchu Government. Thus the edge oftheir complaint against America's policy in harboring politicalrefugees has been turned against themselves, and the liberality againstwhich they protested has become their protection. The more substantial cause for dissatisfaction with the United Statesis, I grieve to say, her Chinese exclusion policy. As long as herdiscriminating laws against the Chinese remain in force a blot mustremain on her otherwise good name, and her relations with China, thoughcordial, cannot be perfect. It is beyond the scope of this chapter todeal with this subject exhaustively, but in order to enable my readersto understand the exact situation it is necessary to supply a shorthistorical summary. In 1868, on account of the pressing need of goodlaborers for the construction of railways and other public works inAmerica, the Governments of China and the United States, concluded atreaty which provided that "Chinese subjects visiting or residing inthe United States shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, andexemptions in respect to travel or residence as may be enjoyed by thecitizens or subjects of the most favored nation. " It was a treatynegotiated by that great American statesman, Secretary Seward, andannounced by the President of the United States to Congress as a"liberal and auspicious treaty". It was welcomed by the United Statesas a great advance in their international relations. It had also thedouble significance of having been negotiated by a Chinese specialembassy, of which a distinguished American diplomat, Mr. AnsonBurlingame, who was familiar with the wishes and interests of theAmerican people, was the head. But within a few years the labor unions on the Pacific coast began toobject to the competition of Chinese laborers. Soon afterward theChinese Government, to its intense surprise, was informed that thePresident of the United States had delegated a commission to come toPeking to solicit an abrogation of the treaty clause to which referencehas been made. The Chinese Government was naturally unwilling toabrogate a treaty which had been urged on her by the United States withso much zeal, and which had so lately been entered upon on both sideswith such high hopes. Long and tedious negotiations ensued, andfinally a short treaty was concluded, the first and second Articles ofwhich are as follows: Article I "Whenever in the opinion of the Government of the United States, thecoming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residencetherein, affects or threatens to affect the interests of that country, or to endanger the good order of the said country or of any localitywithin the territory thereof, the Government of China agrees that theGovernment of the United States may regulate, limit, or suspend suchcoming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it. Thelimitation or suspension shall be reasonable and shall apply only toChinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes notbeing included in the limitations. Legislation taken in regard toChinese laborers will be of such a character only as is necessary toenforce the regulation, limitation, or suspension of immigration, andimmigrants shall not be subject to personal maltreatment or abuse. " Article II "Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers, students, merchants, or from curiosity, together with their body andhousehold servants, and Chinese laborers who are now in the UnitedStates shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will andaccord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exceptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of themost favored nations. " It would seem reasonable to expect that in yielding so fully to thewishes of the United States in this second negotiation the ChineseGovernment would not be called upon to make any further concessions inthe interests or at the demand of the labor unions on the Pacificcoast, but in this China was disappointed. Within a period of lessthan ten years an urgent application was made by the American Secretaryof State for a new treaty amended so as to enable the Congress of theUnited States to still further restrict the privileges of Chineselaborers who had come to the United States. And when the ChineseGovernment hesitated to consent to the withdrawal of rights which theUnited States granted to the subjects of other Governments, Congresspassed the Scott Act of 1888 prohibiting any Chinese person fromentering the United States except Chinese officials, teachers, students, merchants or travellers for pleasure or curiosity andforbidding also Chinese laborers in the United States, after havingleft, from returning thereto. This, in the words of Hon. J. W. Foster, ex-Secretary of State and a distinguished international lawyer, "was adeliberate violation of the Treaty of 1880 and was so declared by theSupreme Court of the United States. " In order to save the Executive ofthe United States from embarrassment, the Chinese Government, contraryto its own sense of justice, and of international comity, for a thirdtime yielded to the wishes of the United States, and concluded theamended treaty of 1894 which gave Congress additional power oflegislation respecting Chinese laborers. By Article I of this treatyit was agreed that for a term of ten years the coming of Chineselaborers to the United States should be absolutely prohibited. ArticleIII distinctly provided that "the provisions of this convention shallnot affect the right at present enjoyed of Chinese subjects, beingofficials, teachers, students, merchants, or travellers for curiosityor pleasure, but not laborers, of coming to the United States andresiding therein. " Thus it is clear that the prohibition affects onlylaborers, and not the other classes of Chinese. For a few years afterthe signing of this convention this was the view adopted and acted uponby the immigration officials, but afterward they changed theirattitude, and the foregoing Article has since been interpreted to meanthat only the above-mentioned five classes can be admitted into theUnited States, and that all the other classes of Chinese, howeverrespectable and honorable, must be refused admission. Will my readersbelieve that a Chinese banker, physician, lawyer, broker, commercialagent, scholar or professor could all be barred out of the UnitedStates of America under the provisions of this convention? In the faceof the plain language of the text it seems too absurd and unreasonableto be contemplated, and yet it is a fact. This convention was proclaimed in December, 1894. According to itsprovisions, it was to remain in force only for a period of ten years, but that if six months before the end of that period neither Powershould give notice of denunciation it should be extended for a similarperiod. Such notice was, however, given by China to the United Statesand accordingly the convention expired in December, 1904, and is now nolonger in force. No serious attempt has since been made by the UnitedStates Government to negotiate a new treaty regarding Chinese laborers, so the customs and immigration officials continue to prohibit Chineselaborers from coming to America by virtue of the law passed byCongress. It will be seen that by the treaty of 1868, known as the"Burlingame Treaty", the United States Government formally agreed thatChinese subjects, visiting or residing in the United States, shouldenjoy the same privileges and immunities as were enjoyed by thecitizens or subjects of the most favored nation; that being so, and asthe convention of 1894 has expired, according to the legal opinion ofMr. John W. Foster, and other eminent lawyers, the continuation of theexclusion of Chinese laborers and the restrictions placed upon Chinesemerchants and others seeking admission to the United States are notonly without international authority but in violation of treatystipulations. The enforcement of the exclusion laws against Chinese in the Hawaiianand Philippine Islands is still more inexcusable. The complaint inAmerica against the immigration of Chinese laborers was that suchimmigration was detrimental to white labor, but in those Islands therehas been no such complaint; on the contrary the enforcement of the lawagainst the Chinese in Hawaii has been, and is, contrary to theunanimous wish of the local Government and the people. Freeintercourse and immigration between those Islands and China have beenmaintained for centuries. What is most objectionable and unfair isthat the Chinese should be singled out for discrimination, while allother Asiatics such as Japanese, Siamese, and Malays are allowed toenter America and her colonies without restraint. It is my belief thatthe gross injustice that has been inflicted upon the Chinese people bythe harsh working of the exclusion law is not known to the largemajority of the American people, for I am sure they would not allow thecontinuation of such hardships to be suffered by those who are theirsincere friends. China does not wish special treatment, she only asksthat her people shall be treated in the same way as the citizens orsubjects of other countries. Will the great American nation stillrefuse to consent to this? To solve the problem of immigration in a manner that would besatisfactory to all parties is not an easy task, as so many conflictinginterests are involved. But it is not impossible. If personsinterested in this question be really desirous of seeing it settled andare willing to listen to reasonable proposals, I believe that a way maybe found for its solution. There is good reason for my optimisticopinion. Even the Labor Unions, unless I am mistaken, would welcome anamicable settlement of this complicated question. In 1902, while atWashington, I was agreeably surprised to receive a deputation of theleaders of the Central Labor Union of Binghamton, New York, inviting meto pay a visit there and to deliver an address. As I did not wish todisappoint them I accepted their invitation. During my short staythere, I was very cordially and warmly received, and most kindlytreated not only by the local authorities and inhabitants, but by themembers of the Labor Union and the working men also. I found that theUnion leaders and the working men were most reasonable, their platformbeing, as far as I could learn, to have no cheap labor competition butnot necessarily discrimination against any race. If the United StatesGovernment would appoint a commission composed of members representingthe Labor Unions, manufacturers and merchants, to treat with a similarcommission nominated by the Chinese Government, the whole question inall its bearings could be discussed, and I feel certain that after freeand candid exchange of views, the joint Commissioners would be able toarrive at a scheme which would put at rest once for all the conflictingclaims, and settle the matter satisfactorily to both China and theUnited States. When this disagreeable difference has been removed, the friendlyrelations between the two Republics, cordial even while one was yet anEmpire, will leave nothing to be desired and cannot but help to largelyaffect the trade between the two countries and to contribute to thepeace of the Far East. [1] I need hardly say that our students are also well treated inEngland, France, Germany, Japan, and other countries in Europe, but Iam dealing in this chapter with America. Chapter 5. American Education Out of a total population of 91, 972, 266 in the United States therewere, in 1910, 17, 506, 175 pupils enrolled. Few nations can show such ahigh percentage of school students. The total number of teachers was506, 040. Educational efficiency on such a scale can be maintained onlyby a large expenditure of money, and from the statistics of education Ifind that the sum received from tuition fees was $14, 687, 192 gold, fromproductive funds $11, 592, 113 gold, and from the United StatesGovernment $4, 607, 298 gold, making a total of $70, 667, 865 gold. [1] Iquestion whether any other nation can produce such an excellent examplein the cause of education. In every state there are very many schools, both public and private. There are public schools in every town, and even the smallest villagehas its school, while in some agricultural states, such as Wyoming, where the population is very scattered, teachers are provided by thegovernment to teach in the farmers' homes wherever three or fourchildren can be gathered together. The public schools are free andopen to all, but in some towns in the Southern States special schoolsare provided for the colored people. Having such facilities forgaining knowledge, it naturally follows that the Americans, as a whole, are an educated people. By this I mean the native American, not therecent immigrants and negroes, but even as regards the latter areservation should be made, for some of the negroes, such as Booker T. Washington and others, have become eminent through their learning andeducational work. The distinguishing feature of the school system is that it is cheap andcomprehensive. In the primary and high schools the boys and girls, whether they come from the wealthy or aristocratic families, or frommore straitened homes, are all studying together in the sameclass-room, and it is known that a President sent his son to study in apublic school. There is, therefore, no excuse for even the poorest manin America being an illiterate. If he wishes he can obtain a degree ina university without difficulty. Many of the state universities admitthe children of citizens of the state free, while their tuition feesfor outsiders are exceptionally low, so that it is within the power ofthe man of the most moderate means to give his son a universityeducation. Many of the college or university students, in order toenable them to go through their courses of study, do outside jobs aftertheir lecture hours, and perform manual, or even menial work, duringthe vacations. I frequently met such students in summer resorts actingas hotel waiters and found them clean, attentive, and reliable. Duringa visit to Harvard University, President Eliot took me to see thedining-hall. Many students were taking their lunch at the time. Inoticed that the waiters were an unusually clean set of young men, andupon inquiry was informed that they were students of the University, and that when a waiter was wanted many students applied, as the poorerstudents were glad to avail themselves of the opportunity to earn somemoney. Honest labor, though menial, is not considered degrading, and noAmerican of education and refinement is above doing it. In some of thestates in the East, owing to the scarcity of servants, families dotheir own cooking and other household work. Some few years ago I wason a visit to Ashburnham, Massachusetts, and was surprised to find thatmy hostess not only did the cooking but also cleaned my room. I wasinvited to a formal luncheon by a professor, and to my astonishment histwo daughters waited at the table. This is not unlike what occurs insome parts of China in the interior. The members of families, althoughin good circumstances, do their own household work. In some towns, notfar from Canton, wealthy farmers and country gentlemen hire out theirsons as menials, so that these youngsters, when they have grown up, shall know the value of money and not squander the family wealth. Icite a typical case of a millionaire who had only one son. In order tomake him appreciate the worth of money he took his boy to Canton, andallowed him to be hired out as an ordinary servant. The boy wasordered by his master to look after a certain part of the house, andalso to take care of a little garden. One day he carelessly broke avaluable gold-fish jar much prized by the family. His master naturallybecame enraged and reproached him for his negligence. The young mancoolly told him that if he would come to his father's house he couldreplace the broken vessel by making his own selection from his father'scollection of gold-fish jars. This irritated the master, who thoughtthat the lad was adding insult to injury. However, ultimately, hismaster was persuaded to go with him to his father's house, and to hisgreat astonishment he found there many gold-fish jars which were moreprecious than that which the lad had broken. Household work, howevermean it may be, is not considered degrading in China, but thedifference between China and America is that in America the people arecompelled to do it from necessity, while in China it is resorted to asa matter of policy to make the young men realize the value of money, and not spend it wastefully. The curriculum prescribed in the schools covers a wide range ofsubjects, and the graduates are well equipped to face the battle oflife. Not only are drawing, sketching and other fine arts taught, butalso carpentry and other trades. I was once shown a fairly made boxwhich was the product of a very small boy. I did not at first perceivethe use of teaching a boy to do such work in school, but I learned thatits object was to instruct the pupil how to think and arrange hismaterials systematically. With the exception of those schools established by Christian societies, or endowed by religious sects, all educational institutions, especiallythose established by the state authorities, are secular. Religion isnot taught. Neither the Bible nor any other religious work is used inthe schoolroom. The presidents, professors, and tutors may be strictchurchmen, or very religious people, but, as a rule, they are notpermitted to inculcate their religious views on the students. Theminds of the young are most susceptible, and if no moral principles areimpressed upon them at school or college they are apt to go astray. Itshould be remembered that men of education without moral principles arelike a ship without an anchor. Ignorant and illiterate people infringethe law because they do not know any better, and their acts ofdepredation are clumsy and can be easily found out, but when men ofeducation commit crimes these are so skilfully planned and executedthat it is difficult for the police to unravel and detect them. It hasbeen known that frauds and forgeries perpetrated by such unscrupulouspersons were so cleverly designed that they bore the evidence ofsuperior education, and almost of genius. The more a man is educatedthe more is it necessary, for the welfare of the state, to instruct himhow to make a proper use of his talents: Education is like adouble-edged sword. It may be turned to dangerous usages if it is notproperly handled. As there is no established church in the United States, and in view ofthe numberless different sects, it is not advisable to permit anyparticular phase of religion to be taught. But why not consent toallow the cardinal principles of morality to be taught in every school?The following may serve as examples: (1) Honesty is the best policy. (2) Honor thy father and thy mother. (3) Universal brotherhood. (4) Love of mankind. (5) Charity to all. (6) Purity in thought and action. (7) Pure food makes a pure body. (8) Happiness consists of health and a pure conscience. (9) Live and let live. (10) Respect a man for his virtues, not for his money or position. (11) 'Fiat justitia, ruat coelum' (Let justice be done, though the Heavens should fall). (12) Bear no malice against anyone. (13) Be equitable and just to all men. (14) Liberty and freedom but not license. (15) Do not unto others what ye would not that others should do unto you. I have jotted down the above just as they occurred to me while writing. They can easily be amplified, and be made the basis of an ethicalinstruction in all the schools. In any case, every nation should aimat the highest standard of morals. Co-education in the United States is not so unpopular as in some othercountries, and it is increasing in favor. In all the primary schools, and in most of the high schools, boys and girls study in the sameclass-room, and girls are admitted as students even in some collegesand universities. This principle of admitting the fair sex to equaleducational privileges is slowly but surely being recognizedeverywhere. In some universities the authorities have gone half-way;lectures are given to the girl students in separate rooms, or separatebuildings, or halls, are provided for the girl students. With regardto the teaching staff, in the primary schools nearly all the teachersare women, and in the high schools their number is at least half, ifnot more. In some of the universities there are lady professors ortutors. It goes without saying that girls have the natural talent forlearning everything that boys can learn. The objections raised by theopponents of co-education seem to rest chiefly upon the danger of theintellectual or physical overstrain of girls during adolescence, andupon the unequal rate of development of boys and girls during thesecondary school period. It is further alleged that in mixed schoolsthe curriculum is so prescribed that the girls' course of study is moreor less adapted to that of the boys, with the result that it cannothave the artistic and domestic character which is suitable for themajority of girls; but why should not the curriculum be arranged insuch a way as to suit both sexes? Is it not good for both to learn thesame subjects? That which is good for a boy to learn is it not equallyadvisable for a girl to know, and vice versa? Will not such a policycreate mutual sympathy between the sexes? The opponents of theco-education policy assert that it makes the girls masculine, and thatit has a tendency to make the boys a little feminine. It cannot, however, be doubted that the system reduces the cost of education, suchas the duplication of the teaching staff, laboratories, libraries, andother equipment. It is objected that the system has done more than anything else to robmarriage of its attractions, by divesting man of most of his old-timeglamour and romance. It is claimed that this early contact with theother sex, on a footing of equality, and the manner in which themajority of the girl students more than maintain their intellectualstanding with the boys, has tended to produce that contempt of themuch-vaunted superiority of man, that, as a rule, is reserved for thosepost-nuptial discoveries which make marriage such an interestingventure. But they forget that marriages are frequently contracted inplaces where girls and boys are taught together, and where they havehad ample opportunities for knowing each other intimately, and thatexperience proves that such marriages are happy and lasting unions. Itis interesting to observe, however, that as the number of educationalinstitutions has increased, the number of unmarried women has beencorrespondingly augmented. It is easy to explain this by the fact thata large number of women earn their own livelihood by going intobusiness and the professions. As they become more educated, and areallowed to participate in many of the same privileges as men, it isonly natural that they should show their independence by remainingsingle. The same thing would occur in any country, and we may expect alike state of things in China as greater facilities for instruction areafforded to women. I do not feel alarmed at the prospect; indeed, Iwould welcome it if I could see my country-women acting asindependently and as orderly as their American sisters. The games and sports sanctioned and encouraged in schools anduniversities are useful, in that they afford diversion of the pupils'minds from their school work. They should not, however, be indulged inin such a way as to interfere with their studies. Take, as an example, boat racing; several months of preparation are necessary before theevent takes place, and during a great portion of this time the studentsdo not think much of their studies; they are all mad with excitement. The contest between the two rival parties is very keen; they have butone thought, and that is to win the race. In this way, at least so itseems to me, the main object of recreation is entirely lost sight of;it becomes no longer an amusement, but labor and work. I am told thatthe coxswain and the other members of the boat race generally have totake a long rest when the race is over, which clearly shows that theyhave been overworking. I favor all innocent games and sports whichmean recreation and diversion, but if it be thought that without acontest games would lose their relish and their fun, then I wouldsuggest that the aim should be the exhibition of a perfect body andabsolute health. Let the students, when they come to the recreationground, indulge in any sport they please, but make them feel that it is"bad form" to overstrain, or do anything which, even temporarily, marsthe perfect working of their physical organisms. Let each student sotrain himself as to become healthy and strong both physically andmentally, and the one who, through reasonable and wholesome exercises, is able to present himself in the most perfect health should be awardedthe highest prize. [1] There appears to be $39, 781, 262 missing from these figures. Possibly Wu Tingfang's figures are incorrect, but it seems more likelythat he neglected to include expenditures by state and localgovernments. --A. R. L. , 1996. Chapter 6. American Business Methods If I should be asked what is most essential for the successful carryingon of business in America I would say advertising. A business man inAmerica who intends to succeed must advertise in the daily, weekly, andmonthly papers, and also have big posters in the streets. I do notbelieve any up-to-date merchant in America fails to do this. Everybook and magazine contains many advertisements; sometimes fully half ofa big magazine is covered with notices or pictures of articles forsale. Wherever you go the inevitable poster confronts you; and evenwhen you look out of the window of the train you see large sign-boardsannouncing some article of trade. The newer the brand the bigger thepicture. If when you get into a street-car you look around you willsee nothing but advertisements of all kinds and sorts, and if youanswer an advertisement you will keep on receiving notices of thematter about which you inquired. Even now I receive letters urging meto buy something or other about which I sent a letter of inquiry when Iwas in America. At night, if you stroll round the town you will beamazed by the ingenious and clever signs which the alert minds of thetrades people have invented, such as revolving electric lights formingthe name of the advertiser with different colors, or a figure or shapeof some sort illustrating his wares. But even this is not thoughtsufficient. Circulars are often sent to everyone, making specialoffers, setting forth forceful reasons why the commodity advertised isindispensable. Certain stores make it a point to announce cheap salesonce or twice a year, with from 10 to 25 per cent. Reduction. Itshould be noted that no tradesman voluntarily sells his goods at aloss, so that if during a sale he can give as much as 25 per cent. Discount we can easily calculate the percentage of profit he generallymakes. There are cases where men who started as petty dealers have, after a few years, become millionaires. To show the importance of advertising I cite the well-known sanitarydrink which is a substitute for tea and coffee, and which by extensiveadvertising in almost every paper published in every country has nowbecome a favorite beverage. The proprietor is now a multi-millionaireand I am told that he spends more than a million dollars a year inadvertising. Another thing inseparable from American business is the telephone. Atelephone is a part of every well-appointed house, every partner's deskis provided with a telephone, through which he talks to his clients andtransacts business with them. In all official departments inWashington scores of telephones are provided; even the secretary of thedepartment and the chief of the bureau give orders by telephone. Itgoes without saying that this means of communication is also found inthe home of almost every well-to-do family. The invention of atelephone is a great blessing to mankind; it enables friends to talk toeach other at a distance without the trouble of calling. [1]Sweethearts can exchange their sweet nothings, and even proposals ofmarriage have been made and accepted through the telephone. However, one is subjected to frequent annoyances from wrong connections at theCentral Office, and sometimes grave errors are made. Once, through aserious blunder, or a mischievous joke, I lost a dinner in my Legationin Washington. My valet received a telephone message from a ladyfriend inviting me to dine at her house. I gladly accepted theinvitation, and at the appointed time drove to her home, only to findthat there was no dinner-party on, and that I should have to go hungry. With some trades, in order to create a new market, commercialtravellers or "drummers" give their goods away for nothing. Experiencehas proved that what they lose at the start they recover in the courseof time, receiving in addition triple or tenfold more business than thecost of the original outlay. These commercial agents travel throughall sections of the country to solicit business; they call upon thosewho can give them orders; they look up those who are engaged in similarbusinesses to their own, and, if they are retailers, they invite theirorders, or ask them to become sub-agents. These gentlemen practicallylive on the trains: they eat, sleep, and do their business whiletravelling. One of them told me that in one month he had covered38, 000 miles, and that he had not been back to his firm for threemonths. There is no doubt that the American people are active, strenuousworkers. They will willingly go any distance, and undertake anyjourney, however arduous, if it promises business; they seem to bealways on the go, and they are prepared to start anywhere at a moment'snotice. An American who called on me a short time ago in Shanghai toldme that when he left his house one morning at New York, he had not theslightest notion he was going to undertake a long journey that day; butthat when he got to his office his boss asked him if he would go toChina on a certain commission. He accepted the responsibility at onceand telephoned to his wife to pack up his things. Two hours later hewas on a train bound for San Francisco where he boarded a steamer forChina. The same gentleman told me that this trip was his second visitto China within a few months. American salesmen are clever and capable, and well know how torecommend whatever they have to sell. You walk into a store just tolook around; there may be nothing that you want, but the adroit mannerin which the salesman talks, and the way in which he explains the goodpoints of every article at which you look, makes it extremely difficultfor you to leave the store without making some purchases. Salesmen andcommercial travellers in the United States have certainly learned theart of speaking. I once, however, met a remarkable exception to thisrule in the person of an American gentleman who was singularly lackingin tact; he was in China with the intention of obtaining a concession, and he had nearly accomplished his object when he spoilt everything byhis blunt speech. He said he had not come to China for anyphilanthropic purposes, but that he was in the country to make money. We all know that the average business man is neither a Peabody nor aCarnegie, but it was quite unnecessary for this gentleman to announcethat his sole object was to make money out of the Chinese. Up to a few years ago business men in America, especially capitalists, had scarcely any idea of transacting business in China. I wellremember the difficulty I had in raising a railway loan in America. Itwas in 1897. I had received positive instructions from my governmentto obtain a big loan for the purpose of constructing the proposedrailway from Hankow to Canton. I endeavored to interest well-knownbankers and capitalists in New York City but none of them wouldconsider the proposals. They invariably said that their money could bejust as easily, and just as profitably, invested in their own country, and with better security, than was obtainable in China. It was onlyafter nearly twelve months of hard work, of careful explanation andmuch persuasion, that I succeeded in finding a capitalist who wasprepared to discuss the matter and make the loan. Conditions have nowchanged. American bankers and others have found that investments inChina are quite safe. They have sent agents to China to represent themin the matter of a big international loan, and they are now just asready to lend money in China as in Europe, and on the same terms. Inconjunction with the representatives of some large European capitaliststhey even formed a powerful syndicate in China, for the purpose ofarranging loans to responsible Chinese investors. In the spring of1913, however, they withdrew from the syndicate. The opportunities to make money in America are great and a young manwith only fair ability, but an honest purpose, will always getsomething to do; and if he is industrious and ready for hard work, ifhe possess courage and perseverance, he will most surely go forward andprobably in time become independent. There are hundreds ofmillionaires and multi-millionaires in America who, in their youngerdays, were as poor as sparrows in a snowstorm, but throughperseverance, combined with industrious and economical habits they haveprospered far beyond their own expectations. The clever methods theyadopt in the carrying on of their business cannot but arouse ouradmiration, and Chinese merchants would do well to send some of theirsons to America to study the various systems practised there. But nonation or any class of people is perfect, and there is one money-makingdevice which seems to me not quite sound in principle. To increase thecapital of a corporation new shares are sometimes issued, without acorresponding increase in the actual capital. These new shares mayrepresent half, or as much of the actual capital as has been alreadysubscribed. Such a course is usually defended by the claim that as theproperty and franchises have increased in value since the formation ofthe corporation the increase of the stock is necessary in order tofairly represent the existing capital. It is said that some railwaystock has been "watered" in this way to an alarming extent, so that agreat deal of it is fictitious, yet though it exists only on paper itranks as the equal of the genuine stock when the dividends are paid. Whether or not such an action really is justifiable, or even moral, Ileave to the Christian clergy and their followers to decide. Thepromoters and directors of such concerns have at least hit upon a veryclever method for becoming rich, and if the securities of the originalshareholders are not injured, and the holders of the genuine and thewatered stock can share equally without endangering the interests ofall, perhaps such an action may be less blamable, but it is a new kindof proceeding to Orientals. I must not omit to mention, however, the confidence which is placed inthe honesty of the people in general; for example, you enter anomnibus, you will find the driver, but no conductor to collect thefare. "It is up to you" to put the fare into a box, and if you do notpay no one will ask for it. Yet every fare is paid. I have never seena dishonest man who omitted to pay. This is a remarkable fact which Ihave noticed nowhere but in America. I suppose it is because thepeople are not poor, and as they are always able to pay the fare theydo so. They are too honest to cheat. It is certainly a good way toencourage people to be honest, to put them on their honor and then relyon their own sense of uprightness. The most curious sight I have ever seen was the Stock Exchange in NewYork. It is used as a market for the purchase and sale of variousarticles, but there were no goods exposed for sale. I saw a good manypeople running about talking, yelling and howling, and had I not beeninformed beforehand what to expect I should have thought that the menwere getting ready, in their excitement, for a general all round fight. However, I did not see any exchange of blows, and I did not hear thatany blood was shed. Another remarkable feature of the scene was that I did not see a singlewoman there; she was conspicuous by her absence. Whether or not therules of the Exchange allow her to become a member I do not know; thatis a question for the woman suffragists to investigate, but I learnedthat it is a wealthy association consisting of 1, 100 members, and thatto become a member one must be a citizen of the United States of 21years of age or more. The number of members is limited. Personsobtain membership by election, or by the transfer of the membership ofa member who has resigned or died. A new member who is admitted bytransfer pays an initiation fee of 2, 000 gold dollars, in addition to alarge fee to the transferrer, for his "seat in the House". A membermay transfer his seat to his son, if the Committee of the Exchangeapprove, without charging for it; but in all cases the transferree paysthe above-mentioned initiation fee of 2, 000 gold dollars. The prices for these seats vary, the fluctuations being due to theupward or downward trend of the stock market. Within recent years theprice has risen considerably, and as much as 95, 000 gold dollars hasbeen paid to the transferrer. This is much higher than the priceusually paid by new members in Stock Exchanges in Europe, yet when aseat becomes vacant there is no lack of purchasers. It is clear that aseat in the "House" is very valuable to the holder. In the buildingeach member has a stall allotted to him where he has a telephone forhis exclusive use; this enables him to communicate every transactiondone in the Exchange to his business house, and to keep up connectionswith his constituents in other cities. When one of his constituents, say in Washington, D. C. , desires to buy a certain security the order isconveyed to him direct, and executed without delay. I have seen atransaction of this kind executed in ten minutes, though there was adistance of several hundred miles between client and broker. Theamount of business transacted in the "House" every day is enormous, aggregating many millions of dollars. New York also has otherExchanges, where different articles of merchandise are purchased andsold, such as corn, coffee, cotton, etc. , and the volume of businesstransacted daily in that "Empire City" must be immense, and almostbeyond calculation. Of course there are Exchanges in Chicago, Boston, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington and other cities, allconducted on similar lines, but the prices are always governed by thequotations from New York. This skilful and systematic way of doingbusiness is remarkable, and I am inclined to believe that New York isahead of many cities in South America and in Europe. No wonder thatthe services of Americans are required by other countries in industrialand technical concerns. Some years ago, when I was in Madrid, Inoticed that the street tram-car was running according to the Americansystem, and upon inquiry I was told it was controlled by an Americansyndicate. The pursuit of wealth in America is intense; it is apparent everywhereand seems to be the chief aim of the American people. Because of theireagerness to become rich as soon as possible they are all in a constanthurry. You may see people in the streets almost running to theiroffices, at luncheon they do not masticate their food, they bolt it, and in less than ten minutes are on their way back to their officeagain. Everyone is urged on by this spirit of haste, and youfrequently hear of sudden deaths which doctors attribute to heartfailure, or some other malady, but which I suspect are caused by thecontinual restless hurry and worry. People who are so unnaturallyeager to get rich naturally suffer for it. It is the general belief that Americans do not live as long asEuropeans. They make money easily and their expectations are high. Ihave known many Americans who, in my opinion, were wealthy people, butthey themselves did not think so; in fact, they said they were poor. Once I asked a gentleman, who was known to be worth half a million ofgold dollars, whether it was not time for him to retire. Hepooh-poohed the idea and said that he could not afford to give up hiswork. In reply to my inquiries he informed me that he would not call aman wealthy unless he should be possessed of one or two millions ofdollars. With such extravagant ideas, it is no wonder that Americanswork so hard. I grant that a man's mission in this world is to attainhappiness. According to Webster, happiness is "that state of beingwhich is attended with enjoyment, " but it is curious to observe whatdifferent notions people have as to what happiness is. I know anEnglishman in China who by his skilful business management, combinedwith good luck, has amassed immense wealth; in fact, he is consideredthe richest man in the port where he resides. He is a bachelor, overseventy years old, and leads a very simple life. But he still goes tohis office every day, and toils as if he had to work for a living. Being told that he should discontinue his drudgery, as at his death hewould have to leave his large fortune to relatives who would probablysquander it, he gave an answer which is characteristic of the man. "Ilove, " he said, "accumulating dollars and bank notes, and my enjoymentis in counting them; if my relatives who will inherit my fortune, takeas much pleasure in spending it as I have had in making it, they willbe quite welcome to their joy. " Not many people, I fancy, will agreewith the old bachelor's view of life. I once suggested to amulti-millionaire of New York that it was time for him to retire fromactive work, leaving his sons to carry on his business. He told methat he would be unhappy without work and that he enjoyed the demandshis business made on him each day. Many a man's life has been shortened by his retiring from business. Itis the mind rather than the body that lives, and apart from theirbusiness these men have no thoughts and therefore no life. A man'sidea of happiness is greatly governed by his personal tastes, and isinfluenced by his environment, his education and the climate. The formwhich it is to assume may vary with persons of different tastes andpositions, but it should not be carried out for his own benefit solelyand it should not be injurious to his health or to his intellectual andspiritual improvement, nor should it be detrimental to the interests ofother people. [1] "To call" in the sense of "to visit". --A. R. L. , 1996. Chapter 7. American Freedom and Equality When an Oriental, who, throughout his life, has lived in his owncountry where the will of his Sovereign is supreme, and the personalliberty of the subject unknown, first sets foot on the soil of theUnited States, he breathes an atmosphere unlike anything he has everknown, and experiences curious sensations which are absolutely new. For the first time in his life he feels that he can do whatever hepleases without restraint, and that he can talk freely to peoplewithout fear. When he takes up a newspaper and reads statements aboutdifferent persons in high positions which are not at all creditable tothem, and learns that no serious consequences happen to the writers, heis lost in wonderment. After a little time he begins to understandthat this is the "land of the free and the home of the brave", and thatin America everybody is on an equality. The President, the highestofficial in the United States, is neither more nor less than a citizen;and should he, which is very unlikely, commit an offense, or doanything in contravention of the law, he would be tried in a Court ofJustice in the same manner as the lowest and the poorest citizen. Naturally the new visitor thinks this the happiest people on earth, andwishes that his own country could be governed as happily. Until thatlucky day arrives he feels that he would rather stay in free Americathan return to his native land. One of the first lessons which is learned by the American child inschool, and which is deeply impressed on its mind by its teacher, isthat according to the Constitution all persons are born equal, and thatno distinction is made between sections, classes, or sects. No slaves, or persons under bonds, have been allowed in the UnitedStates since the abolition of slavery by President Lincoln. The momenta slave, or anyone in bonds, steps on the shores of the United Stateshe is free, and no one, not even his former master, can deprive him ofhis liberty. America also affords an asylum for oppressed people andfor political offenders; people who have been persecuted in their ownland, on account of their religion, or for political offenses, find asafe refuge in this country. Every year large numbers of Jews, andother foreigners, emigrate to America for the sake of enjoyingreligious freedom. Perfect religious liberty is guaranteed to everyonein the United States. There is equal religious liberty in England, butthe King is compelled to belong to a particular section of theChristian Church, whereas in the United States no restriction is placedon the religious belief of the President; thus one President was aBaptist, another a Unitarian, and a third a Congregationalist; and, ifelected, a Jew, a Mohammedan, or a Confucianist could become thePresident. Several Jews have held high Federal offices; they have evenbeen Cabinet Ministers. Article VI of the Constitution of the UnitedStates says: "No religious test shall ever be required as aqualification to any office or public trust under the United States. " So ingrained in the minds of the American people is this principle ofliberty and freedom of action that I do not believe they would resignit for any consideration whatsoever. Once an English Duke was askedwhether he would accept the throne of China on the sole condition thathe must reside in the Palace of Peking, and act as the Chinese Emperorshave always been accustomed to act. He replied that such an exaltedposition of power and responsibility would be very great and tempting, but that he would on no account accept such an honor on such terms, asit would practically make him a prisoner. Though a subject under amonarchial form of government, he would not forfeit his right offreedom of action; and much less would a democratic American give uphis birthright for any price. I knew an eminent and learned Judge ofthe Supreme Court in Washington, who used to say that he would neverbend his knees to any human being, and that to the Almighty God alonewould he ever do homage. He no doubt acted up to his principles, but Imuch doubt if all Americans observe so lofty an ideal. A young loverin proposing to his sweetheart would not mind kneeling down to supporthis prayer. I have seen penitent husbands bending their knees to askthe forgiveness of their offended wives. This, however, can beexplained by the fact that the act of kneeling is not, in such cases, asign of inferiority, but the act of one equal asking a favor fromanother; still it is the bending of the knee which was so solemnlyabjured by the learned Judge. The dislike of distinction of classes which arises from the principleof equality is apparent wherever you go in the States. The railroadcars are not marked first, second, or third, as they are in Europe. Itis true that there are Pullman cars, and palace cars, with superior andsuperb accommodation, and for which the occupant has to pay an extrafare; but the outside of the car simply bears the name "Pullman"without indicating its class, and anyone who is willing to pay the faremay share its luxuries. I should mention that in some of the Southernstates negroes are compelled to ride on separate cars. On oneoccasion, arriving at the railroad station in one of those states, Inoticed there were two waiting-rooms, one labelled "For the White", andthe other "For the Colored". The railway porter took my portmanteau tothe room for the white, but my conscience soon whispered I had come tothe wrong place, as neither of the two rooms was intended for people ofmy complexion. The street-cars are more democratic; there is nodivision of classes; all people, high or low, sit in the same carwithout distinction of race, color or sex. It is a common thing to seea workman, dressed in shabby clothes full of dirt, sitting next to amillionaire or a fashionable lady gorgeously clothed. Cabinet officersand their wives do not think it beneath their dignity to sit beside alaborer, or a coolie, as he is called in China. Foreign Ministers and Ambassadors coming to Washington soon learn tofollow these local customs. In a European country they ride incoronated carriages, with two liverymen; but in Washington they usuallygo about on foot, or travel by the street-cars. I frequently saw thelate Lord Pauncefote, the celebrated British Ambassador to Washington, ride to the State Department in the street-car. My adoption of thisdemocratic way of travelling during the time I was in America was thecause of a complaint being made against me at Peking. The complainantswere certain Chinese high officials who had had occasion to visit theStates; one of them had had a foreign education, and ought to haveknown better than to have joined in the accusation that myunpretentious manner of living was not becoming the dignity of arepresentative of China. They forgot that when in Rome you must do asthe Romans do, and that to ride in a sumptuous carriage, with uniformedfootmen, is in America not only an unnecessary expense, but a habitwhich, among such a democratic people as the Americans, would detractfrom, rather than add to, one's dignity. An envoy residing in aforeign country should be in touch with the people among whom he issojourning. If he put on unnecessary airs, there will be a coldnessand lack of cordiality between him and the community; his sphere ofusefulness will be curtailed, and his knowledge of the people and theircountry limited. Of course, in a European Capital, where everydiplomat drives in a carriage, I should follow the example of mycolleagues. But even in England, I frequently met high statesmen, such, for example, as Lord Salisbury, walking in the streets. Thisunrestrained liberty and equality is remarkably conspicuous in theUnited States; for instance, at the White House official receptions orballs in Washington, I have seen ladies in ordinary dress, while on oneoccasion a woman appeared in the dress of a man. This was Doctor MaryWalker. In a democratic country, such as the United States, one would naturallysuppose that the people enjoyed a greater degree of freedom than ispossible in monarchial countries. But, so far from this being so, insome respects, they appear to be in a worse position. On my returnjourney from South America, some years ago, our steamer had to stay forfour hours outside of New York harbor. We had first to wait for thedoctor to come on board to make his inspection of all the passengers, then the Customs officials appeared and examined the luggage and boxesof all the passengers, and then, last but not the least, we had to waitfor the immigration officers. All this necessarily took time, and itwas not until all these inspections were completed that the steamer wasallowed to enter the harbor, and to tie up alongside the dock. Andthis occurred in the land of freedom and liberty! I spoke to some ofmy American fellow passengers about the inconvenience and delay, andthough they all murmured they quietly submitted. Customs and sanitaryinspection should be so conducted as to cause as little delay aspossible. I have visited many countries in Europe, in South America, and in Asia, but I have never known of a ship having to stay outsidethe harbor of the port of her destination for so long a time. Take another case; some months since, I wished, in compliance with therequest of a lady in America, to send her a chow-dog. A mutual friendwas willing to take it to her, but, upon making inquiries at theAmerican Consulate as to the Customs regulations, he was informed thatit would be impossible for him to undertake the commission, as theCustoms officers at San Francisco, besides imposing a heavy duty on thedog, would keep the ship in quarantine because the dog was on board. Icould scarcely believe this, but inquiries confirmed the truth of myfriend's statement. Customs and immigration laws and sanitaryregulations must, of course, be observed, but they should be enforcedin such a way as not to work hardship on the people. Officersentrusted with the performance of such duties, while faithfully andconscientiously performing their work, should yet exercise their powerwith discretion and tact. They are the servants of the people, andought to look after their interests and convenience as well as afterthe interests of the State. I would be the last one to encouragesmuggling, but would the national interests really suffer if the CustomHouse officers were to be a little more ready to accept a traveller'sword, and if they were less ready to suspect everyone of making falsedeclarations when entering the country? Smuggling must be repressed, but at the same time is it not true that the more imports enter thecountry the better it is for the State and for the people? There are no peers in the United States, as the Government has no powerto create them; and although America is nominally a free country, yetif a foreign government should confer a decoration on an Americancitizen for services rendered, he cannot accept it without the consentof Congress, just as under a monarchy a subject must obtain hissovereign's permission to wear a foreign decoration. It is true thatthere are some such titled persons in America, but they are not treatedwith any greater respect or distinction than other citizens; yet youfrequently find people in America who not only would not disdain, butare actually anxious, to receive decorations from foreign governments. Once, at least, an American high official, just before leaving thecountry to which he had been accredited, accepted, without permission, a decoration, knowing, that if he had asked for the consent ofCongress, he would not have been allowed to receive it. It is human nature to love change and variety, and for every person tobe designated "Mister" is too tame and flat for the go-ahead Americans. Hence many of the people whom you meet daily have some prefix to theirnames, such as General, Colonel, Major, President, Judge, etc. Youwill not be far wrong to call a man "Judge" when he is a lawyer; or"General" or "Colonel" if he has served in the army; or "Admiral" or"Captain" if he has been in the navy. Though neither the Federal northe State Government has power to confer titles, the magnates do so. They see that dukes and other peers are created in Europe, and that thepartners in the big, wealthy firms over there, are called "merchantprinces", and so to outdo them, they arrogate to themselves a stillhigher title. Hence there are railroad kings, copper kings, tobaccokings, etc. It is, however, manifestly improper and incongruous thatthe people should possess a higher title than their President, who isthe head of the nation. To make it even, I would suggest that thetitle "President" be changed to "Emperor", for the following reasons:First, it would not only do away with the impropriety of the chiefmagistrate of the nation assuming a name below that of some of hispeople, but it would place him on a level with the highest ruler of anynation on the face of the earth. I have often heard the remark thatthe President of the United States is no more than a common citizen, elected for four years, and that on the expiration of his term hereverts to his former humble status of a private citizen; that he hasnothing in common with the dignified majesty of an Emperor; but werethe highest official of the United States to be in future officiallyknown as Emperor, all these depreciatory remarks would fall to theground. There is no reason whatever why he should not be so styled, as, by virtue of his high office, he possesses almost as much power asthe most aristocratic ruler of any nation. Secondly, it would clearlydemonstrate the sovereign power of the people; a people who could makeand unmake an Emperor, would certainly be highly respected. Thirdly, the United States sends ambassadors to Germany, Austria, Russia, etc. According to international law, ambassadors have what is called therepresentative character, that is, they represent their sovereign bywhom they are delegated, and are entitled to the same honors to whichtheir constituent would be entitled were he personally present. In aRepublic where the head of the State is only a citizen and thesovereign is the people, it is only by a stretch of imagination thatits ambassador can be said to represent the person of his sovereign. Now it would be much more in consonance with the dignified character ofan American ambassador to be the representative of an Emperor than of asimple President. The name of Emperor may be distasteful to some, butmay not a new meaning be given to it? A word usually has severaldefinitions. Now, if Congress were to pass a law authorizing the chiefmagistrate of the United States of America to be styled Emperor, suchdesignation to mean nothing more than the word "President", the titlewould soon be understood in that sense. There is no reason in historyor philology why the word "Emperor" should never mean anything otherthan a hereditary ruler. I make this suggestion seriously, and hope itwill be adopted. Marriage laws in the United States, as I understand them, are moreelastic than those in Europe. In England, until a few years ago, a mancould not contract a legal marriage with his deceased wife's sister, although he could marry the betrothed wife of his deceased brother. Itis curious to compare the Chinese view of these two cases. Marriagewith a deceased wife's sister is, in China, not only lawful, but quitecommon, while to marry a dead brother's betrothed is strictlyprohibited. Doubtless in the United States both are recognized aslegal. I was not, however, prepared to hear, and when I did hear it, Icould not at first believe that a man is permitted to marry hisdeceased son's wife. Let me quote from the "China Press" which hasspecial facilities for obtaining news from America. "Boston, March 24. The engagement of Mrs. Katherine M. B. , widow of Charles A. B. , anddaughter of George C. F. , chairman of the ........ , Board of ........ , to her father-in-law, Frank A. B. , of ........ , became known to-day. Charles A. B. Was killed at the ........ Road crossing in ........ OnMarch 29, 1910, by a locomotive which struck a carriage in which he wasdriving to the First Congregational Church, to serve as best man at thewedding of Miss H. R. F. , another daughter of S. F. , to L. G. B. Of........ His wife, who was in the carriage with him and was to havebeen matron at the wedding, was severely injured. Her mother-in-law, Mrs. Frank A. B. , died some months later. "[1] I suppose the marriagehas since been consummated. If a father is permitted to marry hisdeceased son's wife, in fairness a son should be allowed to marry hisdeceased father's wife. I presume that there is a law in the UnitedStates or in some of the states against marriages within the prohibiteddegrees of consanguinity and affinity, but I confess that the more Istudy the subject the more I am confused as to what is or what is notwithin the prohibited degrees. In China the law on this subject is extremely rigid, and consequentlyits infraction is exceedingly rare; I have, as a matter of fact, neverheard of the marriage laws in China being broken. In "Liao Chai", afamous collection of Chinese tales, it is recorded that a young widowmarried her son and moved to another part of the country, so that theiridentity and relationship should be concealed. They seemed to havelived very happily together. After many years, when they had hadchildren and grandchildren, their true relationship was accidentallydiscovered. A complaint was laid before the local authorities. Aftera long deliberation and careful review of the case, and to eradicatesuch "unnatural offspring", as they were termed, it was decided thatthe two offenders, and all their children and grandchildren should beburned to death, which sentence was duly carried out. I doubt if thestory is authentic. It was probably fabricated by the author that itmight serve as a warning. The sentence, if true, was too severe; theoffspring who were innocent contributories to the crime deserved pityrather than punishment; the judgment passed on the real offenders wasalso unduly harsh. My object in citing this unsavory tale is to showthe different views held in regard to incestuous marriage in China withits serious consequences. It is commonly supposed that all men are born equal, and that theUnited States is the land of perfect equality. Now let us see if thisis really so. There are men born into high stations of life, or intowealthy families, with "silver spoons" in their mouths; while there areothers ushered into this world by parents who are paupers and whocannot support them. Then there are people born with wit and wisdom, while others are perfect fools. Again there are some who are broughtto this life with strong and healthy constitutions, while others areweak and sickly. Thus it is plain that men are not born equal, eitherphysically, intellectually, or socially. I do not know how my Americanfriends account for this undoubted fact, but the Chinese doctrine ofprevious lives, of which the present are but the continuation, seems toafford a satisfactory explanation. However, this doctrine of equality and independence has done immensegood. It has, as a rule, caused men to think independently, and not toservilely follow the thoughts and ideas of others, who may be quitewrong. It has encouraged invention, and new discoveries in science andart. It has enabled men to develop industries and to expand trade. New York and Chicago, for example, could not have become such huge andprosperous cities within comparatively short periods, but for theirfree and wise institutions. In countries where personal liberty isunknown, and the rights of person and property are curtailed, people donot exert themselves to improve their environments, but are content toremain quiet and inactive. By the constitution of the State of California it is declared that "allmen are free and independent". It must be conceded that the Americanpeople enjoy a greater amount of freedom and independence than otherpeople. But are they perfectly free, and are they really independent?Are they not swayed in politics by their "bosses", and do not many ofthem act and vote as their bosses dictate? In society are they notbound by conventionalities and, dare they infringe the strict ruleslaid down by the society leaders? In the matter of dress also are theynot slaves, abjectly following new-fangled fashions imported fromParis? In domestic circles are not many husbands hen-pecked by theirwives, because they, and not the men, rule the roost? Are not manywomen practically governed by their husbands, whose word is their law?The eager hunger for "the almighty dollar" leads most Americans tosacrifice their time, health, and liberty in the acquisition of wealth, and, alas, when they have acquired it, they find that their health isbroken, and that they themselves are almost ready for the grave. Oughta free and independent people to live after this fashion? In every well organized community it is essential that people shouldobey all laws and regulations which are enacted for the greatest goodof the greatest number. In domestic circles they should willinglysubordinate their own wishes to the wishes of others, for the sake ofpeace, concord and happiness. Happy that people whose laws andconditions are such that they can enjoy the greatest amount of freedomin regard to person and property, compatible with the general peace andgood order of the community, and if I should be asked my opinion, notwithstanding all that I have above said concerning the UnitedStates, I should have to acknowledge that I believe that America is oneof the few nations which have fairly well approximated the high idealof a well-governed country. [1] The names of the parties and places were given in full in the"China Press". Chapter 8. American Manners Much has been written and more said about American manners, or ratherthe American lack of manners. Americans have frequently beencriticized for their bad breeding, and many sarcastic references toAmerican deportment have been made in my presence. I have even beentold, I do not know how true it is, that European diplomats dislikebeing stationed in America, because of their aversion to the Americanway of doing things. Much too has been written and said about Chinese manners, not only byforeigners but also by Chinese. One of the classics, which our youthhave to know by heart, is practically devoted entirely to manners. There has also been much adverse criticism of our manners or our excessof manners, though I have never heard that any diplomats have, on thisaccount, objected to being sent to China. We Chinese are therefore inthe same boat as the Americans. In regard to manners neither of usfind much favor with foreigners, though for diametrically oppositereasons: the Americans are accused of observing too few formalities, and we of being too formal. The Americans are direct and straight-forward. They will tell you toyour face that they like you, and occasionally they also have verylittle hesitation in telling you that they do not like you. They sayfrankly just what they think. It is immaterial to them that theirremarks are personal, complimentary or otherwise. I have had membersof my own family complimented on their good looks as if they werechildren. In this respect Americans differ greatly from the English. The English adhere with meticulous care to the rule of avoidingeverything personal. They are very much afraid of rudeness on the onehand, and of insincerity or flattery on the other. Even in the matterof such a harmless affair as a compliment to a foreigner on hisknowledge of English, they will precede it with a request for pardon, and speak in a half-apologetic manner, as if complimenting weresomething personal. The English and the Americans are closely related, they have much in common, but they also differ widely, and in nothingis the difference more conspicuous than in their conduct. I havenoticed curiously enough that English Colonials, especially in suchparticulars as speech and manners, follow their quondam sister colony, rather than the mother country. And this, not only in Canada, wherethe phenomenon might be explained by climatic, geographic, and historicreasons, but also in such antipodean places as Australia and SouthAfrica, which are so far away as to apparently have very little incommon either with America or with each other. Nevertheless, whateverthe reason, the transplanted Englishman, whether in the arctics or thetropics, whether in the Northern or the Southern Hemisphere, seems todevelop a type quite different from the original stock, yet alwaysresembling his fellow emigrants. The directness of Americans is seen not only in what they say but inthe way they say it. They come directly to the point, without muchpreface or introduction, much less is there any circumlocution or"beating about the bush". When they come to see you they say their sayand then take their departure, moreover they say it in the most terse, concise and unambiguous manner. In this respect what a contrast theyare to us! We always approach each other with preliminary greetings. Then we talk of the weather, of politics or friends, of anything, infact, which is as far as possible from the object of the visit. Onlyafter this introduction do we broach the subject uppermost in ourminds, and throughout the conversation polite courtesies are exchangedwhenever the opportunity arises. These elaborate preludes andinterludes may, to the strenuous ever-in-a-hurry American, seem uselessand superfluous, but they serve a good purpose. Like the commoncourtesies and civilities of life they pave the way for the speakers, especially if they are strangers; they improve their tempers, and placethem generally on terms of mutual understanding. It is said that someyears ago a Foreign Consul in China, having a serious complaint to makeon behalf of his national, called on the Taotai, the highest localauthority in the port. He found the Chinese official so genial andpolite that after half an hour's conversation, he advised thecomplainant to settle the matter amicably without troubling the Chineseofficials about the matter. A good deal may be said in behalf of bothsystems. The American practice has at least the merit of saving time, an all important object with the American people. When we recall thatthis remarkable nation will spend millions of dollars to build a tunnelunder a river, or to shorten a curve in a railroad, merely that theymay save two or three minutes, we are not surprised at the abruptnessof their speech. I, as a matter of fact, when thinking of theirtime-saving and abrupt manner of address, have been somewhat puzzled toaccount for that peculiar drawl of theirs. Very slowly anddeliberately they enunciate each word and syllable with long-drawnemphasis, punctuating their sentences with pauses, some short and somelong. It is almost an effort to follow a story of any length--thebeginning often becomes cold before the end is reached. It seems to methat if Americans would speed up their speech after the fashion oftheir English cousins, who speak two or three times as quickly, theywould save many minutes every day, and would find the habit not onlymore efficacious, but much more economical than many of theirtime-saving machines and tunnels. I offer this suggestion to the greatAmerican nation for what it is worth, and I know they will receive itin the spirit in which it is made, for they have the saving sense ofhumor. Some people are ridiculously sensitive. Some years ago, at a certainplace, a big dinner was given in honor of a notable who was passingthrough the district. A Chinese, prominent in local affairs, who hadreceived an invitation, discovered that though he would sit among thehonored guests he would be placed below one or two whom he thought heought to be above, and who, he therefore considered, would be usurpinghis rightful position. In disgust he refused to attend the dinner, which, excepting for what he imagined was a breach of manners, he wouldhave been very pleased to have attended. Americans are much moresensible. They are not a bit sensitive, especially in small matters. Either they are broad-minded enough to rise above unworthy trifles, orelse their good Americanism prevents their squabbling over questions ofprecedence, at the dinner table or elsewhere. Americans act up to their Declaration of Independence, especially theprinciple it enunciates concerning the equality of man. They lay somuch importance on this that they do not confine its application tolegal rights, but extend it even to social intercourse. In fact, Ithink this doctrine is the basis of the so-called American manners. All men are deemed socially equal, whether as friend and friend, asPresident and citizen, as employer and employee, as master and servant, or as parent and child. Their relationship may be such that one isentitled to demand, and the other to render, certain acts of obedience, and a certain amount of respect, but outside that they are on the samelevel. This is doubtless a rebellion against all the social ideas andprejudices of the old world, but it is perhaps only what might belooked for in a new country, full of robust and ambitious manhood, disdainful of all traditions which in the least savor of monarchy orhierarchy, and eager to blaze as new a path for itself in the social asit has succeeded in accomplishing in the political world. Combinedwith this is the American characteristic of saving time. Time isprecious to all of us, but to Americans it is particularly so. We allwish to save time, but the Americans care much more about it than therest of us. Then there are different notions about this question ofsaving time, different notions of what wastes time and what does not, and much which the old world regards as politeness and good mannersAmericans consider as sheer waste of time. Time is, they think, fartoo precious to be occupied with ceremonies which appear empty andmeaningless. It can, they say, be much more profitably filled withother and more useful occupations. In any discussion of Americanmanners it would be unfair to leave out of consideration theirindifference to ceremony and their highly developed sense of the valueof time, but in saying this I do not forget that many Americans aredevout ritualists, and that these find both comfort and pleasure inceremony, which suggests that after all there is something to be saidfor the Chinese who have raised correct deportment almost to the rankof a religion. The youth of America have not unnaturally caught the spirit of theirelders, so that even children consider themselves as almost on a parwith their parents, as almost on the same plane of equality; but theparents, on the other hand, also treat them as if they were equals, andallow them the utmost freedom. While a Chinese child rendersunquestioning obedience to his parents' orders, such obedience as asoldier yields to his superior officer, the American child must havethe whys and the wherefores duly explained to him, and the reason forhis obedience made clear. It is not his parent that he obeys, butexpediency and the dictates of reason. Here we see the clear-headed, sound, common-sense business man in the making. The early training ofthe boy has laid the foundation for the future man. The child too hasno compunction in correcting a parent even before strangers, and whatis stranger still the parent accepts the correction in good part, andsometimes even with thanks. A parent is often interrupted in thecourse of a narrative, or discussion, by a small piping voice, settingright, or what it believes to be right, some date, place, or fact, andthe parent, after a word of encouragement or thanks, proceeds. Howdifferent is our rule that a child is not to speak until spoken to! InChinese official life under the old regime it was not etiquette for oneofficial to contradict another, especially when they were unequal inrank. When a high official expressed views which his subordinates didnot endorse, they could not candidly give their opinion, but had toremain silent. I remember that some years ago some of my colleaguesand I had an audience with a very high official, and when I expressedmy dissent from some of the views of that high functionary, he rebukedme severely. Afterward he called me to him privately, and spoke to mesomewhat as follows: "What you said just now was quite correct. I waswrong, and I will adopt your views, but you must not contradict me inthe presence of other people. Do not do it again. " There is of coursemuch to be said for and against each system, and perhaps a blend of thetwo would give good results. Anyhow, we can trace in American customsthat spirit of equality which pervades the whole of American society, and observe the germs of self-reliance and independence socharacteristic of Americans, whether men, women, or children. Even the domestic servant does not lose this precious American heritageof equality. I have nothing to say against that worthy individual, theAmerican servant (if one can be found); on the contrary, none is morefaithful or more efficient. But in some respects he is unique amongthe servants of the world. He does not see that there is anyinequality between him and his master. His master, or should I say, his employer, pays him certain wages to do certain work, and he doesit, but outside the bounds of this contract, they are still man andman, citizen and citizen. It is all beautifully, delightfully legal. The washerwoman is the "wash-lady", and is just as much a lady as hermistress. The word "servant" is not applied to domestics, "help" isused instead, very much in the same way that Canada and Australia areno longer English "colonies", but "self-governing dominions". We of the old world are accustomed to regard domestic service as aprofession in which the members work for advancement, without muchthought of ever changing their position. A few clever persons mayultimately adopt another profession, and, according to our antiquatedconservative ways of thinking, rise higher in the social scale, but, for the large majority, the dignity of a butler, or a housekeeper isthe height of ambition, the crowning point in their career. Not so theAmerican servant. Strictly speaking there are no servants in America. The man, or the woman as the case may be, who happens for the moment tobe your servant, is only servant for the time being. He has nointention of making domestic service his profession, of being a servantfor the whole of his life. To have to be subject to the will ofothers, even to the small extent to which American servants aresubordinate, is offensive to an American's pride of citizenship, it iscontrary to his conception of American equality. He is a servant onlyfor the time, and until he finds something better to do. He accepts amenial position only as a stepping stone to some more independentemployment. Is it to be wondered at that American servants havedifferent manners from their brethren in other countries? Whenforeigners find that American servants are not like servants in theirown country, they should not resent their behavior: it does not denotedisrespect, it is only the outcrop of their natural independence andaspirations. All titles of nobility are by the Constitution expressly forbidden. Even titles of honor or courtesy are but rarely used. "Honorable" isused to designate members of Congress; and for a few Americans, such asthe President and the Ambassadors, the title "Excellency" is permitted. Yet, whether it is because the persons entitled to be so addressed donot think that even these mild titles are consistent with Americandemocracy, or because the American public feels awkward in employingsuch stilted terms of address, they are not often used. I rememberthat on one occasion a much respected Chief Executive, on my proposing, in accordance with diplomatic usage and precedent, to address him as"Your Excellency", begged me to substitute instead "Mr. President". The plain democratic "Mr. " suits the democratic American taste muchbetter than any other title, and is applied equally to the President ofthe Republic and to his coachman. Indeed the plain name John Smith, without even "Mr. ", not only gives no offense, where some higher titlemight be employed, but fits just as well, and is in fact often used. Even prominent and distinguished men do not resent nicknames; forexample, the celebrated person whose name is so intimately connectedwith that delight of American children and grown-ups--the "Teddy Bear". This characteristic, like so many other American characteristics, isdue not only to the love of equality and independence, but also to thedislike of any waste of time. In countries where there are elaborate rules of etiquette concerningtitles and forms of address, none but a Master of Ceremonies can hopeto be thoroughly familiar with them, or to be able to address thedistinguished people without withholding from them their due share ofhigh-sounding titles and epithets; and, be it whispered, these samedistinguished people, however broad-minded and magnanimous they may bein other respects, are sometimes extremely sensitive in this respect. And even after one has mastered all the rules and forms, and canappreciate and distinguish the various nice shades which exist between"His Serene Highness", "His Highness", "His Royal Highness", and "HisImperial Highness", or between "Rt. Rev. " and "Most Rev. ", one has yetto learn what titles a particular person has, and with what particularform of address he should be approached, an impossible task even for aMaster of Ceremonies, unless he always has in his pocket a Burke'sPeerage to tell him who's who. What a waste of time, what aninconvenience, and what an unnecessary amount of irritation andannoyance all this causes. How much better to be able to address anyperson you meet simply as Mr. So-and-So, without unwittingly treadingon somebody's sensitive corns! Americans have shown their common sensein doing away with titles altogether, an example which the sisterRepublic of China is following. An illustrious name loses nothing forhaving to stand by itself without prefixes and suffixes, handles andtails. Mr. Gladstone was no less himself for not prefixing his namewith Earl, and the other titles to which it would have entitled him, ashe could have done had he not declined the so-called honor. Indeed, like the "Great Commoner", he, if that were possible, endeared himselfthe more to his countrymen because of his refusal. A name, which isgreat without resorting to the borrowed light of titles and honors, isgreater than any possible suffix or affix which could be appended to it. In conclusion, American manners are but an instance or result of thetwo predominant American characteristics to which I have alreadyreferred, and which reappear in so many other things American. A loveof independence and of equality, early inculcated, and a keenabhorrence of waste of time, engendered by the conditions andcircumstances of a new country, serve to explain practically all themanners and mannerisms of Americans. Even the familiar spectacle ofmen walking with their hands deep in their trousers' pockets, orsitting with their legs crossed needs no other explanation, and tosuggest that, because Americans have some habits which are peculiarlytheir own, they are either inferior or unmanly, would be to do them agrave injustice. Few people are more warm-hearted, genial, and sociable than theAmericans. I do not dwell on this, because it is quite unnecessary. The fact is perfectly familiar to all who have the slightest knowledgeof them. Their kindness and warmth to strangers are particularlypleasant, and are much appreciated by their visitors. In some othercountries, the people, though not unsociable, surround themselves withso much reserve that strangers are at first chilled and repulsed, although there are no pleasanter or more hospitable persons anywhere tobe found when once you have broken the ice, and learned to know them;but it is the stranger who must make the first advances, for theythemselves will make no effort to become acquainted, and their manneris such as to discourage any efforts on the part of the visitor. Youmay travel with them for hours in the same car, sit opposite to them, and all the while they will shelter themselves behind a newspaper, thebroad sheets of which effectively prohibit any attempts at closeracquaintance. The following instance, culled from a personalexperience, is an illustration. I was a law student at Lincoln's Inn, London, where there is a splendid law library for the use of thestudents and members of the Inn. I used to go there almost every dayto pursue my legal studies, and generally sat in the same quiet corner. The seat on the opposite side of the table was usually occupied byanother law student. For months we sat opposite each other withoutexchanging a word. I thought I was too formal and reserved, so Iendeavored to improve matters by occasionally looking up at him as ifabout to address him, but every time I did so he looked down as thoughhe did not wish to see me. Finally I gave up the attempt. This is thegeneral habit with English gentlemen. They will not speak to astranger without a proper introduction; but in the case I havementioned surely the rule would have been more honored by a breach thanby the observance. Seeing that we were fellow students, it might havebeen presumed that we were gentlemen and on an equal footing. Howdifferent are the manners of the American! You can hardly take a walk, or go for any distance in a train, without being addressed by astranger, and not infrequently making a friend. In some countries thefact that you are a foreigner only thickens the ice, in America itthaws it. This delightful trait in the American character is alsotraceable to the same cause as that which has helped us to explain theother peculiarities which have been mentioned. To good Americans, notonly are the citizens of America born equal, but the citizens of theworld are also born equal. Chapter 9. American Women It is rather bold on my part to take up this subject. It is a pathwhere "fools rush in where angels fear to tread". No matter what I sayit is sure to provoke criticism, but having frequently been asked by mylady friends to give my opinion of American women, and having given mysolemn promise that if I ever should write my impressions of America Iwould do so, it would be a serious "breach of promise" if I should nowbreak my word. In general there are three classes of women: first, those who wish tobe praised; secondly, those who wish to be adversely criticized andcondemned; and thirdly, those who are simply curious to hear whatothers think of them. American women do not as a rule belong to eitherthe first or the second class, but a large majority of them may beranged under class three. They wish to know what other people honestlythink of them and to hear their candid views. They are progressivepeople who desire to improve their defects whenever they are pointedout to them. That being the case I must not swerve from my duty ofsitting in a high court of justice to pass judgment on them. To begin with, the American women are in some respects dissimilar tothe women of other nations. I find them sprightly, talkative and wellinformed. They can converse on any subject with ease and resource, showing that they have a good all-round education. Often have Iderived considerable information from them. The persistence with whichthey stick to their opinions is remarkable. Once, when I had a ladyvisitor at my Legation in Washington, after several matters had beendiscussed we commenced talking about women's rights. I was in favor ofgiving women more rights than they are enjoying, but on some points Idid not go so far as my lady friend; after arguing with me for severalhours, she, seeing that I did not coincide with all her views, threatened that she would not leave my house until I had fully digestedall her points, and had become converted to her views. I have observed that many American women marry foreigners, but that anAmerican rarely has a foreign wife. It may be said that foreignersmarry American girls for their money, while American women marrydistinguished foreigners for their titles. This may have been true insome cases, but other causes than such sordid motives must be lookedfor. It is the attractiveness and the beauty of the American girlswhich enable them to capture so many foreign husbands. Their pleasantmanners and winsome nature predispose a person in their favor, and withtheir well-grounded education and ready fund of knowledge, they easilywin any gentleman with marital propensities. Had I been single when Ifirst visited America I too might have been a victim--no wonder thenthat American men prefer American wives. Once I was an involuntarymatch-maker. Some years ago, during my first mission in Washington, Iwas invited to attend the wedding of the daughter of the Chief Justiceof the Supreme Court. When I entered the breakfast room, I saw thebridesmaids and a number of young men. Going up to one of thebridesmaids whom I had previously met, and who was the daughter of aSenator, I asked her when it would be her turn to become a bride. Shemodestly said that she did not know, as she had not yet had an offer. Turning to the group of young men who were in the room, I jocularlyremarked to one of them, "This is a beautiful lady, would you not liketo marry her?" He replied, "I shall be most delighted to. " Then I saidto the young lady, "Will you accept his offer?" She seemed slightlyembarrassed and said something to the effect that as she did not knowthe gentleman she could not give a definite answer. After a few days Imet the young lady at an "At Home" party when she scolded me for beingso blunt with her before the young men. I told her I was actuated bythe best of motives, and a few months later I received an invitationfrom the young lady's parents inviting me to be present at theirdaughter's marriage. I thought I would go and find out whether thebridegroom was the young man whom I had introduced to the young lady, and as soon as I entered the house, the mother of the bride, to myagreeable surprise, informed me that it was I who had first brought theyoung couple together, and both the bride and bridegroom heartilythanked me for my good offices. One very conspicuous feature in the character of American women istheir self-control and independence. As soon as a girl grows up she isallowed to do what she pleases, without the control of her parents. Itis a common occurrence to see a young lady travelling alone withouteither a companion or a chaperon. Travelling on one occasion from SanFrancisco to Washington I met a young lady on the train who was stillin her teens. She told me that she was going to New York to embark ona steamer for Germany, with the intention of entering a German college. She was undertaking this long journey alone. Such an incident would beimpossible in China; even in England, or indeed in any Europeancountry, I hardly believe that a respectable young girl would beallowed to take such a journey without some trusty friend to look afterher. But in America this is a common occurrence, and it is a credit tothe administration, and speaks volumes for the good government of thecountry, that for sensible wide-awake American girls such undertakingsare perfectly safe. This notion of independence and freedom has modified the relation ofchildren to their parents. Instead of children being required to showrespect and filial obedience, the obligation of mutual love and esteemis cultivated. Parents would not think of ordering a girl or a boy todo anything, however reasonable; in all matters they treat them astheir equals and friends; nor would a girl submit to an arbitrary orderfrom her mother, for she does not regard her as a superior, but as herfriend and companion. I find it is a common practice among Americangirls to engage themselves in marriage without consulting theirparents. Once I had a serious talk on this subject with a young couplewho were betrothed. I asked them if they had the consent of theirparents. They both answered emphatically that it was not necessary, and that it was their business and not their parents'. I told themthat although it was their business, they might have shown some respectto their parents by consulting them before committing themselves tothis important transaction. They answered that they did not agree withme, and as it concerned their own happiness alone, they had a perfectright to decide the matter for themselves. This shows the extremelimit to which the Americans carry their theory of independence. Unless I am greatly mistaken, I fear this is a typical and not anisolated case. I believe that in many cases, after they had made uptheir minds to marry, the young people would inform their respectiveparents of their engagement, but I question if they would subordinatetheir own wishes to the will of their parents, or ask their consent totheir engagement. Now let us see how all this is managed in China. Here the parties mostinterested have no voice in the matter. The parents, through theirfriends, or sometimes through the professional match-makers, arrangethe marriage, but only after the most strict and diligent inquiries asto the character, position, and suitability of temper and dispositionof the persons for whom the marriage contract is being prepared. Thisis sometimes done with the knowledge of the interested parties, butvery often they are not consulted. After an engagement is thus made itcannot be broken off, not even by the young people themselves, eventhough he or she may plead that the arrangement was made without his orher knowledge or consent. The engagement is considered by all partiesas a solemn compact. On the wedding day, in nine cases out of ten, thebride and bridegroom meet each other for the first time, and yet theylive contentedly, and quite often even happily together. Divorces inChina are exceedingly rare. This is accounted for by the fact thatthrough the wise control of their parents the children are properlymated. In saying this I do not wish to be supposed to be advocatingthe introduction of the Chinese system into America. I would, however, point out that the independent and thoughtless way in which theAmerican young people take on themselves the marriage vow does not as arule result in suitable companionships. When a girl falls in love witha young man she is unable to perceive his shortcomings and vices, andwhen, after living together for a few months, she begins to find themout, it is alas too late. If, previous to her engagement, she hadtaken her mother into her confidence, and asked her to use her goodoffices to find out the character of the young man whom she favored, afatal and unhappy mistake might have been avoided. Withoutinterfering, in the least, with the liberty or free choice, I shouldthink it would be a good policy if all young Americans, beforedefinitely committing themselves to a promise of marriage, would atleast consult their mothers, and ask them to make private andconfidential inquiries as to the disposition, as well as to the moraland physical fitness of the young man or lady whom they contemplatemarrying. Mothers are naturally concerned about the welfare andhappiness of their offspring, and could be trusted in most cases tomake careful, impartial and conscientious inquiries as to whether thegirl or man was really a worthy and suitable life partner for theirchildren. If this step were generally taken many an unfortunate unionwould be avoided. It was after this fashion that I reasoned with theyoung people mentioned above, but they did not agree with me, and I hadto conclude that love is blind. Before leaving this subject I would add that the system of marriagewhich has been in vogue in China for so many centuries has beensomewhat changed within the last few years. This is due to the newspirit which has been gradually growing. Young people begin to exerttheir rights, and will not allow parents to choose their life partnerswithout their consent. Instances of girls choosing their own husbandshave come to my knowledge, and they did not occur during leap-year. But I sincerely hope that our Chinese youth will not go to the samelengths as the young people of America. The manner in which a son treats his parents in the United States isdiametrically opposed to our Chinese doctrine, handed down to us fromtime immemorial. "Honor thy father and thy mother" is an injunction ofMoses which all Christians profess to observe, but which, or so itappears to a Confucianist, all equally forget. The Confucian creedlays it down as the essential duty of children that they shall not onlyhonor and obey their fathers and their mothers, but that they are induty bound to support them. The reason is that as their parentsbrought them into the world, reared and educated them, the childrenshould make them some return for their trouble and care. The view ofthis question which is taken in America seems to be very strange to me. Once I heard a young American argue in this way. He said, gravely andseriously, that as he was brought into this world by his parentswithout his consent, it was their duty to rear him in a proper way, butthat it was no part of his duty to support them. I was very muchastounded at this statement. In China such a son would be despised, and if he neglected to maintain his parents he would be punished. I donot believe that the extreme views of this young man are universallyaccepted in America, but I am inclined to think that the duties ofchildren toward their parents are somewhat ill-defined. Americanparents do not apparently expect their children to support them, because, as a rule they are, if not rich, at least in comfortablecircumstances; and even if they are not, they would rather work fortheir livelihood than burden their children and hinder their success byrelying on them for pecuniary aid. It may have escaped my observation, but, so far as I know, it is not the custom for young people to providefor their parents. There was, however, one exceptional case which cameto my knowledge. Some years ago a young Senator in Washington, who wasfamous for his eloquence, had his father living with him. His fatherwas eighty years of age, and though in robust health was a cripple, andso had to depend on him for support. I was informed that he and hiswife were very kind to him. Many young men treat their parents kindlyand affectionately, but they do it more as a favor than as a duty; infact, as between equals. In connection with this subject I may mention that as soon as a sonmarries, however young and inexperienced he may be, he leaves hisparents' roof. He and his bride will set up a separate establishmentso that they can do as they please without the supervision of theirparents. The latter do not object, as it gives the young folk anopportunity to gain experience in keeping house. Young wives have ahorror of having their mothers-in-law reside with them; if it benecessary to have an elderly lady as a companion they always endeavorto get their own mothers. American women are ambitious and versatile, and can readily applythemselves to any task with ease. They are not only employed in storesand mercantile houses but are engaged in different professions. Thereis scarcely any store in America where there are not some womenemployed as typists, clerks, or accountants. I am told that they aremore steady than men. Even in the learned professions theysuccessfully compete with the men. Some years ago theAttorney-Generalship of one of the states became vacant. Twocandidates appeared; one was a gentleman and the other a young ladylawyer. They both sought election; the gentleman secured a smallmajority, but in the end the lady lawyer conquered, for she soon becamethe wife of the Attorney-General, her former opponent during theelection campaign, and after her marriage she practically carried onthe work of her husband. Some years later her husband retired frompractice in order to farm, and she continued to carry on the lawpractice. Does not this indicate that the intellect of the Americanwoman is equal, if not superior, to that of the men? American womenare good conversationalists, and many of them are eloquent and endowedwith "the gift of the gab". One of the cleverest and wittiest speechesI have ever heard was from a woman who spoke at a public meeting on apublic question. They are also good writers. Such women as Mrs. EllaWheeler Wilcox, Mrs. Mary N. Foote Henderson, Mrs. Elizabeth Towne andmany others, are a great credit to their sex. The writings of suchwomen show their profound insight and wide culture. Naturally suchwomen cannot be expected to play second fiddle. They exercise greatinfluence, and when married "they rule the roost". It should bementioned that their husbands submit willingly to their tactful rule, and gladly obey their commands without feeling that they are servants. I would advise any married woman who complains of her husband beingunruly and unpleasant to take a lesson from the ladies of America. They are vivacious, bright, loquacious and less reserved than Europeanladies. In social functions they can be easily recognized. If, however, an American lady marries a foreigner and lives abroad, shesoon loses her national characteristics. Once on board a steamer I hadan American lady as a fellow passenger; from her reserved manner Imistook her for an English lady, and it was only after some days that Idiscovered she was born in America, but that she had been living inEngland for many years with her English husband. There is one fault I find with American women, if it can be so called, and that is their inquisitiveness; I know that this is a common faultwith all women, but it is most conspicuous in the Americans. They havethe knack of finding out things without your being aware of it, and ifthey should want to know your history they will learn all about itafter a few minutes' conversation. They are good detectives, and Ithink they should be employed in that line more than they are. A nation's reputation depends upon the general character of its women, for they form at least half, if not more, of the population. In thisrespect America stands high, for the American woman is lively, open-hearted and ingenuous; she is also fearless, independent, and isalmost without restraint. She is easily accessible to high and low, and friendly to all, but woe to the man who should misunderstand thepure and high character of an American girl, and attempt to takeliberties with her. To a stranger, and especially to an Oriental, sheis a puzzle. Some years ago I had to disabuse a false notion of acountryman of mine respecting a lady's behavior toward him. The keenobserver will find that the American girl, having been educated inschools and colleges with boys, naturally acts more freely than hersisters in other countries, where great restraint is imposed upon them. Her actions may be considered as perilously near to the border ofmasculinity, yet she is as far from either coarseness or low thoughtsas is the North from the South Pole. The Chinese lady is as pure asher American sister, but she is brought up in a different way; herexclusion keeps her indoors, and she has practically no opportunity ofassociating with male friends. A bird which has been confined in acage for a long time, will, when the door is opened, fly far away andperhaps never return, but if it has been tamed and allowed to go in andout of its cage as it pleases it will not go far, but will always comeback in the evening. When my countrywomen are allowed more freedomthey will not abuse it, but it will take some little time to educatethem up to the American standards. Chapter 10. American Costumes Fashion is the work of the devil. When he made up his mind to enslavemankind he found in fashion his most effective weapon. Fashionenthralls man, it deprives him of his freedom; it is the mostautocratic dictator, its mandate being obeyed by all classes, high andlow, without exception. Every season it issues new decrees, and nomatter how ludicrous they are, everyone submits forthwith. Thefashions of this season are changed in the next. Look, for example, atwomen's hats; some years ago the "merry widow" which was about two orthree feet in diameter, was all the rage, and the larger it became themore fashionable it was. Sometimes the wearer could hardly go througha doorway. Then came the hat crowned with birds' feathers, some ladieseven placing the complete bird on their hats--a most ridiculousexhibition of bad taste. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty toAnimals should take up the question of the destruction of birds fortheir plumage, and agitate until the law makes it illegal to wear abird on a hat. Some may say that if people kill animals and birds forfood they might just as well wear a dead bird on their hats, if theywish to be so silly, although the large majority of America'spopulation, I am sorry to find, sincerely believe meat to be anecessary article of diet; yet who will claim that a dead bird on a hatis an indispensable article of wearing apparel? Why do we dress atall? First, I suppose, for protection against cold and heat; secondly, for comfort; thirdly, for decency; and, fourthly, for ornament. Nowdoes the dress of Americans meet these requirements? First, as regards the weather, does woman's dress protect her from thecold? The fact that a large number of persons daily suffer from coldsarouses the suspicion that their dress is at fault. The body isneither equally nor evenly covered, the upper portion being as a rulenearly bare, or very thinly clad, so that the slightest exposure to adraught, or a sudden change of temperature, subjects the wearer to theunpleasant experience of catching cold, unless she is so physicallyrobust and healthy that she can resist all the dangers to which herclothing, or rather her lack of clothing, subjects her. Indeed ladies'dress, instead of affording protection sometimes endangers their lives. The following extract from the "London Times"--and the facts cannot bedoubted--is a warning to the fair sex. "The strong gale which sweptover Bradford resulted in an extraordinary accident by which a girllost her life. Mary Bailey, aged 16, the daughter of an electrician, who is a pupil at the Hanson Secondary School, was in the school yardwhen she was suddenly lifted up into the air by a violent gust of windwhich got under her clothes converting them into a sort of parachute. After being carried to a height estimated by spectators at 20 feet, sheturned over in the air and fell to the ground striking the concretedfloor of the yard with great force. She was terribly injured and diedhalf an hour later. " Had the poor girl been wearing Chinese clothingthis terrible occurrence could not have happened; her life would nothave been sacrificed to fashion. As to the second point, comfort, I do not believe that the wearer of afashionable costume is either comfortable or contented. I will saynothing of the unnecessary garments which the average woman affects, but let us see what can be said for the tight corset binding the waist. So far from being comfortable it must be most inconvenient, a sort ofperpetual penance and it is certainly injurious to the health. I feelconfident that physicians will support me in my belief that thedeath-rate among American women would be less if corset and other tightlacing were abolished. I have known of instances where tight lacingfor the ballroom has caused the death of enceinte women. As to the third object, decency, I am not convinced that the Americandress fulfils this object. When I say American dress, I include alsothe clothing worn by Europeans for both are practically the same. Itmay be a matter of education, but from the Oriental point of view wewould prefer that ladies' dresses should be worn more loosely, so thatthe figure should be less prominent. I am aware that this is a viewwhich my American friends do not share. It is very curious that whatis considered as indecent in one country is thought to be quite properin another. During the hot summers in the Province of Kiangsu theworking women avoid the inconveniences and chills of perspiration bygoing about their work with nothing on the upper part of their bodies, except a chest protector to cover the breasts; in Western countrieswomen would never think of doing this, even during a season of extremeheat; yet they do not object, even in the depth of winter, touncovering their shoulders as low as possible when attending adinner-party, a ball, or the theater. I remember the case of a Chineserice-pounder in Hongkong who was arrested and taken to the Police Courton a charge of indecency. To enable him to do his work better he haddispensed with all his clothing excepting a loin cloth; for this he wassentenced to pay a fine of $2, or, in default of payment to beimprisoned for a week. The English Magistrate, in imposing the fine, lectured him severely, remarking that in a civilized community suchprimitive manners could not be tolerated, as they were both barbarousand indecent. When he said this did he think of the way the women ofhis country dress when they go to a ball? It must be remembered that modesty is wholly a matter ofconventionality and custom. Competent observers have testified thatsavages who have been accustomed to nudity all their lives are coveredwith shame when made to put on clothing for the first time. Theyexhibit as much confusion as a civilized person would if compelled tostrip naked in public. In the words of a competent authority on thissubject: "The facts appear to prove that the feeling of shame, farfrom being the cause of man's covering his body is, on the contrary, aresult of this custom; and that the covering, if not used as aprotection from the climate, owes its origin, at least in many cases, to the desire of men and women to make themselves attractive. " Strangeas it may seem, it is nevertheless true, that a figure partially cladappears more indecent than one that is perfectly nude. The fourth object of clothes is ornament, but ornaments should beharmless, not only to the wearer, but also to other people; yet fromthe following paragraph, copied from one of the daily newspapers, itdoes not appear that they are. "London, May 7. The death of a girl from blood-poisoning caused by a hatpin penetrating her nose was inquired into at Stockport, Cheshire, yesterday. The deceased was Mary Elizabeth Thornton, aged twenty-four, daughter of a Stockport tradesman. The father said that on Saturday evening, April 20, his daughter was speaking to a friend, Mrs. Pickford, outside the shop. On the following Monday she complained of her nose being sore. Next day she again complained and said, "It must be the hatpin. " While talking to Mrs. Pickford, she explained, Mrs. Pickford's baby stumbled on the footpath. They both stooped to pick it up, and a hatpin in Mrs. Pickford's hat caught her in the nostril. His daughter gradually got worse and died on Saturday last. Mrs. Pickford, wife of a paper merchant, said that some minutes after the deceased had picked up the child she said, "Do you know, I scratched my nose on your hatpin?" Mrs. Pickford was wearing the hatpin in court. It projected two inches from the hat and was about twelve inches in length. Dr. Howie Smith said that septic inflammation was set up as a result of the wound, and travelling to the brain caused meningitis. The coroner said that not many cases came before coroners in which death was directly traceable to the hatpin but there must be a very large number of cases in which the hatpin caused injury, in some cases loss of sight. It was no uncommon sight to see these deadly weapons protruding three or four inches from the hat. In Hamburg women were compelled by statute to put shields or protectors on the points of hatpins. In England nothing had been done, but this case showed that it was high time something was done. If women insisted on wearing hatpins they should take precaution of wearing also a shield or protector which would prevent them inflicting injury on other people. The jury returned a verdict of accidental death, and expressed their opinion that long hatpins ought to be done away with or their points protected. " To wear jewels, necklaces of brilliants, precious stones and pearls, orribbons with brilliants round the hair is a pleasing custom and apretty sight. But to see a lady wearing a long gown trailing on theground does not impress me as being elegant, though I understand theladies in Europe and America think otherwise. It would almost seem asif their conceptions of beauty depended on the length of their skirts. In a ballroom one sometimes finds it very difficult not to tread on theladies' skirts, and on ceremonial occasions each lady has two page boysto hold up the train of her dress. It is impossible to teach anOriental to appreciate this sort of thing. Certainly skirts which arenot made either for utility or comfort, and which fashion changes, addnothing to the wearer's beauty; especially does this remark apply tothe "hobble skirt", with its impediment to free movement of the legs. The ungainly "hobble skirt" compels the wearer to walk carefully andwith short steps, and when she dances she has to lift up her dress. Now the latest fashion seems to be the "slashed skirt" which, however, has the advantage of keeping the lower hem of the skirt clean. Doubtless this, in turn, will give place to other novelties. A Chineselady, Doctor Ya Mei-kin, who has been educated in America, adoptedwhile there the American attire, but as soon as she returned to Chinashe resumed her own native dress. Let us hear what she has to say onthis subject. Speaking of Western civilization she said: "If we keepour own mode of life it is not for the sake of blind conservatism. Weare more logical in our ways than the average European imagines. Iwear for instance this 'ao' dress as you see, cut in one piece andallowing the limbs free play--because it is manifestly a more rationaland comfortable attire than your fashionable skirt from Paris. On theother hand we are ready to assimilate such notions from the West aswill really prove beneficial to us. " Beauty is a matter of education:when you have become accustomed to anything, however quaint or queer, you will not think it so after a while. When I first went abroad andsaw young girls going about in the streets with their hair fallingloose over their shoulders, I was a little shocked. I thought howcareless their parents must be to allow their girls to go out in thatuntidy state. Later, finding that it was the fashion, I changed mymind, until by degrees I came to think that it looked quite nice; thusdo conventionality and custom change one's opinions. But it should beremembered that no custom or conventionality which sanctions thedistorting of nature, or which interferes with the free exercise of anymember of the body, can ever be called beautiful. It has always been agreat wonder to me that American and European ladies who are by nomeans slow to help forward any movement for reform, have taken noactive steps to improve the uncouth and injurious style of their ownclothes. How can they expect to be granted the privileges of men untilthey show their superiority by freeing themselves from the enthrallmentof the conventionalities of fashion? Men's dress is by no means superior to the women's. It is so tightthat it causes the wearer to suffer from the heat much more than isnecessary, and I am certain that many cases of sunstroke have beenchiefly due to tight clothing. I must admire the courage of Dr. MaryWalker, an American lady, who has adopted man's costume, but I wonderthat, with her singular independence and ingenuity she has notintroduced a better form of dress, instead of slavishly adopting thegarb of the men. I speak from experience. When I was a law student inEngland, in deference to the opinion of my English friends, I discardedChinese clothes in favor of the European dress, but I soon found itvery uncomfortable. In the winter it was not warm enough, but insummer it was too warm because it was so tight. Then I had troublewith the shoes. They gave me the most distressing corns. When, onreturning to China, I resumed my own national costume my cornsdisappeared, and I had no more colds. I do not contend that theChinese dress is perfect, but I have no hesitation in affirming that itis more comfortable and, according to my views, very much prettier thanthe American fashions. It is superior to any other kind of dress thatI have known. To appreciate the benefits to be derived fromcomfortable clothing, you have to wear it for a while. Dress shouldnot restrain the free movement of every part of the body, neithershould it be so tight as to hinder in any way the free circulation ofthe blood, or to interfere with the process of evaporation through theskin. I cannot understand why Americans, who are correct and cautiousabout most things, are so very careless of their own personal comfortin the matter of clothing. Is anything more important than that whichconcerns their health and comfort? Why should they continue wearingclothes which retard their movements, and which are so inconvenientthat they expose the wearers to constant risk and danger? How can theyconsistently call themselves independent while they servilely followthe mandates of the dressmakers who periodically make money byinventing new fashions necessitating new clothes? Brave Americans, wake up! Assert your freedom! It would be very bold, and indeed impertinent, on my part to suggest tomy American friends that they should adopt the Chinese costume. It hasmuch to recommend it, but I must candidly confess that it might beimproved. Why not convene an international congress to decide as tothe best form of dress for men and women? Male and female delegatesfrom all over the world might be invited, and samples of all kinds ofcostumes exhibited. Out of them all let those which are considered thebest for men and most suitable for women be recommended, with suchimprovements as the congress may deem necessary. The advantages of auniversal uniformity of costumes would be far-reaching. There would beno further occasion for any one to look askance at another, as hasfrequently happened when some stranger has been seen wearing what wasconsidered an uncomely or unsuitable garb; universal uniformity ofcostume would also tend to draw people closer together, and to makethem more friendly. Uniforms and badges promote brotherhood. I haveenough faith in the American people to believe that my humblesuggestion will receive their favorable consideration and that in duetime it will be carried into effect. Chapter 11. American versus Chinese Civilization This is a big subject. Its exhaustive treatment would require a largevolume. In a little chapter such as this I have no intention of doingmore than to cast a glance at its cuff buttons and some of the frillson its shirt. Those who want a thesis must look elsewhere. Now what is Civilization? According to Webster it is "the act ofcivilizing or the state of being civilized; national culture;refinement. " "Civilization began with the domestication of animals, "says Alfred Russell Wallace, but whether for the animal that wasdomesticated or for the man domesticating it is not clear. In a waythe remark probably applies to both, for the commencement of culture, or the beginning of civilization, was our reclamation from a savagestate. Burke says: "Our manners, our civilization, and all the goodthings connected with manners and civilization have in this Europeanworld of ours depended for ages upon two principles--the spirit of agentleman, and the spirit of religion. " We often hear people, especially Westerners, calling themselves "highly civilized", and tosome extent they have good grounds for their claim, but do they reallymanifest the qualifications mentioned by Burke? Are they indeed so"highly civilized" as to be in all respects worthy paragons to theso-called semi-civilized nations? Have not some of their policies beensuch as can be characterized only as crooked and selfish actions whichless civilized peoples would not have thought of? I believe that everydisinterested reader will be able to supply confirmatory illustrationsfor himself, but I will enforce the point by giving a few Chineseideals of a truly civilized man: "He guards his body as if holding jade"; i. E. , he will not contaminatehimself with mental or moral filth. "He does not gratify his appetite, nor in his dwelling place does heseek ease"; i. E. , he uses the physical without being submerged by it. "Without weapons he will not attack a tiger, nor will he dare to crossa river without a boat"; in other words he will never ruin himself andhis family by purely speculative practices. He will "send charcoal in a snowstorm, but he will not add flowers toembroidery", meaning that he renders timely assistance when necessary, but does not curry favor by presents to those who do not need them. Our most honored heroes are said to have made their virtue "brilliant"and one of them engraved on his bath-tub the axiom--"If you canrenovate yourself one day, do so from day to day. Let there be dailyrenovation. " Our ideal for the ruler is that the regulation of thestate must commence with his regulation of himself. It is too often forgotten that civilization, like religion, originallycame from the East. Long before Europe and America were civilized, yeawhile they were still in a state of barbarism, there were nations inthe East, including China, superior to them in manners, in education, and in government; possessed of a literature equal to any, and of artsand sciences totally unknown in the West. Self-preservation andself-interest make all men restless, and so Eastern peoples graduallymoved to the West taking their knowledge with them; Western people whocame into close contact with them learned their civilization. Thisfusion of East and West was the beginning of Western civilization. A Chinese proverb compares a pupil who excels his teacher to the colorgreen, which originates with blue but is superior to it. This mayaptly be applied to Westerners, for they originally learned literature, science, and other arts from the East; but they have proven apt pupilsand have excelled their old masters. I wish I could find an apothegmconcerning a former master who went back to school and surpassed hisclever pupil. The non-existence of such a maxim probably indicatesthat no such case has as yet occurred, but that by no means proves thatit never will. Coming now to particulars I would say that one of the distinguishingfeatures in the American people which I much admire is theirearnestness and perseverance. When they decide to take up anything, whether it be an invention or the investigation of a difficult problem, they display indomitable perseverance and patience. Mr. Edison, forexample, sleeps, it is said, in his factory and is inaccessible fordays when he has a problem to solve, frequently even forgetting foodand sleep. I can only compare him to our sage Confucius, who, hearinga charming piece of music which he wanted to study, became so engrossedin it that for many days he forgot to eat, while for three months hedid not know the taste of meat. The dauntless courage of the aviators, not only in America, but inEurope also, is a wonderful thing. "The toll of the air", in the shapeof fatal accidents from aviation, mounts into the hundreds, and yet menare undeterred in the pursuit of their investigations. With suchintrepidity, perseverance, and genius, it is merely a question of time, and I hope it will not be long, when the art of flying, either byaeroplanes or airships, will be perfectly safe. When that time arrivesI mean to make an air trip to America, and I anticipate pleasures fromthe novel experience such as I do not get from travelling by land orsea. The remarkable genius for organization observable anywhere in Americaarouses the visitor's enthusiastic admiration. One visits a mercantileoffice where a number of men are working at different desks in a largeroom, and marvels at the quiet and systematic manner in which theyperform their tasks; or one goes to a big bank and is amazed at thelarge number of customers ever going in and coming out. It isdifficult to calculate the enormous amount of business transacted everyhour, yet all is done with perfect organization and a proper divisionof labor, so that any information required is furnished by the manageror by a clerk, at a moment's notice. I have often been in theseplaces, and the calm, quiet, earnest way in which the employeesperformed their tasks was beyond praise. It showed that the heads whoorganized and were directing the institutions had a firm grasp ofmultiplex details. We Chinese have a reputation for being good business men. When inbusiness on our own account, or in partnership with a few friends, wesucceed marvelously well; but we have yet much to learn regarding largeconcerns such as corporations or joint stock companies. This is not tobe wondered at, for joint stock companies and corporations as conductedin the West were unknown in China before the advent of foreignmerchants in our midst. Since then a few joint stock companies havebeen started in Hongkong, Shanghai, and other ports; these have beencarried on by Chinese exclusively, but the managers have not as yetmastered the systematic Western methods of conducting such concerns. Even unpractised and inexpert eyes can see great room for improvementin the management of these businesses. Here, I must admit, theJapanese are ahead of us. Take, for instance, the Yokohama SpecieBank: it has a paid-up capital of Yen 30, 000, 000 and has branches andagencies not only in all the important towns in Japan, but also indifferent ports in China, London, New York, San Francisco, Honolulu, Bombay, Calcutta and other places. It is conducted in the latest andmost approved scientific fashion; its reports and accounts, publishedhalf-yearly, reveal the exact state of the concern's financial positionand incidentally show that it makes enormous profits. True, severalChinese banks of a private or official nature have been established, and some of them have been doing a fair business, but candor compels meto say that they are not conducted as scientifically as is the YokohamaSpecie Bank, or most American banks. Corporations and joint stockcompanies are still in their infancy in China; but Chinese merchantsand bankers, profiting by the mistakes of the past, will doubtlessgradually improve their systems, so that in the future there will beless and less cause to find fault with them. One system which has been in vogue within the last ten or twenty yearsin America, and which has lately figured much in the limelight, is thatof "Trusts". Here, again, it is only the ingenuity of Americans whichcould have brought the system to such gigantic proportions as to makeit possible for it to wield an immense influence over trade, not onlyin America but in other countries also. The main object of the Trustseems to be to combine several companies under one direction, so as toeconomize expenses, regulate production and the price of commodities bydestroying competition. Its advocates declare their policy to beproductive of good to the world, inasmuch as it secures regularsupplies of commodities of the best kind at fair and reasonable prices. On the other hand, its opponents contend that Trusts are injurious tothe real interests of the public, as small companies cannot competewith them, and without healthy competition the consumer always suffers. Where experts differ it were perhaps wiser for me not to express anopinion lest I should show no more wisdom than the boy who argued thatlobsters were black and not red because he had often seen them swimmingabout on the seashore, but was confuted by his friend who said he knewthey were red and not black for he had seen them on his father's dinnertable. The fact, however, which remains indisputable, is the immense power ofwealth. No one boycotts money. It is something no one seems to getenough of. I have never heard that multi-millionaires like Carnegie orRockefeller ever expressed regrets at not being poor, even though theyseem more eager to give money away than to make it. Most people inAmerica are desirous for money, and rush every day to their businesswith no other thought than to accumulate it quickly. Their love ofmoney leaves them scarcely time to eat, to drink, or to sleep; wakingor sleeping they think of nothing else. Wealth is their goal and whenthey reach it they will probably be still unsatisfied. The Chineseare, of course, not averse to wealth. They can enjoy the jingling coinas much as anyone, but money is not their only thought. They carry ontheir business calmly and quietly, and they are very patient. I trustthey will always retain these habits and never feel any temptation toimitate the Americans in their mad chase after money. There is, however, one American characteristic my countrymen mightlearn with profit, and that is the recognition of the fact thatpunctuality is the soul of business. Americans know this; it is onecause of their success. Make an appointment with an American and youwill find him in his office at the appointed time. Everything to bedone by him during the course of the day has its fixed hour, and hencehe is able to accomplish a greater amount of work in a given time thanmany others. Chinese, unfortunately, have no adequate conceptions ofthe value of time. This is due, perhaps, to our mode of reckoning. Inthe West a day is divided into twenty-four hours, and each hour intosixty minutes, but in China it has been for centuries the custom todivide day and night into twelve (shih) "periods" of two hours each, sothat an appointment is not made for a particular minute, as in America, but for one or other of these two-hour periods. This has createdingrained habits of unpunctuality which clocks and watches and contactwith foreigners are slow to remove. The time-keeping railway is, however, working a revolution, especially in places where there is onlyone train a day, and a man who misses that has to wait for the morrowbefore he can resume his journey. Some years ago a luncheon--"tiffin" we call it in China--was given inmy honor at a Peking restaurant by a couple of friends; the hour wasfixed at noon sharp. I arrived on the stroke of twelve, but found thatnot only were none of the guests there, but that even the hoststhemselves were absent. As I had several engagements I did not wait, but I ordered a few dishes and ate what I required. None of the hostshad made their appearance by the time I had finished, so I left with arequest to the waiter that he would convey my thanks. Knowing the unpunctuality of our people, the conveners of a publicmeeting will often tell the Chinese that it will begin an hour or twobefore the set time, whereas foreigners are notified of the exact hour. Not being aware of this device I once attended a conference at theappointed time, only to find that I had to wait for over an hour. Iprotested that in future I should be treated as a foreigner in thisregard. As civilized people have always found it necessary to wear clothes Iought not to omit a reference to them here, but in view of what hasalready been said in the previous chapter I shall at this juncturecontent myself with quoting Mrs. M. S. G. Nichols, an English lady whohas written on this subject. She characterizes the clothing of men asunbeautiful, but she principally devotes her attention to the dress ofwomen. I quote the following from her book:[1] "The relation of awoman's dress to her health is seldom considered, still less is itcontemplated as to its effect upon the health of her children; yeteveryone must see that all that concerns the mothers of our race isimportant. The clothing of woman should be regarded in every aspect ifwe wish to see its effect upon her health, and consequently upon thehealth of her offspring. The usual way is to consider the beauty orfashion of dress first, its comfort and healthfulness afterward, if atall. We must reverse this method. First, use, then beauty, flowingfrom, or in harmony with, use. That is the true law of life" (p. 14). On page 23 she continues: "A great deal more clothing is worn by womenin some of fashion's phases than is needed for warmth, and mostly inthe form of heavy skirts dragging down upon the hips. The heavytrailing skirts also are burdens upon the spine. Such evils of women'sclothes, especially in view of maternity, can hardly be over-estimated. The pains and perils that attend birth are heightened, if not caused, by improper clothing. The nerves of the spine and the maternal systemof nerves become diseased together. " And on page 32 she writes: "WhenI first went to an evening party in a fashionable town, I was shockedat seeing ladies with low dresses, and I cannot even now like to see aman, justly called a rake, looking at the half-exposed bosom of a lady. There is no doubt that too much clothing is an evil, as well as toolittle; but clothing that swelters or leaves us with a cold are bothlesser evils than the exposure of esoteric charms to stir the alreadyheated blood of the 'roue'. What we have to do, as far as fashion andthe public opinion it forms will allow, is to suit our clothing to ourclimate, and to be truly modest and healthful in our attire. " Mrs. Nichols, speaking from her own experience, has naturally devoted herbook largely to a condemnation of woman's dress, but man's dress asworn in the West is just as bad. The dreadful high collar and tightclothes which are donned all the year round, irrespective of theweather, must be very uncomfortable. Men wear nearly the same kind ofclothing at all seasons of the year. That might be tolerated in thefrigid or temperate zones, but should not the style be changed in thetropical heat of summer common to the Eastern countries? I did notnotice that men made much difference in their dress in summer; I haveseen them, when the thermometer was ranging between 80 and 90, wearinga singlet shirt, waistcoat and coat. The coat may not have been asthick as that worn in winter, still it was made of serge, wool or somesimilarly unsuitable stuff. However hot the weather might be it wasseldom that anyone was to be seen on the street without a coat. Nowonder we frequently hear of deaths from sunstroke or heat, a fatalityalmost unknown among the Chinese. [2] Chinese dress changes with the seasons, varying from the thickest furto the lightest gauze. In winter we wear fur or garments lined withcotton wadding; in spring we don a lighter fur or some other thinnergarment; in summer we use silk, gauze or grass cloth, according to theweather. Our fashions are set by the weather; not by the arbitrarydecrees of dressmakers and tailors from Peking or elsewhere. Thenumber of deaths in America and in Europe every year, resulting fromfollowing the fashion must, I fear, be considerable, although of courseno doctor would dare in his death certificate to assign unsuitableclothing as the cause of the decease of a patient. Even in the matter of dressing, and in this twentieth century, "mightis right". In the opinion of an impartial observer the dress of man isqueer, and that of woman, uncouth; but as all nations in Europe andAmerica are wearing the same kind of dress, mighty Conventionality isextending its influence, so that even some natives of the East havediscarded their national dress in favor of the uglier Western attire. If the newly adopted dress were, if no better than, at least equal to, the old one in beauty and comfort, it might be sanctioned for the sakeof uniformity, as suggested in the previous chapter; but when it isotherwise why should we imitate? Why should the world assume adepressing monotony of costume? Why should we allow nature'sdiversities to disappear? Formerly a Chinese student when returningfrom Europe or America at once resumed his national dress, for if hedared to continue to favor the Western garb he was looked upon as a"half-foreign devil". Since the establishment of the Chinese Republicin 1911, this sentiment has entirely changed, and the inelegant foreigndress is no longer considered fantastic; on the contrary it has becomea fashion, not only in cities where foreigners are numerous, but evenin interior towns and villages where they are seldom seen. Chinese ladies, like their Japanese sisters, have not yet, to theircredit be it said, become obsessed by this new fashion, which showsthat they have more common sense than some men. I have, however, seena few young and foolish girls imitating the foreign dress of Westernwomen. Indeed this craze for Western fashion has even caught hold ofour legislators in Peking, who, having fallen under the spell ofclothes, in solemn conclave decided that the frock coat, with thetall-top hat, should in future be the official uniform; and theswallow-tail coat with a white shirt front the evening dress in China. I need hardly say that this action of the Peking Parliament arouseduniversal surprise and indignation. How could the scholars and gentryof the interior, where foreign tailors are unknown, be expected todress in frock coats at formal ceremonies, or to attend publicentertainments in swallow-tails? Public meetings were held to discussthe subject, and the new style of dress was condemned as unsuitable. At the same time it was thought by many that the present dresses of menand women leave much room for improvement. It should be mentioned thatas soon as it was known that the dress uniform was under discussion inParliament, the silk, hat and other trades guilds, imitating the habitsof the wide-world which always everywhere considers self first, fearingthat the contemplated change in dress might injuriously affect theirrespective interests, sent delegates to Peking to "lobby" the membersto "go slow" and not to introduce too radical changes. The result wasthat in addition to the two forms of dress above mentioned, two morepatterns were authorized, one for man's ordinary wear and the other forwomen, both following Chinese styles, but all to be made ofhome-manufactured material. This was to soothe the ruffled feelings ofthe manufacturers and traders, for in purchasing a foreign suit some ofthe materials at least, if not all, must be of foreign origin orforeign make. During a recent visit to Peking I protested against this novel fashion, and submitted a memorandum to President Yuan with a request that itshould be transmitted to Parliament. My suggestion is that thefrock-coat and evening-dress regulation should be optional, and thatthe Chinese dress uniform as sketched by me in my memorandum should beadopted as an alternative. I am in hopes that my suggestion will befavorably considered. The point I have taken is that Chinese diplomatsand others who go abroad should, in order to avoid curiosity, and forthe sake of uniformity, adopt Western dress, and that those who are athome, if they prefer the ugly change, should be at liberty to adopt it, but that it should not be compulsory on others who object to sufferingfrom cold in winter, or to being liable to sunstroke in summer. I havetaken this middle course in order to satisfy both sides; for it wouldbe difficult to induce Parliament to abolish or alter what has been sorecently fixed by them. The Chinese dress, as is well known all overthe world, is superior to that worn by civilized people in the West, and the recent change favored by the Chinese is deplored by mostforeigners in China. The following paragraph, written by a foreignmerchant and published in one of the Shanghai papers, expresses theopinion of almost all intelligent foreigners on this subject: "Some time back the world was jubilant over the news that among thegreat reforms adopted in China was the discarding of the Chinese tunic, that great typical national costume. 'They are indeed gettingcivilized, ' said the gossip; and one and all admired the energydisplayed by the resolute Young China in coming into line with theCIVILIZED world, adopting even our uncomfortable, anti-hygienic andanti-esthetic costume. "Foreign 'fashioned' tailor shops, hat stores, shoemakers, etc. , sprangup all over the country. When I passed through Canton in Septemberlast, I could not help noticing also that those typical streets linedwith boat-shaped, high-soled shoes, had been replaced by foreign-styleboot and shoemakers. "Undoubtedly the reform was gaining ground and the Chinese would haveto be in the future depicted dressed up as a Caucasian. "In my simplicity I sincerely confess I could not but deplore thepassing away of the century-old tunic, so esthetic, so comfortable, sorich, so typical of the race. In my heart I was sorry for the change, as to my conception it was not in the dress where the Chinese had toseek reform.... " I agree with this writer that it is not in the domain of dress that weChinese should learn from the Western peoples. There are many thingsin China which could be very well improved but certainly not dress. [1] "The Clothes Question Considered in its Relation to Beauty, Comfortand Health", by Mrs. M. S. G. Nichols. Published in London, 32Fopstone Road, Earl's Court, S. W. [2] There have been a few cases of Chinese workmen who throughcarelessness have exposed themselves by working in the sun; but suchcases are rare. Chapter 12. American versus Chinese Civilization (Continued) The question has often been asked "Which are the civilized nations?"And the answer has been, "All Europe and America. " To the query, "Whatabout the nations in the East?" the answer has been made that with theexception of Japan, who has now become a great civilized power, theother nations are more or less civilized. When the matter is furtherpressed and it is asked, "What about China?" the general reply is, "Sheis semi-civilized, " or in other words, not so civilized as the nationsin the West. Before pronouncing such an opinion justifiable, let us consider theplain facts. I take it that civilization inculcates culture, refinement, humane conduct, fair dealing and just treatment. Amielsays, "Civilization is first and foremost a moral thing. " There is nodoubt that the human race, especially in the West, has improvedwonderfully within the last century. Many inventions and discoverieshave been made, and men are now able to enjoy comforts which could nothave been obtained before. From a material point of view we have certainly progressed, but do the"civilized" people in the West live longer than the so-calledsemi-civilized races? Have they succeeded in prolonging their lives?Are they happier than others? I should like to hear their answers. Isit not a fact that Americans are more liable to catch cold thanAsiatics; with the least change of air, and with the slightestappearance of an epidemic are they not more easily infected thanAsiatics? If so, why? With their genius for invention why have theynot discovered means to safeguard themselves so that they can livelonger on this earth? Again, can Americans say that they are happierthan the Chinese? From personal observation I have formed the opinionthat the Chinese are more contented than Americans, and on the wholehappier; and certainly one meets more old people in China than inAmerica. Since the United States of America is rich, well governed, and provided with more material comforts than China, Americans, onewould think, should be happier than we are, but are they? Are therenot many in their midst who are friendless and penurious? In China noman is without friends, or if he is, it is his own fault. "Virtue isnever friendless, " said Confucius, and, as society is constituted inChina, this is literally true. If this is not so in America I fearthere is something wrong with that boasted civilization, and that theirmaterial triumphs over the physical forces of nature have been paiddearly for by a loss of insight into her profound spiritualities. Perhaps some will understand when I quote Lao Tsze's address toConfucius on "Simplicity". "The chaff from winnowing will blind a man. Mosquitoes will bite a man and keep him awake all night, and so it iswith all the talk of yours about charity and duty to one's neighbor, itdrives one crazy. Sir, strive to keep the world in its originalsimplicity--why so much fuss? The wind blows as it listeth, so letvirtue establish itself. The swan is white without a daily bath, andthe raven is black without dyeing itself. When the pond is dry and thefishes are gasping for breath it is of no use to moisten them with alittle water or a little sprinkling. Compared to their original andsimple condition in the pond and the rivers it is nothing. " Henry Ward Beecher says, "Wealth may not produce civilization, butcivilization produces money, " and in my opinion while wealth may beused to promote happiness and health it as often injures both. Happiness is the product of liberality, intelligence and service toothers, and the reflex of happiness is health. My contention is thatthe people who possess these good qualities in the greatest degree arethe most civilized. Now civilization, as mentioned in the previouschapter, was born in the East and travelled westward. The law ofnature is spiral, and inasmuch as Eastern civilization taught thepeople of the West, so Western civilization, which is based uponprinciples native to the East, will return to its original source. Nonation can now remain shut up within itself without intercourse withother nations; the East and the West can no longer exist separate andapart. The new facilities for transportation and travel by land andwater bring all nations, European, American, Asiatic and African, nextdoor to each other, and when the art of aviation is more advanced andpeople travel in the air as safely as they now cross oceans, therelationships of nations will become still closer. What effect will this have on mankind? The first effect will be, Ishould say, greater stability. As interests become common, destructivecombats will vanish. All alike will be interested in peace. It is agratifying sign that within recent years the people of America havetaken a prominent part in peace movements, and have inaugurated peacecongresses, the members of which represent different sections of thecountry. Annual gatherings of this order must do much to prevent warand to perpetuate peace, by turning people's thoughts in the rightdirection. Take, for instance, the Lake Mohonk Conference onInternational Arbitration, which was started by a private gentleman, Mr. A. K. Smiley, who was wont every year to invite prominent officialsand others to his beautiful summer place at Lake Mohonk for aconference. He has passed away, to the regret of his many friends, butthe good movement still continues, and the nineteenth annual conferencewas held under the auspices of his brother, Mr. Daniel Smiley. Amongthose present, there were not only eminent Americans, such as Dr. C. W. Eliot, President Emeritus of Harvard University, Ex-American AmbassadorC. Tower, Dr. J. Taylor, President of Vassar College, and Dr. LymanAbbott, but distinguished foreigners such as J. A. Baker, M. P. , ofEngland, Herr Heinrich York Steiner, of Vienna, and many others. Amongthe large number of people who support this kind of movement, and thenumber is increasing every day, the name of Mr. Andrew Carnegie standsout very prominently. This benevolent gentleman is a most vigorousadvocate of International Peace, and has spent most of his time andmoney for that purpose. He has given ten million dollars (gold) forthe purpose of establishing the Carnegie Peace Fund; the firstparagraph in his long letter to the trustees is worthy of reproduction, as it expresses his strong convictions: "I have transferred to you, " he says, "as Trustees of the CarnegiePeace Fund, ten million dollars of five per cent. Mortgage bonds, therevenue of which is to be administered by you to hasten the abolitionof international war, the foulest blot upon our civilization. Althoughwe no longer eat our fellowmen nor torture our prisoners, nor sackcities, killing their inhabitants, we still kill each other in war likebarbarians. Only wild beasts are excusable for doing that in this theTwentieth Century of the Christian era, for the crime of war isinherent, since it decides not in favor of the right, but always of thestrong. The nation is criminal which refuses arbitration and drivesits adversary to a tribunal which knows nothing of righteous judgment. " I am glad to say that I am familiar with many American magazines andjournals which are regularly published to advocate peace, and I have nodoubt that in every country similar movements are stirring, for thenations are beginning to realize the disastrous effects of war. If Iam not mistaken, however, Americans are the most active in this matter. The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, whose members belongto nearly every nation, is a significant index of the spirit of thetimes. Yet what an irony of fate that while people are so active inperpetuating peace they cannot preserve it. Look at the recent wars inEurope, first between Italy and Turkey, and afterward in the Balkans, to say nothing of disturbances in China and other parts of the world. It is just like warning a child not to take poison and then allowinghim to swallow it and die. Sensible men should consider this questioncalmly and seriously. We all agree as to the wickedness of war and yetwe war with one another; we do not like war yet we cannot help war. There is surely some hidden defect in the way we have been brought up. Is not the slogan of nationality, to a great extent, the root of theevil? Every schoolboy and schoolgirl is taught the duty of devotion, or strong attachment, to his or her own country, and every statesman orpublic man preaches the doctrine of loyalty to one's native land; whilethe man who dares to render service to another country, the interestsof which are opposed to the interests of his own land, is denounced atraitor. In such cases the individual is never allowed an opinion asto the right or wrong of the dispute. He is expected to support hisown country and to cry at all times, "Our country, right or wrong. " Apolitician's best chance to secure votes is to gloss over the faults ofhis own party or nation, to dilate on the wickedness of his neighborsand to exhort his compatriots to be loyal to their national flag. Canit be wondered at that men who are imbued with such doctrines becomeselfish and narrow-minded and are easily involved in quarrels withother nations? Patriotism is, of course, the national life. Twenty-four centuriesago, speaking in the Greek Colony of Naxos, Pythagoras described thisemotion in the following eloquent passage: "Listen, my children, towhat the State should be to the good citizen. It is more than fatheror mother, it is more than husband or wife, it is more than child orfriend. The State is the father and mother of all, is the wife of thehusband and the husband of the wife. The family is good, and good isthe joy of the man in wife and in son. But greater is the State, whichis the protector of all, without which the home would be ravaged anddestroyed. Dear to the good man is the honor of the woman who borehim, dear the honor of the wife whose children cling to his knees; butdearer should be the honor of the State that keeps safe the wife andthe child. It is the State from which comes all that makes your lifeprosperous, and gives you beauty and safety. Within the State arebuilt up the arts, which make the difference between the barbarian andthe man. If the brave man dies gladly for the hearthstone, far moregladly should he die for the State. " But only when the State seeks the good of the governed, for saidPythagoras on another occasion: "Organized society exists for thehappiness and welfare of its members; and where it fails to securethese it stands ipso facto condemned. " But to-day should the State be at war with another, and any citizen orsection of citizens believe their own country wrong and the opposingnation wronged, they dare not say so, or if they do they run great riskof being punished for treason. Men and women though no longer boughtand sold in the market place are subjected to subtler forms of serfdom. In most European countries they are obliged to fight whether they willor not, and irrespective of their private convictions about thedispute; even though, as is the case in some European countries, theymay be citizens from compulsion rather than choice, they are not freeto abstain from active participation in the quarrel. Chineserebellions are said to "live on loot", i. E. , on the forcibleconfiscation of private property, but is that worse than winningbattles on the forcible deprivation of personal liberty? This isnationalism gone mad! It fosters the desire for territory grabbing andillustrates a fundamental difference between the Orient and theOccident. With us government is based on the consent of the governedin a way that the Westerner can hardly understand, for his passion toexpand is chronic. Small nations which are over-populated wantterritory for their surplus population; great nations desire territoryto extend their trade, and when there are several great powers todivide the spoil they distribute it among themselves and call it"spheres of influence", and all in honor of the god Commerce. In Chinathe fundamentals of our social system are brotherhood and the dignityof labor. What, I ask, is the advantage of adding to national territory? Let usexamine the question calmly. If a town or a province is seized theconqueror has to keep a large army to maintain peace and order, andunless the people are well disposed to the new authority there will beconstant trouble and friction. All this, I may say, in passing, isopposed to our Confucian code which bases everything on reason andabhors violence. We would rather argue with a mob and find out, ifpossible, its point of view, than fire on it. We have yet to beconvinced that good results flow from the use of the sword and thecannon. Western nations know no other compulsion. If, however, the acquisition of new territory arises from a desire todevelop the country and to introduce the most modern and improvedsystems of government, without ulterior intentions, then it is beyondpraise, but I fear that such disinterested actions are rare. Thenearest approach to such high principle is the purchase of thePhilippine Islands by the United States. I call it "purchase" becausethe United States Government paid a good price for the Islands afterhaving seized the territory. The intentions of the Government werewell known at the time. Since her acquisition of those Islands, America has been doing her best to develop their resources and expandtheir trade. Administrative and judicial reforms have been introduced, liberal education has been given to the natives, who are being trainedfor self-government. It has been repeatedly and authoritativelydeclared by the United States that as soon as they are competent togovern themselves without danger of disturbances, and are able toestablish a stable government, America will grant independence to thoseislands. I believe that when the proper time comes she will fulfillher word, and thus set a noble example to the world. The British in Hongkong afford an illustration of a different order, proving the truth of my contention that, excepting as a sphere for theexercise of altruism, the acquisition of new territories is an illusivegain. When Hongkong was ceded to Great Britain at the conclusion of awar in which China was defeated, it was a bare island containing only afew fishermen's huts. In order to make it a trading port and encouragepeople to live there, the British Government spent large sums of moneyyear after year for its improvement and development, and through thewise administration of the local Government every facility was affordedfor free trade. It is now a prosperous British colony with apopulation of nearly half a million. But what have been the advantagesto Great Britain? Financially she has been a great loser, for theIsland which she received at the close of her war with China was formany years a great drain on her national treasury. Now Hongkong is aself-supporting colony, but what benefits do the British enjoy therethat do not belong to everyone else? The colony is open to allforeigners, and every right which a British merchant has is equallyshared with everyone else. According to the census of 1911, out of apopulation of 456, 739 only 12, 075 were non-Chinese, of whom a smallportion were British; the rest were Chinese. Thus the prosperity ofthat colony depends upon the Chinese who, it is needless to say, are inpossession of all the privileges that are enjoyed by British residents. It should be noticed that the number of foreign firms and stores (i. E. , non-British) have been and are increasing, while big British hongs areless numerous than before. Financially, the British people havecertainly not been gainers by the acquisition of that colony. Ofcourse I shall be told that it adds to the prestige of Great Britain, but this is an empty, bumptious boast dearly paid for by the Britishtax-payer. From an economic and moral point of view, however, I must admit that agreat deal of good has been done by the British Government in Hongkong. It has provided the Chinese with an actual working model of a Westernsystem of government which, notwithstanding many difficulties, hassucceeded in transforming a barren island into a prosperous town, whichis now the largest shipping port in China. The impartialadministration of law and the humane treatment of criminals cannot butexcite admiration and gain the confidence of the natives. If theBritish Government, in acquiring the desert island, had for its purposethe instruction of the natives in a modern system of government, she isto be sincerely congratulated, but it is feared that her motives wereless altruistic. These remarks apply equally, if not with greater force, to the othercolonies or possessions in China under the control of European Powers, as well as to the other colonies of the British Empire, such asAustralia, New Zealand, Canada, and others which are called"self-governing dominions". The Imperial Government feels very tendertoward these colonists, and practically they are allowed to managetheir affairs as they like. Since they are so generously treated andenjoy the protection of so great a power, there is no fear that theseself-governing dominions will ever become independent of their mothercountry; but if they ever should do so, it is most improbable that shewould declare war against them, as the British people have grown wisersince their experience with the American colonists. British statesmenhave been awakened to the necessity of winning the good-will of theircolonists, and within recent years have adopted the policy of invitingthe Colonial premiers to London to discuss questions affecting Imperialand Colonial interests. Imperial federation seems to be growingpopular with the British and it is probable that in the future England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland will each have its own parliament, with anImperial Parliament, sitting at Westminster, containing representativesfrom all parts of the British Empire, but America is the only nationwhich has added to her responsibilities with the avowed purpose ofmaking semi-civilized tribes independent, self-governing colonies, andAmerica is almost the only great power that has never occupied or heldterritory in China. Let me ask again what is the object of nations seeking new possessions?Is it for the purpose of trade? If so, the object can be obtainedwithout acquiring territory. In these days of enlightenment anyone cango to any country and trade without restriction, and in the Britishcolonies the alien is in the same position as the native. He is nothampered by "permits" or other "red-tape" methods. Is it for thepurpose of emigration? In Europe, America and all the Britishcolonies, so far as I know, white people, unless they are paupers orundesirables, can emigrate to any country and after a short periodbecome naturalized. Some statesmen would say that it is necessary for a great power to havenaval bases or coaling stations in several parts of the world. Thispresupposes preparations for war; but if international peace weremaintained, such possessions would be useless and the money spent onthem wasted. In any case it is unproductive expenditure. It is thefashion for politicians (and I am sorry to find them supported byeminent statesmen) to preach the doctrine of armaments; they allegethat in order to preserve peace it is necessary to be prepared for war, that a nation with a large army or navy commands respect, and that herword carries weight. This argument cuts both ways, for a nationoccupying such a commanding position may be unreasonable and a terrorto weaker nations. If this high-toned doctrine continues where will itend? We shall soon see every nation arming to the teeth for the sakeof her national honor and safety, and draining her treasury for thepurpose of building dreadnaughts and providing armaments. When such astate of things exists can international peace be perpetuated? Willnot occasion be found to test those war implements and to utilize thenaval and military men? When you purchase a knife don't you expect touse it? Mr. Lloyd George, the English Chancellor of the Exchequer, ina speech in which he lamented the ever-increasing but unnecessaryexpenditure on armaments, said in Parliament: "I feel confident thatit will end in a great disaster--I won't say to this country, though itis just possible that it may end in a disaster here. " A man with arevolver sometimes invites attack, lest what was at first intended onlyfor a defense should become a menace. When discussing the craze of the Western nations for adding to theirterritories I said that white people can emigrate to any foreigncountry that they please, but it is not so with the yellow race. Ithas been asserted with authority that some countries are reservedexclusively for the white races, and with this object in view laws havebeen enacted prohibiting the natives of Asia from becoming naturalizedcitizens, besides imposing very strict and almost prohibitoryregulations regarding their admission. Those who support such a policyhold that they, the white people, are superior to the yellow people inintellect, in education, in taste, and in habits, and that the yellowpeople are unworthy to associate with them. Yet in China we havemanners, we have arts, we have morals, and we have managed a fairlylarge society for thousands of years without the bitter class hatreds, class divisions, and class struggles that have marred the fair progressof the West. We have not enslaved our lives to wealth. We like luxurybut we like other things better. We love life more than chasingimitations of life. Our differences of color, like our differences of speech, areaccidental, they are due to climatic and other influences. We cameoriginally from one stock. We all started evenly, Heaven has nofavorites. Man alone has made differences between man and man, and theyellow man is no whit inferior to the white people in intelligence. During the Russo-Japan War was it not the yellow race that displayedthe superior intelligence? I am sometimes almost tempted to say thatAsia will have to civilize the West over again. I am not bitter orsarcastic, but I do contend that there are yet many things that thewhite races have to learn from their colored brethren. In India, inChina, and in Japan there are institutions which have a stabilityunknown outside Asia. Religion has apparently little influence onWestern civilization; it is the corner-stone of society in all Asiaticcivilizations. The result is that the colored races place morality inthe place assigned by their more practical white confreres to economicpropositions. We think, as we contemplate the West, that white peopledo not understand comfort because they have no leisure to enjoycontentment; THEY measure life by accumulation, WE by morality. Familyties are stronger with the so-called colored races than they are amongthe more irresponsible white races; consequently the social sense iskeener among the former and much individual suffering is avoided. Wehave our vices, but these are not peculiar to US; and, at least, wehave the merit of being easily governed. Wherever there are Chinesecolonies the general verdict is: "The Chinese make good citizens. " This is what the late Sir Robert Hart, to whom China owes her Customsorganization, said about us: "They (the Chinese) are well-behaved, law-abiding, intelligent, economical, and industrious; they can learn anything and do anything;they are punctiliously polite, they worship talent, and they believe inright so firmly that they scorn to think it requires to be supported orenforced by might; they delight in literature, and everywhere they havetheir literary clubs and coteries for learning and discussing eachother's essays and verses; they possess and practise an admirablesystem of ethics, and they are generous, charitable, and fond of goodwork; they never forget a favor, they make rich return for anykindness, and though they know money will buy service, a man must bemore than wealthy to win esteem and respect; they are practical, teachable, and wonderfully gifted with common sense; they are excellentartisans, reliable workmen, and of a good faith that everyoneacknowledges and admires in their commercial dealings; in no countrythat is or was, has the commandment 'Honor thy father and thy mother', been so religiously obeyed, or so fully and without exception giveneffect to, and it is in fact the keynote of their family, social, official and national life, and because it is so their days are long inthe land God has given them. " The cry of "America for the Americans" or "Australia for theAustralians" is most illogical, for those people were not the originalowners of the soil; with far greater reason we in the far East mightshout, "China for the Chinese", "Japan for the Japanese". I will quoteMr. T. S. Sutton, English Secretary of the Chinese-American League ofJustice, on this point. "The most asinine whine in the world, " hesays, "is that of 'America for the Americans' or 'China for theChinese', etc. It is the hissing slogan of greed, fear, envy, selfishness, ignorance and prejudice. No man, no human being who callshimself a man, no Christian, no sane or reasonable person, should orcould ever be guilty of uttering that despicable wail. God made theworld for all men, and if God has any preference, if God is anyrespecter of persons, He must surely favor the Chinese, for He has mademore of them than of any other people on the globe. 'America for theaboriginal Indians' was once the cry. Then when the English came overit changed to 'America for the English', later 'America for thePuritans', and around New Orleans they cried 'America for the French'. In Pennsylvania the slogan was 'America for the Dutch', etc. , but thetruth remains that God has set aside America as 'the melting pot' ofthe world, the land to which all people may come, and from which therehas arisen, and will continue to rise, a great mixed race, acosmopolitan nation that may, if it is not misled by prejudice andignorance, yet lead the world. " Although Mr. Sutton's phraseology issomewhat strong, his arguments are sound and unanswerable. I now pass to some less controversial aspects of my theme, and note apraiseworthy custom that is practically unknown in the Far East. Irefer to the habit of international marriages which are not only commonin cosmopolitan America but are of daily occurrence in Europe also, among ordinary people as well as the royal families of Europe, so thatnearly all the European courts are related one to the other. This is agood omen for a permanent world-peace. There have been some marriagesof Asiatics with Europeans and Americans, and they should beencouraged. Everything that brings the East and West together andhelps each to understand the other better, is good. The offspring fromsuch mixed unions inherit the good points of both sides. The headmaster of the Queen's College in Hongkong, where there are hundreds ofboys of different nationalities studying together, once told me thatformerly at the yearly examination the prizes were nearly all won bythe Chinese students, but that in later years when Eurasian boys wereadmitted, they beat the Chinese and all the others, and generally cameout the best. Not only in school but in business also they have turnedout well. It is well known that the richest man in Hongkong is aEurasian. It is said that the father of Aguinaldo, the well-knownPhilippine leader, was a Chinese. There is no doubt that mixedmarriages of the white with the yellow races will be productive of goodto both sides. But do Chinese really make good husbands? my ladyfriends ask. I will cite the case of an American lady. Some years agoa Chinese called on me at my Legation in Washington accompanied by anAmerican lady and a girl. The lady was introduced to me as his wifeand the girl as his daughter; I naturally supposed that the lady wasthe girl's mother, but she told me that the girl was the daughter ofher late intimate friend, and that after her death, knowing that thechild's father had been a good and affectionate husband to her friend, she had gladly become his second wife, and adopted his daughter. Those who believe in reincarnation (and I hope most of my readers do, as it is a clue to many mysteries) understand that when people arereincarnated they are not always born in the same country or continentas that in which they lived in their previous life. I have animpression that in one of my former existences I was born and broughtup in the United States. In saying this I do not express the slightestregrets at having now been born in Asia. I only wish to give a hint tothose white people who advocate an exclusive policy that in their nextlife they may be born in Asia or Africa, and that the injury they arenow inflicting on the yellow people they may themselves have to sufferin another life. While admitting that we Chinese have our faults and that in somematters we have much to learn, especially from the Americans, we atleast possess one moral quality, magnanimity, while the primal virtuesof industry, economy, obedience, and love of peace, combined with a"moderation in all things", are also common among us. Our people havefrequently been slighted or ill-treated but we entertain no revengefulspirit, and are willing to forget. We believe that in the end rightwill conquer might. Innumerable as have been the disputes betweenChinese and foreigners it can at least be said, without going intodetails, that we have not, in the first instance, been the aggressors. Let me supply a local illustration showing how our faults are alwaysexaggerated. Western people are fond of horse-racing. In Shanghaithey have secured from the Chinese a large piece of ground where theyhold race meetings twice a year, but no Chinese are allowed on thegrand-stand during the race days. They are provided with a separateentrance, and a separate enclosure, as though they were the victims ofsome infectious disease. I have been told that a few years ago aChinese gentleman took some Chinese ladies into the grand-stand andthat they misbehaved; hence this discriminatory treatment of Chinese. It is proper that steps should be taken to preserve order and decencyin public places, but is it fair to interdict the people of a nation onaccount of the misconduct of two or three? Suppose it had been Germanswho had misbehaved themselves (which is not likely), would the raceclub have dared to exclude Germans from sharing with other nations thepleasures of the races? In contrast with this, let us see what the Chinese have done. Havinglearned the game of horse-racing from the foreigners in China, and notbeing allowed to participate, they have formed their own race club, and, with intention, have called it the "International RecreationClub". This Club has purchased a large tract of land at Kiangwan, about five miles from Shanghai, and has turned it into a race-course, considerably larger than that in Shanghai. When a race meeting is heldthere, IT IS OPEN TO FOREIGNERS AS WELL AS CHINESE, in factcomplimentary tickets have even been sent to the members of the foreignrace club inviting their attendance. Half of the members of the racecommittee are foreigners; while foreigners and Chinese act jointly asstewards and judges; the ponies that run are owned by foreigners aswell as by Chinese, and Chinese jockeys compete with foreign jockeys inall the events. A most pleasing feature of these races is the verymanifest cordial good feeling which prevails throughout the racesthere. The Chinese have been dubbed "semi-civilized and heathenish", but the "International Recreation Club" and the Kiangwan race-coursedisplay an absence of any desire to retaliate and sentiments ofinternational friendship such as it would, perhaps, be difficult toparallel. Should such people be denied admission into Australia, Canada, or the United States? Would not the exclusionists in thosecountries profit by association with them? The immigration laws in force in Australia are, I am informed, evenmore strict and more severe than those in the United States. Theyamount to almost total prohibition; for they are directed not onlyagainst Chinese laborers but are so operated that the Chinese merchantand student are also practically refused admission. In the course of alecture delivered in England by Mrs. Annie Besant in 1912 on "Thecitizenship of colored races in the British Empire", while condemningthe race prejudices of her own people, she brought out a fact whichwill be interesting to my readers, especially to the Australians. Shesays, "In Australia a very curious change is taking place. Color hasvery much deepened in that clime, and the Australian has become veryyellow; so that it becomes a problem whether, after a time, the peoplewould be allowed to live in their own country. The white people arefar more colored than are some Indians. " In the face of this plain factis it not time, for their own sake, that the Australians should droptheir cry against yellow people and induce their Parliament to abolish, or at least to modify, their immigration laws with regard to the yellowrace? Australians are anxious to extend their trade, and they havesent commercial commissioners to Japan and other Eastern countries withthe view to developing and expanding commerce. Mr. J. B. Suttor, Special Commissioner of New South Wales, has published the followingadvertisement: "NEW SOUTH WALES. The Land of Reward for Capital Commerce andIndustry. Specially subsidized steamers now giving direct servicebetween Sydney, THE PREMIER COMMERCIAL CENTER OF AUSTRALIA, ANDSHANGHAI. Thus offering special facilities for Commerce and Tourists. NEW SOUTH WALES PRODUCTS ARE STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE. " Commerce and friendship go together, but how Australians can expect todevelop trade in a country whose people are not allowed to come tovisit her shores even for the purposes of trade, passes mycomprehension. Perhaps, having heard so much of the forgiving andmagnanimous spirit of the Chinese, Australians expect the Chinese togreet them with smiles and to trade with them, while being kicked inreturn. I believe in the doctrine of the universal brotherhood of men. It iscontrary to the law (God) of creation that some people should shut outother people from portions of the earth solely from motives ofselfishness and jealousy; the injury caused by such selfish acts willsooner or later react on the doers. "Every man is his own ancestor. We are preparing for the days that come, and we are what we are to-dayon account of what has gone before. " The dog-in-the-manger policydevelops doggish instincts in those who practise it; and, after all, civilization without kindness and justice is not worth having. Inconclusion, I will let the English poet, William Wordsworth, state"Nature's case". Listen to these noble lines from the ninth canto of his "Excursion". "Alas! what differs more than man from man, And whence that difference? Whence but from himself? For see the universal Race endowed With the same upright form. The sun is fixed And the infinite magnificence of heaven Fixed, within reach of every human eye; The sleepless ocean murmurs for all years; The vernal field infuses fresh delight Into all hearts. Throughout the world of sense, Even as an object is sublime or fair, That object is laid open to the view Without reserve or veil; and as a power Is salutary, or an influence sweet, Are each and all enabled to perceive That power, that influence, by impartial law, Gifts nobler are vouchsafed alike to all; Reason, and, with that reason, smiles and tears; Imagination, freedom in the will; Conscience to guide and check; and death to be Foretasted, immortality conceived By all--a blissful immortality, To them whose holiness on earth shall make The Spirit capable of heaven, assured. .............................. The smoke ascends To Heaven as lightly from the cottage hearth As from the haughtiest palace. He whose soul Ponders this true equality, may walk The fields of earth with gratitude and hope; Yet, in that meditation, will he find Motive to sadder grief, as we have found; Lamenting ancient virtues overthrown, And for the injustice grieving, that hath made So wide a difference between man and man. " Chapter 13. Dinners, Banquets, Etc. Dinner, as we all know, indicates a certain hour and a certain habitwhose aim is the nourishment of the body, and a deliverance fromhunger; but in our modern civilized life it possesses other purposesalso. Man is a gregarious animal, and when he takes his food he likescompany; from this peculiarity there has sprung up the custom of dinnerparties. In attending dinner parties, however, the guests as a rule donot seek sustenance, they only go to them when they have nothing elseto do, and many scarcely touch the food that is laid before them. Their object is to do honor to the host and hostess, not to eat, but tobe entertained by pleasant and congenial conversation. Nevertheless, the host, at whose invitation the company has assembled, is expected toprovide a great abundance and a large variety of savory dishes, as wellas a good supply of choice wines. Flesh and wine are indispensable, even though the entertainers eschew both in their private life, andmost of the guests daily consume too much of each. Few have thecourage to part with conventional practices when arranging a socialfunction. American chefs are excellent caterers, and well know how to please thetastes of the American people. They concentrate on the art ofproviding dainty dishes, and human ingenuity is heavily taxed by themin their efforts to invent new gustatory delicacies. The dishes whichthey place before each guest are so numerous that even a gourmand mustleave some untouched. At a fashionable dinner no one can possiblytaste, much less eat, everything that is placed before him, yet thefood is all so nicely cooked and served in so appetizing a manner, thatit is difficult to resist the temptation at least to sample it; whenyou have done this, however, you will continue eating until all hasbeen finished, but your stomach will probably be a sad sufferer, groaning grievously on the following day on account of the frolic ofyour palate. This ill-mated pair, although both are chiefly interestedin food, seldom seem to agree. I must not omit to mention however thatthe number of courses served at an American millionaire's dinner isafter all less numerous than those furnished at a Chinese feast. Whena Chinese gentleman asks his friends to dine with him the menu mayinclude anywhere from thirty to fifty or a hundred courses; but many ofthe dishes are only intended for show. The guests are not expected toeat everything on the table, or even to taste every delicacy, unless, indeed, they specially desire to do so. Again, we don't eat soheartily as do the Americans, but content ourselves with one or twomouthfuls from each set of dishes, and allow appreciable intervals toelapse between courses, during which we make merry, smoke, andotherwise enjoy the company. This is a distinct advantage in favor ofChina. In Europe and America, dessert forms the last course at dinner; inChina this is served first. I do not know which is the better way. Chinese are ever ready to accept the best from every quarter, and somany of us have recently adopted the Western practice regardingdessert, while still retaining the ancient Chinese custom, so that nowwe eat sweetmeats and fruit at the beginning, during dinner, and at theend. This happy combination of Eastern and Western practices is, Isubmit, worthy of expansion and extension. If it were to becomeuniversal it would help to discourage the present unwholesome habit, for it is nothing more than a habit, of devouring flesh. One of the dishes indispensable at a fashionable American dinner is theterrapin. Those who eat these things say that their flesh has a mostagreeable and delicate flavor, and that their gelatinous skinny necksand fins are delicious, but apparently the most palatable tidbits pallthe taste in time, for it is said that about forty years ago terrapinswere so abundant and cheap that workmen in their agreement with theiremployers stipulated that terrapin should not be supplied at theirdinner table more than three times a week. Since then terrapins havebecome so rare that no stylish dinner ever takes place without thisdish. Oysters are another Western sine qua non, and are always servedraw. I wonder how many ladies and gentlemen who swallow these molluscawith such evident relish know that they are veritable scavengers, whichpick up and swallow every dirty thing in the water. A friend of mineafter taking a few of them on one occasion, had to leave the table andgo home; he was ill afterward for several days. One cannot be toocareful as to what one eats. The United States has a Pure FoodDepartment, but I think it might learn a great deal that it does notknow if it were to send a commission to China to study life in theBuddhist monasteries, where only sanitary, healthful food is consumed. It is always a surprise to me that people are so indifferent to thekind of food they take. Public health officers are useful officials, but when we have become more civilized each individual will be his ownhealth officer. Some of the well-known Chinese dishes are very relishable and shouldnot be overlooked by chefs and dinner hostesses. I refer to thesharks' fins, and birds' nest--the Eastern counterpart of the Westernpiece de resistance--the terrapin. From a hygienic point of viewsharks' fins may not be considered as very desirable, seeing they arepart of the shark, but they are certainly not worse, and are perhapsbetter, than what is called the "high and tender" pheasant, and otherflesh foods which are constantly found on Western dining tables, andwhich are so readily eaten by connoisseurs. Birds' nest soup is farsuperior to turtle soup, and I have the opinion of an American chemistwho analyzed it, that it is innocuous and minus the injurious uric acidgenerated by animal flesh, the cause of rheumatic and similar painfulcomplaints. The "chop suey" supplied in the Chinese restaurants in New York, Chicago, and other places, seems to be a favorite dish with theAmerican public. It shows the similarity of our tastes, and encouragesme to expect that some of my recommendations will be accepted. Will some one inform me why so many varieties of wines are alwaysserved on American tables, and why the sparkling champagne is neveravoidable? Wealthy families will spare neither pains nor expense tospread most sumptuous dinners, and it has been reported that the costof an entertainment given by one rich lady amounted to twenty thousandpounds sterling, although, as I have said, eating is the last thing forwhich the guests assemble. I do not suppose that many will agree with me, but in my opinion itwould be much more agreeable, and improve the general conversation, ifall drinks of an intoxicating nature were abolished from the diningtable. It is gratifying to know that there are some families (may thenumber increase every day!) where intoxicating liquors are never seenon their tables. The first instance of this sort that came under mynotice was in the home of that excellent woman, Mrs. M. F. Henderson, who is an ardent advocate of diet reform and teetotalism. Mr. WilliamJennings Bryan, the Secretary of State, has set a noble example, asfrom newspaper reports it appears that he gave a farewell dinner toAmbassador Bryce, without champagne or other alcoholic drinks. He hasa loyal supporter in Shanghai, in the person of the AmericanConsul-General, Dr. A. P. Wilder, who, to the great regret of everybodywho knows him in this port, is retiring from the service on account ofill-health. Dr. Wilder is very popular and figures largely in thesocial life of the community, but Dr. Wilder is a staunch opponent ofalcohol, and through his influence wines at public dinners are alwaystreated as extras. So long as the liquor traffic is so extensively andprofitably carried on in Europe and America, and so long as theconsumption of alcohol is so enormous, so long will there be adifference of opinion as to its ill effects, but in this matter, bymeans of its State Prohibition Laws, America is setting an example tothe world. In no other country are there such extensive tracts withoutalcohol as the "Dry States" of America. China, who is waging war onopium, recognizes in this fact a kindred, active moral force which isabsent elsewhere, and, shaking hands with her sister republic acrossthe seas, hopes that she will some day be as free of alcoholic poisonsas China herself hopes to be of opium. Every vice, however, has itsdefense. Some years ago I met a famous Dutch artist in Peking, who, though still in the prime of life, was obliged to lay aside his workfor a few days each month, due to an occasional attack of rheumatism. I found he was fond of his cup, though I did not understand that he wasan immoderate drinker. I discoursed to him somewhat lengthily aboutthe evil effects of drink, and showed him that unless he was willing togive up all intoxicating liquor, his rheumatism would never give himup. He listened attentively, pondered for a few minutes, and then gavethis characteristic answer: "I admit the soundness of your argumentbut I enjoy my glass exceedingly; if I were to follow your advice Ishould be deprived of a lot of pleasure. Indeed, I would rather havethe rheumatic pains, which disappear after two or three days, andcontinue to enjoy my alcoholic drinks, than endure the misery of doingwithout them. " I warned him that in course of time his rheumatismwould be longer in duration and attack him more frequently, if hecontinued to ignore its warnings and to play with what, for him, wascertainly poison. When anyone has a habit, be it injurious orotherwise, it is not easy to persuade him to abandon it. "The Aristocracy of Health" written by the talented Mrs. Henderson isan admirable work. I owe much to it. The facts and arguments adducedagainst tobacco smoking, strong drink and poisonous foods, are setforth in such a clear and convincing manner, that soon after reading itI became a teetotaler and "sanitarian"[1] and began at once to reap thebenefits. I felt that I ought not to keep such a good thing to myself, but that I should preach the doctrine far and wide. I soon found, however, that it was an impossible task to try to save men fromthemselves, and I acquired the unenviable sobriquet of "crank"; but Iwas not dismayed. From my native friends I turned to the foreigncommunity in Peking, thinking that the latter would possess betterjudgment, appreciate and be converted to the sanitarian doctrine. Among the foreigners I appealed to, one was a distinguished diplomat, and the other a gentleman in the Chinese service, with a world-widereputation. Both were elderly and in delicate health, and it was myearnest hope that by reading Mrs. Henderson's book, which was sent tothem, they would be convinced of their errors and turn over a newleaf--I was disappointed. Both, in returning the book, madesubstantially the same answer. "Mrs. Henderson's work is veryinteresting, but at my time of life it is not advisable to changelife-long habits. I eat flesh moderately, and never drink much wine. "They both seemed to overlook the crucial problem as to whether or notanimal food contains hurtful poison. If it does, it should not beeaten at all. We never hear of sensible people taking arsenic, strychnine, or other poisons, in moderation, but many foolish women, Ibelieve, take arsenic to pale their complexions, while others, both menand women, take strychnine in combination with other drugs, as a tonic, but will anyone argue that these substances are foods? The rule ofmoderation is applicable to things which are nutritious, or at leastharmless, but not to noxious foods, however small the quantity ofpoison they may contain. Pleasant conversation at the dinner table is always enjoyable, and agood talker is always welcome, but I often wonder why Americans, whogenerally are so quick to improve opportunity, and are noted for theirfreedom from traditional conventionalisms, do not make a moresystematic use of the general love of good conversation. Anyone who isa witty conversationalist, with a large fund of anecdote, is sure to beasked by every dinner host to help to entertain the guests, but if thecompany be large the favorite can be enjoyed by only a few, and thosewho are too far away to hear, or who are just near enough to hear apart but not all, are likely to feel aggrieved. They cannot hear whatis amusing the rest, while the talk elsewhere prevents their talking asthey would if there were no interruptions. A raconteur generallymonopolizes half the company, and leaves the other half out in thecold. This might be avoided if talkers were engaged to entertain thewhole company during dinner, as pianists are now sometimes engaged toplay to them after dinner. Or, the entertainment might be varied byengaging a good professional reciter to reproduce literary gems, comicor otherwise. I am sure the result would bring more generalsatisfaction to the guests than the present method of leaving them toentertain themselves. Chinese employ singing girls; Japanese, geishasto talk, sing or dance. The ideal would here again seem to be anamalgamation of East and West. It is difficult for a mixed crowd to be always agreeable, even in thecongenial atmosphere of a good feast, unless the guests have beenselected with a view to their opinions rather than to their socialstanding. Place a number of people whose ideas are common, with adifference, around a well-spread table and there will be no lack ofgood, earnest, instructive conversation. Most men and women can talkwell if they have the right sort of listeners. If the hearer isunsympathetic the best talker becomes dumb. Hosts who remember thiswill always be appreciated. As a rule, a dinner conversation is seldom worth remembering, which isa pity. Man, the most sensible of all animals, can talk nonsensebetter than all the rest of his tribe. Perhaps the flow of words maybe as steady as the eastward flow of the Yang-tse-Kiang in my owncountry, but the memory only retains a recollection of a vague, undefined--what? The conversation like the flavors provided by thecooks has been evanescent. Why should not hostesses make as mucheffort to stimulate the minds of their guests as they do to gratifytheir palates? What a boon it would be to many a bashful man, sittingnext to a lady with whom he has nothing in common, if some publicentertainer during the dinner relieved him from the necessity of alwaysthinking of what he should say next? How much more he could enjoy thetasty dishes his hostess had provided; and as for the lady--what anumber of suppressed yawns she might have avoided. To take great painsand spend large sums to provide nice food for people who cannot enjoyit because they have to talk to one another, seems a pity. Let one mantalk to the rest and leave them leisure to eat, is my suggestion. The opportunities afforded at the dining table may be turned to manyuseful purposes. Of course not all are ill-paired, and many young menand ladies meet, sit side by side, engage in a friendly, pleasantconversation, renew their acquaintance at other times, and finallymerge their separate paths in the highway of marriage. Perhaps Chinamight borrow a leaf from this custom and substitute dinner parties forgo-betweens. The dinner-party method, however, has its dangers as wellas its advantages--it depends on the point of view. Personalpeculiarities and defects, if any, can be easily detected by the way inwhich the conversation is carried on, and the manner in which the foodis handled. It has sometimes happened that the affianced havecancelled their engagement after a dinner party. On the other hand, matters of great import can often be arranged at the dinner tablebetter than anywhere else. Commercial transactions involving millionsof dollars have frequently been settled while the parties were sippingchampagne; even international problems, ending in elaboratenegotiations and treaties, have been first discussed with theafterdinner cigar. The atmosphere of good friendship and equality, engendered by a well-furnished room, good cheer, pleasant company, anda genial hostess, disarms prejudice, removes barriers, melts reserve, and disposes one to see that there is another side to every question. In China when people have quarreled their friends generally invite themto dinner, where the matters in dispute are amicably arranged. Theseare called "peace dinners". I would recommend that a similar expedientshould be adopted in America; many a knotty point could be disposed ofby a friendly discussion at the dinner table. If internationaldisputes were always arranged in this way the representatives ofnations having complaints against each other might more often than nowdiscover unexpected ways of adjusting their differences. Why shouldsuch matters invariably be remanded to formal conferences and setspeeches? The preliminaries, at least, would probably be betterarranged at dinner parties and social functions. Eating has alwaysbeen associated with friendship. "To eat salt" with an Arab forms amost binding contract. Even "the serpent" in the book of Genesiscommenced his acquaintance with Eve by suggesting a meal. It almost seems as if there were certain unwritten laws in Americansociety, assigning certain functions to certain days in the week. I donot believe Americans are superstitious, but I found that Thursday wasgreatly in favor. I remember on one occasion that Mrs. Grant, widow ofthe late President, sent an invitation to my wife and myself to dine ather house some Thursday evening; this was three weeks in advance, andwe readily accepted her invitation. After our acceptance, about adozen invitations came for that same Thursday, all of which we had, ofcourse, to decline. Curiously enough we received no invitations forany other day during that week, and just before that eventful Thursdaywe received a letter from Mrs. Grant cancelling the invitation onaccount of the death of one of her relations, so that we had to dine athome after all. Now we Chinese make no such distinctions between days. Every day of the week is equally good; in order however to avoidclashing with other peoples' engagements, we generally fix Fridays forour receptions or dinners, but there is not among the Chinese anentertainment season as there is in Washington, and other great cities, when everybody in good society is busy attending or giving "At Homes", tea parties or dinners. I frequently attended "At Homes" or teaparties in half-a-dozen places or more in one afternoon, but no one candine during the same evening in more than one place. In this respectAmerica might learn a lesson from China. We can accept half-a-dozeninvitations to dinner for one evening; all we have to do is to go toeach place in turn, partake of one or two dishes, excuse ourselves tothe host and then go somewhere else. By this means we avoid theseeming rudeness of a declination, and escape the ill feelings whichare frequently created in the West by invitations being refused. TheChinese method makes possible the cultivation of democratic friendshipswithout violating aristocratic instincts, and for candidates atelection times it would prove an agreeable method by which to make newfriends. We are less rigid than Americans about dropping in and takinga mouthful or two at dinner, even without a special invitation. [2] Washington officials and diplomats usually give large entertainments. The arranging of the seats at the dinner table is a delicate matter, asthe rule of precedence has to be observed, and inattention to the rule, by placing a wrong seat for a gentleman or lady who is entitled to ahigher place, may be considered as a slight. It is at such functionsas these that the professional story-teller, the good reciter, theclever reader, the perfect entertainer would make the natural selfishreserve of mankind less apparent. Fashionable people, who entertain a good deal, are, I understand, oftenpuzzled to know how to provide novelties. In addition to thesuggestions I have made, may I be pardoned another? There are manygood cooks in the U. S. A. Why not commission these to sometimes preparea recherche Chinese dinner, with the food served in bowls instead ofplates, and with chop-sticks ("nimble lads" we call them) for show, butforks and spoons for use. I see no reason why Chinese meals should notbecome fashionable in America, as Western preparations are frequentlyfavored by the Elite in China. One marked difference between the twostyles is the manner in which the Chinese purveyor throws his mostdelicate flavors into strong relief by prefacing it with a diet whichis insipid, harsh or pungent. Contrasts add zest to everything human, be it dining, working, playing, or wooing. This suggests an occasional, toothsome vegetarian repast as a set-offto the same round of fish, flesh, fowl and wine fumes. No people inthe world can prepare such delicious vegetarian banquets as a Chineseculinary artist. A banquet is a more formal affair than the dinner parties I have beendiscussing. It is generally gotten up to celebrate some special event, such as the conclusion of some important business, or the birthday ofsome national hero like Washington, Lincoln, or Grant; or the Chambersof Commerce and Associations of different trades in the importantcities of America will hold their annual meetings to hear a report anddiscuss the businesses transacted during the year, winding up byholding a large banquet. The food supplied on these occasions is by no means superior to thatgiven at private dinners, yet everybody is glad to be invited. It isthe inevitable rule that speeches follow the eating, and people attend, not for the sake of the food, but for the privilege of hearing otherstalk. Indeed, except for the opportunity of talking, or hearing otherstalk, people would probably prefer a quiet meal at home. Speakers witha reputation, orators, statesmen, or foreign diplomats are frequentlyinvited, and sometimes eminent men from other countries are the guestsof honor. These functions occur every year, and the Foreign Ministerswith whose countries the Associations have commercial relations aregenerally present. The topics discussed are nearly always the same, and it is not easy tospeak at one of these gatherings without going over the same ground asthat covered on previous occasions. I remember that a colleague ofmine who was a clever diplomat, and for whom I had great respect, oncewhen asked to make an after-dinner speech, reluctantly rose and, as faras I can remember, spoke to the following effect: "Mr. Chairman andgentlemen, I thank your Association for inviting me to this splendidbanquet, but as I had the honor of speaking at your banquet last year Ihave nothing more to add, and I refer you to that speech;" he then satdown. The novelty of his remarks, of course, won him applause, but Ishould like to know what the company really thought of him. For mypart, I praised his wisdom, for he diplomatically rebuked all whoseonly interest is that which has its birth with the day and disappearswith the night. Banquets and dinners in America, as in China, are, however, often farremoved from frivolities. Statesmen sometimes select theseopportunities for a pronouncement of their policy, even the Presidentof the nation may occasionally think it advisable to do this. Speechesdelivered on such occasions are generally reported in all thenewspapers, and, of course, discussed by all sorts of people, the wiseand the otherwise, so that the speaker has to be very careful as towhat he says. Our President confines himself to the more formalprocedure of issuing an official mandate, the same in kind, thoughdiffering in expression, as an American President's Inaugural Address, or one of his Messages to Congress. Commercial men do not understand and are impatient with therestrictions which hedge round a Foreign Minister, and in their anxietyto get speakers they will look anywhere. On one occasion I received aninvitation to go to Canada to attend a banquet at a Commercial Club inone of the principal Canadian cities. It would have given me greatpleasure to be able to comply with this request, as I had not thenvisited that country, but, contrary to inclination, I had to decline. I was accredited as Minister to Washington, and did not feel at libertyto visit another country without the special permission of my HomeGovernment. Public speaking, like any other art, has to be cultivated. Howeverscholarly a man may be, and however clever he may be in privateconversation, when called upon to speak in public he may sometimes makea very poor impression. I have known highly placed foreign officials, with deserved reputations for wisdom and ability, who were shockinglypoor speakers at banquets. They would hesitate and almost stammer, andwould prove quite incapable of expressing their thoughts in anysensible or intelligent manner. In this respect, personal observationshave convinced me that Americans, as a rule, are better speakersthan.... (I will not mention the nationality in my mind, it might giveoffense. ) An American, who, without previous notice, is called upon tospeak, generally acquits himself creditably. He is nearly alwayswitty, appreciative, and frank. This is due, I believe, to thethorough-going nature of his education: he is taught to beself-confident, to believe in his own ability to create, to express hisopinions without fear. A diffident and retiring man, whose chiefcharacteristic is extreme modesty, is not likely to be a good speaker;but Americans are free from this weakness. Far be it from me tosuggest that there are no good speakers in other countries. Americacan by no means claim a monopoly of orators; there are many elsewherewhose sage sayings and forcible logic are appreciated by all who hearor read them; but, on the whole, Americans excel others in thereadiness of their wit, and their power to make a good extempore speechon any subject, without opportunity for preparation. Neither is the fair sex in America behind the men in this matter. Ihave heard some most excellent speeches by women, speeches which woulddo credit to an orator; but they labor under a disadvantage. Thefemale voice is soft and low, it is not easily heard in a large room, and consequently the audience sometimes does not appreciate ladyspeakers to the extent that they deserve. However, I know a lady whopossesses a powerful, masculine voice, and who is a very popularspeaker, but she is an exception. Anyhow I believe the worst speaker, male or female, could improve by practising private declamation, andawakening to the importance of articulation, modulation, and--the pause. Another class of social functions are "At Homes", tea parties, andreceptions. The number of guests invited to these is almost unlimited, it may be one or two dozen, or one or two dozen hundreds. The purposeof these is usually to meet some distinguished stranger, some guest inthe house, or the newly married daughter of the hostess. It isimpossible for the host or hostess to remember all those who attend, oreven all who have been invited to attend; generally visitors leavetheir cards, although many do not even observe this rule, but walkright in as if they owned the house. When a newcomer is introduced hisname is scarcely audible, and before the hostess, or the distinguishedguest, has exchanged more than one or two words with him, anotherstranger comes along, so that it is quite excusable if the next timethe hosts meet these people they do not recognize them. In China a newfashion is now in vogue; new acquaintances exchange cards. If thiscustom should be adopted in America there would be less complaintsabout new friends receiving the cold shoulder from those who theythought should have known them. In large receptions, such as those mentioned above, however spaciousthe reception hall, in a great many instances there is not evenstanding room for all who attend. It requires but little imaginationto understand the condition of the atmosphere when there is no properventilation. Now, what always astonished me was, that although theparlor might be crowded with ladies and gentlemen, all the windowswere, as a rule, kept closed, with the result that the place was fullof vitiated air. Frequently after a short time I have had to slip awaywhen I would willingly have remained longer to enjoy the charmingcompany. If I had done so, however, I should have taken into my lungsa large amount of the obnoxious atmosphere exhaled from hundreds ofother persons in the room, to the injury of my health, and no one cangive his fellows his best unless his health is hearty. No wonder weoften hear of a host or hostess being unwell after a big function. Their feelings on the morning after are often the reverse of "good-willto men", and the cause is not a lowered moral heartiness but a weakenedphysical body through breathing too much air exhaled from otherpeople's lungs. When man understands, he will make "good health" areligious duty. In connection with this I quote Dr. J. H. Kellogg, the eminentphysician and Superintendent of the Battle Creek Sanitarium. In hisbook, "The Living Temple"[3], the doctor speaks as follows on theimportance of breathing pure air: "The purpose of breathing is toobtain from the air a supply of oxygen, which the blood takes up andcarries to the tissues. Oxygen is one of the most essential of all thematerials required for the support of life.... The amount of oxygennecessarily required for this purpose is about one and one-fourth cubicinches for each breath.... In place of the one and one-fourth cubicinches of oxygen taken into the blood, a cubic inch of carbonic acidgas is given off, and along with it are thrown off various other stillmore poisonous substances which find a natural exit through the lungs. The amount of these combined poisons thrown off with a single breath issufficient to contaminate, and render unfit to breathe, three cubicfeet, or three-fourths of a barrel, of air. Counting an average oftwenty breaths a minute for children and adults, the amount of aircontaminated per minute would be three times twenty or sixty cubicfeet, or one cubic foot a second.... Every one should becomeintelligent in relation to the matter of ventilation, and shouldappreciate its importance. Vast and irreparable injury frequentlyresults from the confinement of several scores or hundreds of people ina schoolroom, church, or lecture room, without adequate means ofremoving the impurities thrown off from their lungs and bodies. Thesame air being breathed over and over becomes densely charged withpoisons, which render the blood impure, lessen the bodily resistance, and induce susceptibility to taking cold, and to infection with thegerms of pneumonia, consumption, and other infectious diseases, whichare always present in a very crowded audience room. Suppose, forexample, a thousand persons are seated in a room forty feet in width, sixty in length, and fifteen in height: how long a time would elapsebefore the air of such a room would become unfit for furtherrespiration? Remembering that each person spoils one foot of air everysecond, it is clear that one thousand cubic feet of air will becontaminated for every second that the room is occupied. To ascertainthe number of seconds which would elapse before the entire aircontained in the room will be contaminated, so that it is unfit forfurther breathing, we have only to divide the cubic contents of theroom by one thousand. Multiplying, we have 60*40*15 equals 36, 000, thenumber of cubic feet. This, divided by one thousand, gives thirty-sixas the number of seconds. Thus it appears that with closed doors andwindows, breath poisoning of the audience would begin at the end ofthirty-six seconds, or less than one minute. The condition of the airin such a room at the end of an hour cannot be adequately pictured inwords, and yet hundreds of audiences are daily subjected to just suchinhumane treatment through ignorance. " The above remarks apply not only to churches, lecture rooms, and otherpublic places, but also with equal force to offices and family houses. I should like to know how many persons pay even a little attention tothis important subject of pure air breathing? You go to an office, whether large or small, and you find all the windows closed, althoughthere are half-a-dozen or more persons working in the room. No wonderthat managers, clerks, and other office workers often break down andrequire a holiday to recuperate their impaired health at the seaside, or elsewhere. When you call at a private residence you will find the same thing, allthe windows closed. It is true that there are not so many persons inthe room as in an office, but if your sense of smell is keen you willnotice that the air has close, stuffy exhalations, which surely cannotbe sanitary. If you venture to suggest that one of the windows beopened the lady of the house will at once tell you that you will be ina draught and catch cold. It is a matter of daily occurrence to find a number of persons diningin a room where there is no opening for the contaminated air to leakout, or for the fresh air to come in. After dinner the gentlemenadjourn to the library to enjoy the sweet perfumes of smoking for anhour or so with closed windows. What a picture would be presented ifthe bacteria in the air could be sketched, enlarged, and thrown on ascreen, or better still shown in a cinematograph, but apparentlygentlemen do not mind anything so long as they can inhale thepernicious tobacco fumes. It is a common practice, I fear, to keep the windows of the bedroomclosed, except in hot weather. I have often suggested to friends that, for the sake of their health, they should at least keep one of thewindows, if not more, open during the night, but they have pooh-poohedthe idea on account of that bugaboo--a draught. It is one of themysteries of the age that people should be willing to breathesecond-hand air when there is so much pure, fresh air out of doors tobe had for nothing; after inhaling and exhaling the same air over andover again all through the night it is not strange that they rise inthe morning languid and dull instead of being refreshed and in highspirits. No one who is deprived of a sufficiency of fresh air can longremain efficient. Health is the cornerstone of success. I hear manynowadays talking of Eugenics. Eugenics was founded ten years ago bySir Francis Galton, who defined it thus: "The study of agencies undercontrol that may improve or impair the racial qualities of futuregenerations, either physically or mentally. " The University of Londonhas adopted this definition, where a chair of Eugenics has beenfounded. This science is undoubtedly of the first importance, but whatadvantage is good birth if afterward life is poisoned with foul air? Adust-laden atmosphere is a germ-laden atmosphere, therefore physiciansprescribe for tubercular convalescents conditions in which the air is90% free from dust. However, the air of the city has beenscientifically proven to be as pure as the air of the country. Allthat is necessary to secure proper lung food is plenty of it, --housesso constructed that the air inside shall be free to go out and the airoutside to come in. Air in a closed cage must be mischievous, and whatare ill-ventilated rooms but vicious air cages, in which mischiefs ofall sorts breed? America professes to believe in publicity, and what is "publicity" butthe open window and the open door? Practise this philosophy and itwill be easy to keep on the sunny side of the street and to discouragethe glooms. The joys fly in at open windows. [1] I have never been a smoker and have always eschewed tobacco, cigarettes, etc. ; though for a short while to oblige friends Ioccasionally accepted a cigarette, now I firmly refuse everything ofthe sort. [2] Since writing the above, I have heard from an American lady that"progressive dinners" have recently been introduced by the idle andrich set of young people in New York. The modus operandi is thatseveral dinners will, by arrangement, be given on a certain day, andthe guests will go to each house alternately, eating one or two dishesonly and remaining at the last house for fruit. I can hardly believethis, but my friend assures me it is a fact. It seems that eating isturned into play, and to appreciate the fun, I would like to be one ofthe actors. [3] "The Living Temple", by J. H. Kellogg, pp. 282 et al. Published byGood Health Publishing Co. , Battle Creek, Mich. , U. S. A. Chapter 14. Theaters The ideal of China is sincerity but an actor is a pretender. Heappears to be what he is not. Now our ancient wise men felt thatpretense of any sort must have a dangerous reactionary influence on thecharacter. If a man learns how to be a clever actor on the stage hemay be a skilled deceiver in other walks of life. Moreover, no one towhom sincerity is as the gums are to the teeth, would wish to acquirethe art of acting as though he were some one else. Hence actors inChina have from ancient times been looked down upon. Actresses, untilthe last decade or so, were unknown in China, and a boy who became anactor could never afterward occupy any position of honor. He, hischildren and his grandchildren might be farmers, merchants or soldiers, but they could never be teachers, literary men or officials. TheChinese feeling for sincerity, amounting almost to worship, has causedthe profession of an actor in China to be considered a very low one, and so until the new regime the actor was always debarred fromattending any literary examination, and was also deprived of theprivilege of obtaining official appointment; in fact he was consideredan outcast of society. No respectable Chinese family would think ofallowing their son to go on the stage. As a natural consequent themembers of the Chinese stage have, as a rule, been men who were as muchbelow the level of moral respectability as conventionalism had alreadyadjudged them to be below the level of social respectability. Regardanyone as a mirror with a cracked face and he will soon justify youropinion of him. If the morals of Chinese actors will not bearinvestigation it is probably due to the social ostracism to which theyhave always been subjected. The same phenomenon may be seen inconnection with Buddhism. As soon as Buddhism in China ceased to be apower the priests became a despised class and being despised they haveoften given occasion to others to despise them. I am aware that quite a different view is held of the stage in Americaand Europe, and that actors and actresses are placed on an equalfooting with other members of society. This does not, of course, meanthat either America or Europe lays less stress on sincerity than China, but simply that we have developed in different ways. I have heard ofthe old "morality plays", I know that English drama, like the Egyptian, Greek, and Indian, had its origin in religion, but this alone will notexplain the different attitude assumed toward actors in the West fromthat taken up in China. [1] I am inclined to think that the reason whyactors are not despised in the West as they are in China is because theWest considers first the utility of pleasure, and the East thesupremacy of sincerity. Here, as is so frequently the case, apparentdifferences are largely differences of emphasis. The West would seemto emphasize the beauty of the desire to please where Chinese considerthe effect on character or business. The expensive dinners which noone eats and which I discussed in a previous chapter are anillustration. No one in China would spend money in this fashionexcepting for some definite purpose. We Chinese like to flatter, and to openly praise to their faces thosewhom we admire. Most Westerners, would, I think, please rather thanadmire; most men and women in America and Europe enjoy applause morethan instruction. This recognition of the delicate pleasure of beingable to please some one else naturally attracts quite a different typeto the Western stage from the material usually found in Chinesedramatic companies, and in a society where everyone acknowledges thebeauty of pleasing another, the position of the actor naturally becomesboth envied and desirable. When therefore a man or woman succeeds onthe European or American stage he or she is looked up to and welcomedin fashionable society, e. G. , Henry Irving had the entree to thehighest society, and his portrait was always found among the notables. Newspapers published long notices of his stage performances, and whenhe died he received as great honors as England could give. During hislifetime he enjoyed the royal favor of Queen Victoria, who conferred aknighthood upon him. After his death his biography was published andread by thousands. All this is quite contrary to the spirit of theChinese who, no matter how clever a man may be as an actor, can neverforget that he is a pretender and that the cleverer he is the greatercare exists for guarding one's self against his tricks. Actresses are no less respected and honored in the West, whereas inChina there are positively no respectable women on the stage. Yet inthe West it is a common occurrence to hear of marriages of actresses tobankers, merchants, and millionaires. Even ballet-girls have becomeduchesses by marriage. The stage is considered a noble profession. Often, when a girl has a good voice, nothing will satisfy her but astage career. A situation such as this is very difficult for a Chineseto analyze. The average Chinese woman lacks the imagination, theself-abandon, the courage which must be necessary before a girl canthink of herself as standing alone in a bright light before a largeaudience waiting to see her dance or hear her sing. Chinese actresseswere quite unknown until very recently, and the few that may be nowfound on the Chinese stage were nearly all of questionable characterbefore they entered the theater. In the northern part of China somegood Chinese women may be found in circuses, but these belong to theworking class and take up the circus life with their husbands andbrothers for a livelihood. The actresses of the West are different. They are drawn to the stagefor the sake of art; and it must be their splendid daring as much astheir beauty which induces wealthy men, and even some of the nobility, to marry these women. Man loves courage and respects all who are braveenough to fight for their own. In a world where self-love (notselfishness) is highly esteemed, manhood, or the power ofself-assertion, whether in man or woman, naturally becomes afascinating virtue. No one likes to be colleague to a coward. Themillionaires and others who have married actresses--and as actressesmake plenty of money they are not likely to be willing to marry poormen--meet many women in society as beautiful as the women they see onthe stage, but society women lack the supreme courage and daring of thestage girl. Thus, very often the pretty, though less educated, ballet-girl, wins the man whom her more refined and less self-assertivesister--the ordinary society girl--is sorry to lose. The suffragettes are too intent just now on getting "Votes for Women"to listen to proposals of marriage, but when they succeed in obtaininguniversal suffrage I should think they would have little difficulty inobtaining brave husbands, for the suffragettes have courage. Thesewomen, however, are serious, and I do not think that men in the West, judging from what I have seen, like very serious wives. So perhapsafter all the ballet-girl and actresses will have more chances in themarriage (I had almost written money) market than the suffragettes. I may be mistaken in my theories. I have never had the opportunity ofdiscussing the matter with a millionaire or an actress, nor have Italked about the stage with any of the ladies who make it their home, but unless it is their superb independence and their ability to throwoff care and to act their part which attract men who are looking forwives, I cannot account for so many actresses marrying so well. What, however, we may ask, is the object of the theater? Is it notamusement? But when a serious play ending tragically is put on theboards is that amusement? The feelings of the audience afterwitnessing such a play must be far from pleasant, and sometimes evenmoody; yet tragedies are popular, and many will pay a high price to seea well-known actor commit most objectionable imitation-crimes on thestage. A few weeks before this chapter was written a number of men ofdifferent nationalities were punished for being present at a cockfightin Shanghai. Mexican and Spanish bullfights would not be permitted inthe United States, and yet it is a question whether the birds or theanimals who take part in these fights really suffer very much. Theyare in a state of ferocious exaltation, and are more concerned aboutkilling their opponents than about their own hurts. Soldiers have beenseriously wounded without knowing anything about it until theexcitement of the battle had died away. Why then forbid cockfightingor bull-baiting? They would be popular amusements if allowed. It iscertain that animals that are driven long distances along dirty roads, cattle, sheep, and fowl that are cooped up for many weary hours inrailway trucks, simply that they may reach a distant market and beslaughtered to gratify perverted human appetites, really suffer morethan the cock or bull who may be killed or wounded in a fight withothers of his own kind. What about the sufferings of pugilists whotake part in the prize-fights, in which so many thousands in the UnitedStates delight? It cannot be pity, therefore, for the birds or beasts, which makes the authorities forbid cockfighting and bull-baiting. Itmust be that although these are exhibitions of courage and skill, theexhibition is degrading to the spectators and to those who urge thecreatures to fight. But what is the difference, so far as thespectator is concerned, between watching a combat between animals orbirds and following a vivid dramatization of cruelty on the stage? Inthe latter case the mental sufferings which are portrayed arefrequently more harrowing than the details of any bull- or cockfight. Such representation, therefore, unless a very clear moral lesson orwarning is emblazoned throughout the play, must have the effect ofmaking actors, actresses and spectators less sympathetic withsuffering. Familiarity breeds insensibility. What I have said ofmelodrama applies also, though in a lesser degree, to books, and shouldbe a warning to parents to exercise proper supervision of theirchildren's reading. Far be it from me to disparage the work of the playwright; the plot isoften well laid and the actors, especially the prima-donna, executetheir parts admirably. I am considering the matter, at the moment, from the view-point of a play-goer. What benefit does he receive fromwitnessing a tragedy? In his home and his office has he not enough toengage his serious attention, and to frequently worry his mind? Is itworth his while to dress and spend an evening watching a performancewhich, however skilfully played, will make him no happier than before?It is a characteristic of those who are fond of sensational plays thatthey do not mind watching the tragical ending of a hero or a heroine, and all for the sake of amusement. Young people and children are notlikely to get good impressions from this sort of thing. It has evenbeen said that murders have been committed by youngsters who had beentaken by their parents to see a realistic melodrama. It is dangerousto allow young people of tender age to see such plays. The juvenilemind is not ripe enough to form correct judgments. Some time ago Iread in one of the American papers that a boy had killed his fatherwith a knife, on seeing him ill-treat his mother when in a state ofintoxication. It appeared that the lad had witnessed a dramatictragedy in a theater, and in killing his father considered he was doinga heroic act. He could, by the same rule, have been inspired to anoble act of self-sacrifice. After all, the main question is, does a sensational play exercise abeneficial or a pernicious influence over the audience? If the readerwill consider the matter impartially he should not have any difficultyin coming to a right conclusion. Theatrical performances should afford amusement and excite mirth, aswell as give instruction. People who visit theaters desire to beentertained and to pass the time pleasantly. Anything which excitesmirth and laughter is always welcomed by an audience. But a seriouspiece from which humor has been excluded, is calculated, even whenplayed with sympathetic feeling and skill, to create a sense of gravityamong the spectators, which, to say the least, can hardly be restful tojaded nerves. Yet when composing his plays the playwright should neverlose sight of the moral. Of course he has to pay attention to thearrangement of the different parts of the plot and the charactersrepresented, but while it is important that each act and every sceneshould be harmoniously and properly set, and that the characters shouldbe adapted to the piece as a whole, it is none the less important thata moral should be enforced by it. The practical lesson to be learnedfrom the play should never be lost sight of. In Chinese plays themoral is always prominent. The villain is punished, virtue isrewarded, while the majority of the plays are historical. Allhealthy-minded people will desire to see a play end with virtuerewarded, and vice vanquished. Those who want it otherwise areunnatural and possess short views of life. Either in this life or insome other, each receives according to his deserts, and this lessonshould always be taught by the play. Yet from all the clever dramaswhich have been written and acted on the Western stage from time totime what a very small percentage of moral lessons can be drawn, whiletoo many of them have unfortunately been of an objectionable nature. Nearly everyone reads novels, especially the younger folk; to many ofthese a visit to a theater is like reading a novel, excepting that theperformance makes everything more realistic. A piece with a good moralcannot therefore fail to make an excellent impression on the audiencewhile at the same time affording them amusement. I am somewhat surprised that the churches, ethical societies and reformassociations in America do not more clearly appreciate the valuable aidthey might receive from the stage. I have been told that some churchespay their singers more than their preachers, which shows that they havesome idea of the value of good art. Why not go a step further andpreach through a play? This does not mean that there should be no funbut that the moral should be well thrust home. I have heard ofpreachers who make jokes while preaching, so that it should not be sovery difficult to act interesting sermons which would elevate, even ifthey did not amuse. People who went to church to see a theater wouldnot expect the same entertainment as those who go to the theater simplyfor a laugh. In China we do not expend as much energy as Americans and Europeans intrying to make other people good. We try to be good ourselves andbelieve that our good example, like a pure fragrance, will influenceothers to be likewise. We think practice is as good as precept, and, if I may say so without being supposed to be critical of a racedifferent from my own, the thought has sometimes suggested itself to methat Americans are so intent on doing good to others, and on makingothers good, that they accomplish less than they would if their actionsand intentions were less direct and obvious. I cannot here explain allI mean, but if my readers will study what Li Yu and Chuang Tsz have tosay about "Spontaneity" and "Not Interfering", I think they willunderstand my thought. The theater, as I have already said, was inseveral countries religious in its origin; why not use it to elevatepeople indirectly? The ultimate effect, because more natural, might bebetter and truer than more direct persuasion. Pulpit appeals, I amgiven to understand, are sometimes very personal. Since writing the above I have seen a newspaper notice of a dramaticperformance in the Ethical Church, Queen's Road, Bayswater, London. The Ethical Church believes "in everything that makes life sweet andhuman" and the management state that they believe--"the best trend ofdramatic opinion to-day points not only to the transformation oftheaters into centers of social enlightenment and moral elevation, butalso to the transformation of the churches into centers for theimaginative presentation, by means of all the arts combined, of thedeeper truths and meanings of life. " Personally, I do not knowanything about this society, but surely there is nothing out of harmonywith Christianity in these professions, and I am glad to find here analliance between the two greatest factors in the development of Westernthought and culture--the church and the theater. The newspaper articleto which I have referred was describing the "old morality play, Everyman" which had been performed in the church. The visitor who wassomewhat critical, and apparently unused to seeing the theater in achurch, wrote of the performance thus: "Both the music and the dressingof the play were perfect, and from the moment that Death entered cladin blue stuff with immense blue wings upon his shoulders, and the trumpin his hand, and stopped Everyman, a gorgeous figure in crimson robesand jewelled turban, with the question, 'Who goes so gaily by?' theplay was performed with an impressiveness that never faltered. "The heaviest burden, of course, falls on Everyman, and the artist whoplayed this part seemed to me, though I am no dramatic critic, to havecaught the atmosphere and the spirit of the play. His performance, indeed, was very wonderful from the moment when he offers Death athousand boons if only the dread summons may be delayed, to that finaltense scene, when, stripped of his outer robe, he says his closingprayers, hesitates for a moment to turn back, though the dread angel isthere by his side, and then follows the beckoning hand of Good Deeds, afigure splendidly robed in flowing draperies of crimson and with awonderfully expressive mobile face. "At the conclusion of the play Dr. Stanton Colt addressed a few wordsto the enthusiastic audience, 'Forsake thy pride, for it will profitthee nothing, ' he quoted, 'If we could but remember this more carefullyand also the fact that nothing save our good deeds shall ever go withus into that other World, surely it would help us to a holier andbetter life. Earthly things have their place and should have a dueregard paid to them, but we must not forget the jewel of our souls. '" I have, of course, heard of the "Passion Play" at Oberammergau inGermany where the life of Jesus Christ is periodically represented onthe stage, but I say nothing about this, for, so far as I know, it isnot performed in America, and I have not seen it; but I may note inpassing that in China theaters are generally associated with the godsin the temples, and that the moral the play is meant to teach is alwayswell driven home into the minds of the audience. We have not, however, ventured to introduce any of our sages to theater audiences. The theater in China is a much simpler affair than in America. Theresidents in a locality unite and erect a large stage of bamboo andmatting, the bamboo poles are tied with strips of rattan, and all thematerial of the stage, excepting the rattan, can be used over againwhen it is taken down. Most of the audience stand in front of thestage and in the open air, the theater generally being in front of thetemple; and the play, which often occupies three or four days, is oftenperformed in honor of the god's birthday. There is no curtain, andthere are no stage accessories. The audience is thus enabled toconcentrate its whole attention on the acting. Female parts are playedby men, and everything is beautifully simple. There is no attempt toproduce such elaborate effects as I have seen in the West, and ofcourse nothing at all resembling the pantomime, which frequentlyrequires mechanical arts. A newspaper paragraph caught my eye whilethinking of this subject. I reproduce it. "The Century Theater in New York City has special apparatus forproducing wind effects, thunder and lightning simultaneously. The windmachine consists of a drum with slats which are rotated over an apronof corded silk, which produces the whistling sound of wind; thelightning is produced by powdered magnesium electrically ignited;thunder is simulated by rolling a thousand pounds of stone, junk andchain down a chute ending in an iron plate, followed by half-a-dozencannon balls and supplemented by the deafening notes of a thunder drum. " Although, however, Chinese play-goers do not demand the expensiveoutfits and stage sceneries of the West, I must note here that not evenon the American stage have I seen such gorgeous costumes, or robes ofso rich a hue and displaying such glittering gold ornaments andgraceful feathers, as I have seen on the simple Chinese stage I havejust described. Western fashions are having a tendency in our portsand larger cities to modify some things that I have stated aboutChinese theatrical performances, but the point I wish especially toimpress on my readers is that theatrical performances in China, whileamusing and interesting, are seldom melodramatic, and as I look back onmy experiences in the United States, I cannot but think that the goodpeople there are making a mistake in not utilizing the human naturallove for excitement and the drama as a subsidiary moral investment. And, of course, all I have said of theaters applies with equal force tomoving-picture shows. Chapter 15. Opera and Musical Entertainments Opera is a form of entertainment which, though very popular in Americaand England, does not appeal to me. I know that those who are fond ofmusic love to attend it, and that the boxes in an opera house aregenerally engaged by the fashionable set for the whole seasonbeforehand. I have seen members of the "four hundred" in their boxesin a New York opera house; they have been distinguished by theirmagnificent toilettes and brilliant jewelry; but I have been thinkingof the Chinese drama, which, like the old Greek play, is also based onmusic, and Chinese music with its soft and plaintive airs is a verydifferent thing from the music of grand opera. Chinese music could notbe represented on Western instruments, the intervals between the notesbeing different. Chinese singing is generally "recitative" accompaniedby long notes, broken, or sudden chords from the orchestra. It differswidely from Western music, but its effects are wonderful. One of ourwriters has thus described music he once heard: "Softly, as the murmurof whispered words; now loud and soft together, like the patter ofpearls and pearlets dropping upon a marble dish. Or liquid, like thewarbling of the mango-bird in the bush; trickling like the streamlet onits downward course. And then like the torrent, stilled by the grip offrost, so for a moment was the music lulled, in a passion too deep forwords. " That this famous description of the effects of music which Ihave borrowed from Mr. Dyer Ball's "Things Chinese" is not exaggerated, anyone who knows China may confirm by personal observation of the keenenjoyment an unlearned, common day laborer will find in playing asingle lute all by himself for hours beneath the moon on a warm summerevening, with no one listening but the trees and the flitting insects;but it requires a practised ear to appreciate singing and a good voice. On one occasion I went to an opera house in London to hear theworld-renowned Madame Patti. The place was so crowded, and theatmosphere so close, that I felt very uncomfortable and I am ashamed toacknowledge that I had to leave before she had finished. If I had beeneducated to appreciate that sort of music no doubt I would havecomprehended her singing better, and, however uncomfortable, I shouldno doubt have remained to the end of the entertainment. While writing this chapter it happened that the following news from NewYork was published in the local papers in Shanghai. It should beinteresting to my readers, especially to those who are lovers of music. "'Yellow music' will be the next novelty to startle and lure this blasetown; amusement forecasters already see in the offing a Fall invasionof the mysterious Chinese airs which are now having such a vogue inLondon under the general term of 'yellow music'. "The time was when Americans and occidentals in general laughed atChinese music, but this was due to their own ignorance of its fullimport and to the fact that they heard only the dirges of a Chinesefuneral procession or the brassy noises that feature a celestialfestival. They did not have opportunity to be enthralled by thethroaty, vibrant melodies--at once so lovingly seductive and harshlycompelling--by which Chinese poets and lovers have revealed theirthoughts and won their quest for centuries. The stirring tom-tom, ifnot the ragtime which sets the occidental capering to-day, was commonto the Chinese three or four hundred years ago. They heard it from thewild Tartars and Mongols--heard it and rejected it, because it wasprimitive, untamed, and not to be compared with their own carefullycontrolled melodies. Mr. Emerson Whithorne, the famous Britishcomposer, who is an authority on oriental music, made this statement tothe London music lovers last week: "'The popularity of Chinese music is still in its childhood. From nowon it will grow rapidly. Chinese music has no literature, as weunderstand that term, but none can say that it has not most captivatingmelodies. To the artistic temperament, in particular, it appealsenormously, and well-known artists--musicians, painters, and so on--saythat it affects them in quite an extraordinary way. '" Chinese music from an occidental standpoint has been unjustly describedas "clashing cymbals, twanging guitars, harsh flageolets, and shrillflutes, ear-splitting and headache-producing to the foreigner. " Suchgeneral condemnation shows deplorable ignorance. [2] The writer hadapparently never attended an official service in honor of Confucius, held biennially during the whole of the Ching dynasty at 3 A. M. The"stone chimes", consisting of sonorous stones varying in tone andhanging in frames, which were played on those solemn occasions, have ahaunting melody such as can be heard nowhere else. China, I believe, is the only country that has produced music from stones. It isnaturally gratifying to me to hear that Chinese airs are now having avogue in London, and that they will soon be heard in New York. It willtake some little time for Westerners to learn to listen intelligentlyto our melodies which, being always in unison, in one key and in onemovement, are apt at first to sound as wearisome and monotonous asMadame Patti's complicated notes did to me, but when they understandthem they will have found a new delight in life. Although we Chinese do not divide our plays into comedies and tragediesthere is frequently a good deal of humor on the Chinese stage; yet wehave nothing in China corresponding to the popular musical comedy ofthe West. A musical comedy is really a series of vaudevilleperformances strung together by the feeblest of plots. The essenceseems to be catchy songs, pretty dances, and comic dialogue. The plotis apparently immaterial, its only excuse for existence being to give acertain order of sequence to the aforesaid songs, dances, anddialogues. That, indeed, is the only object for the playwright'sintroducing any plot at all, hence he does not much care whether it islogical or even within the bounds of probability. The play-goers, Ithink, care even less. They go to hear the songs, see the dances, laugh at the dialogues, and indulge in frivolous frivolities; what dothey want with a plot, much less a moral? Chinese vaudeville takes theform of clever tumbling tricks which I think are much preferable to thesensuous, curious, and self-revealing dances one sees in the West. Although musical comedy, or, more properly speaking, musical farce, isbecoming more and more popular in both Europe and America it is alsobecoming proportionately more farcical; although in many theaters it isstaged as often as the more serious drama, in some having exclusivedominion; and although theater managers find that these plays drawbigger crowds and fill their houses better than any other, in the largecities running for over a year, I cannot help regarding this feature oftheatrical life as so much theatrical chaos. It lacks culture, and issometimes both bizarre and neurotic. I do not object to patter, smartgive and take, in which the comical angles of life are exposed, if itis brilliant; neither have I anything to say against light comedy inwhich the ridiculous side of things is portrayed. This sort ofentertainment may help men who have spent a busy day, crowded withanxious moments, and weighted with serious responsibilities, butexhibitions which make men on their way home talk not of art, or ofmusic, or of wit, but of "the little girl who wore a little black net"are distinctly to be condemned. Even the class who think it waste oftime to think, and who go to the theater only to "laugh awfully", arenot helped by this sort of entertainment. Such songs as the following, which I have culled from the 'Play Pictorial', a monthly published inLondon, must in time pall the taste of even the shallow-minded. "Can't you spare a glance? Have we got a chance? You've got a knowing pair of eyes; When it's 2 to 1 It isn't much fun, " This is what she soon replies: "Oh, won't you buy a race-card, And take a tip from me? If you want to find a winner, It's easy as can be When the Cupid stakes are starting, Your heads are all awhirl, And my tip to-day Is a bit each way On the race-card girl. " Yet this, apparently, is the sort of thing which appeals to the modernAmerican who wants amusement of the lightest kind, amusement whichappeals to the eye and ear with the lightest possible tax on hisalready over-burdened brain. He certainly cannot complain that hiswishes have not been faithfully fulfilled. It may be due to myignorance of English, but the song I have just quoted seems to mesilly, and I do not think any "ragtime music" could make it worthsinging. Of course many songs and plays in the music halls are such asafford innocent mirth, but it has to be confessed that there are otherthings of a different type which it is not wise for respectablefamilies to take the young to see. I would not like to say all I thinkof this feature of Western civilization, but I may quote an Englishmanwithout giving offense. Writing in the 'Metropolitan Magazine', LouisSherwin says: "There is not a doubt that the so-called 'high-browdancer' has had a lot to do with the bare-legged epidemic that ragesupon the comic-opera stage to-day. Nothing could be further removedfrom musical comedy than the art of such women as Isadora Duncan andMaude Allen. To inform Miss Duncan that she has been the means ofmaking nudity popular in musical farce would beyond question incur thelady's very reasonable wrath. But it is none the less true. When thebare-legged classic dancer made her appearance in opera houses, and onconcert platforms with symphony orchestras, it was the cue for everychorus girl with an ambition to undress in public. First of all we hada plague of Salomes. Then the musical comedy producers, followingtheir usual custom of religiously avoiding anything original, began tosend the pony ballets and soubrettes on the stages without theirhosiery and with their knees clad in nothing but a coat of whitewash(sometimes they even forgot to put on the whitewash, and then the sightwas horrible). The human form divine, with few exceptions, is adevilish spectacle unless it is properly made up. Some twenty yearsfrom now managers will discover what audiences found out months ago, that a chorus girl's bare leg is infinitely less beautiful than thesame leg when duly disguised by petticoats and things. " [1] In his discussion of actors, Wu Tingfang does not seem to be awarethat the idealization of actors in the West is comparatively recent, and that historically, and even now in some parts of society, actorsand the acting profession have been looked down upon in the West formany of the same reasons he gives for the same phenomenon in China. --A. R. L. , 1996. [2] Wu Tingfang is quite correct to deplore this statement as adescription of Chinese music. However, in all fairness, it is anaccurate description of how a Western ear first hears CERTAIN types ofChinese music. After successive hearings this impression will flyaway, but until then CERTAIN types are reminiscent of two alley-catsfighting in a garbage can. This is not meant as a degrading comment, any more so than Wu Tingfang's comments on opera. Some music is anacquired taste, and after acquirement, its beauty becomes not onlyrecognizable but inescapable. Certain other types of Chinese music caneasily be appreciated on the first hearing. --A. R. L. , 1996. Chapter 16. Conjuring and Circuses After what I have said as to the position of the actor in China myreaders will not be surprised at my saying that the performance of aconjuror should not be encouraged. What pleasure can there be in beingtricked? It may be a great display of dexterity to turn water intowine, to seem to cut off a person's head, to appear to swallow swords, to escape from locked handcuffs, and to perform the various cabinettricks, but cleverness does not alter the fact that after all it isonly deception cunningly contrived and performed in such a way as toevade discovery. It appears right to many because it is called"legerdemain" and "conjuring" but in reality it is exactly the samething as that by which the successful card-sharper strips his victims, viz. , such quickness of hand that the eye is deceived. Should weencourage such artful devices? History tells many stories as to theway in which people have been kept in superstitious bondage byillusions and magic, and if it be now held to be right to deceive forfun how can it be held to have been wrong to deceive for religion?Those who made the people believe through practising deceptiondoubtless believed the trick to be less harmful than unbelief. Icontend, therefore, that people who go to see conjuring performancesderive no good from them, but that, on the contrary, they are apt to beimpressed with the idea that to practise deception is to showpraiseworthy skill. It is strange how many people pay money to othersto deceive them. More than ever before, people to-day actually enjoybeing cheated. If the tricks were clumsily devised and easily detectedthere would be no attraction, but the cleverer and more puzzling thetrick the more eagerly people flock to see it. Christian preachers and moralists could do well to take up this matterand discourage people from frequenting the exhibitions of tricksters. There are doubtless many laws in nature yet undiscovered, and a fewpersons undoubtedly possess abnormal powers. This makes thecultivation of the love of trickery the more dangerous. It preventsthe truth from being perceived. It enables charlatans to find dupes, and causes the real magician to be applauded as a legerdemainist. Thisis what the New Testament tells us happened in the case of JesusChrist. His miracles failed to convince because the people had for along time loved those who could deceive them cleverly. [1] The peoplesaid to him, "Thou hast a devil, " and others warned them after hisdeath saying, "That deceiver said while he was yet alive 'After threedays I will rise again. '" When people are taught not only to marvel atthe marvelous but to be indifferent to its falsehoods they lose thepower of discrimination, and are apt to take the true for the false, the real for the unreal. For an evening's healthy enjoyment I believe a circus is as good aplace as can be found anywhere. The air there is not close andvitiated as in a theater; you can spend two or three hours comfortablywithout inhaling noxious atmospheres. It is interesting to note thatthe circus is perhaps the only form of ancient entertainment which hasretained something of its pristine simplicity. To-day, as in the oldRoman circuses, tiers of seats run round the course, which in thelarger circuses is still in the form of an ellipse, with its verticalaxis, where the horses and performers enter, cut away. But the modernworld has nothing in this connection to compare with the Circus Maximusof Rome, which, according to Pliny, held a quarter of a millionspectators. It is singular, however, that while the old Roman circuseswere held in permanent buildings, modern circuses are mostly travellingexhibitions in temporary erections. In some respects the entertainmentoffered has degenerated with the change, for we have to-day nothing inthe circus to correspond to the thrilling chariot races in which theold Romans delighted. I wonder that in these days of restless searchfor novelties some one does not re-introduce the Roman chariot raceunder the old conditions, and with a reproduction of the oldsurroundings. It would be as interesting and as exciting as, andcertainly less dangerous than, polo played in automobiles, which Iunderstand is one of the latest fads in the West. A modern horse-race, with its skill, daring and picturesqueness, is the only modernentertainment comparable to the gorgeous races of the Romans. The exhibition of skillful feats of horsemanship and acrobatic displaysby juvenile actors, rope-dancing, high vaulting and other daringgymnastic feats seen in any of our present-day circuses areinteresting, but not new. The Romans had many clever tight-ropewalkers, and I do not think they used the long pole loaded at the endsto enable them to maintain their equilibrium, as do some laterperformers. Japanese tumblers are very popular and some of theirtricks clever, but I think the Western public would find Chineseacrobats a pleasant diversion. With practice, it would seem as if whentaken in hand during its supple years there is nothing that cannot bedone with the human body. Sometimes it almost appears as if it wereboneless, so well are people able by practice to make use of theirlimbs to accomplish feats which astonish ordinary persons whose limbsare less pliable. The trapeze gives opportunity for the display of very cleverexhibition, of strength and agility; at first sight the gymnast wouldappear to be flying from one cross-bar to the other, and when watchingsuch flights I have asked myself: "If a person can do that, why cannothe fly?" Perhaps human beings will some day be seen flying about in theair like birds. It only requires an extension of the trapeze "stunt". Travelling in the air by means of airships or aeroplanes is tame sportin comparison with bird-like flights, whether with or withoutartificial wings. There are many advantages in being able to travel in the air. One is aclear and pure atmosphere such as cannot be obtained in a railway car, or in a cabin on board a ship; another is the opportunity afforded oflooking down on this earth, seeing it as in a panorama, with the peoplelooking like ants. Such an experience must broaden the mental outlookof the privileged spectator, and enable him to guess how fragmentaryand perverted must be our restricted view of things in general. Thereis, however, danger of using such opportunities for selfish andmischievous purposes. A wicked man might throw a bomb or do some otherwicked nonsense just as some one else, who really sees things as theyare and not as they seem to be, might employ his superior knowledge tobenefit himself and injure his fellows; but the mention of the trapezeand its bird-like performers has diverted me from my theme. I suppose that a reference to the circus would be incomplete whichoverlooked the clowns, those poor survivals of a professional class ofjesters who played what appears to have been a necessary part insociety in ruder days, when amusements were less refined and lessnumerous. The Chinese have never felt the need of professionalfoolers, and I cannot say that I admire the circus clown, but theintelligence which careful training develops in the horse, the dog, etc. , interests me a good deal. An instance of this came under my ownobservation during a recent visit to Shanghai of "Fillis' Circus". Mr. Fillis had a mare which for many years had acted the part of the horseof a highway robber. The robber, flying from his enemies, urges theanimal beyond its strength, and the scene culminated with the dyinghorse being carried from the arena to the great grief of its master. When this entertainment was given in Shanghai this horse--"BlackBess"--fell sick. A tonic was administered in the shape of the livelytune which the band always played as she was about to enter the arenaand play her part as the highwayman's mare. The animal made pitiableattempts to rise, and her inability to do so apparently suggested tothe intelligent creature the dying scene she had so often played. Shelay down and relaxed, prepared to die in reality. The attendants, ignorant of the manner in which the horse had let herself go, tried tolift her, but in her relaxed condition her bowels split--Black Bess hadacted her part for the last time. [1] This is a rather unorthodox view, but nonetheless interesting, especially as it pertains to his following statements. --A. R. L. , 1996. Chapter 17. Sports Perhaps in nothing do the Chinese differ from their Western friends inthe matter of amusements more than in regard to sports. The Chinesewould never think of assembling in thousands just to see a game played. We are not modernized enough to care to spend half a day watchingothers play. When we are tired of work we like to do our own playing. Our national game is the shuttlecock, which we toss from one to anotherover our shoulders, hitting the shuttlecock with the flat soles of theshoes we are wearing. Sometimes we hit with one part of the foot, sometimes with another, according to the rules of the game. This, likekite-flying, is a great amusement among men and boys. We have nothing corresponding to tennis and other Western ball games, nor, indeed, any game in which the opposite sexes join. Archery was ahealth-giving exercise of which modern ideas of war robbed us. Thesame baneful influence has caused the old-fashioned healthful gymnasticexercises with heavy weights to be discarded. I have seen young men onboard ocean-going steamers throwing heavy bags of sand to one anotheras a pastime. This, though excellent practice, hardly equals ourancient athletic feats with the bow or the heavy weight. Westernsports have been introduced into some mission and other schools inChina, but I much doubt if they will ever be really popular among mypeople. They are too violent, and, from the oriental standpoint, lacking in dignity. Yet, when Chinese residing abroad do take upWestern athletic sports they prove themselves the equals of allcompetitors, as witness their success in the Manila Olympiad, and thename the baseball players from the Hawaiian Islands Chinese Universitymade for themselves when they visited America. Nevertheless, were theaverage Chinese told that many people buy the daily paper in the Westsimply to see the result of some game, and that a sporting journalismflourishes there, i. E. , papers devoted entirely to sport, they wouldregard the statement as itself a pleasant sport. Personally, I thinkwe might learn much from the West in regard to sports. They certainlyincrease the physical and mental faculties, and for this reason, if forno other, deserve to be warmly supported. China suffers because heryouths have never been trained to team-work. We should be a moreunited people if as boys and young men we learned to take part in gameswhich took the form of a contest, in which, while each contestant doeshis best for his own side, the winning or losing of the game is notconsidered so important as the pleasure of the exercise. I think agreat deal of the manliness which I have admired in the West must beattributed to the natural love of healthy sport for sport's sake. Games honestly and fairly played inculcate the virtues of honor, candidness, and chivalry, of which America has produced many worthyspecimens. When one side is defeated the winner does not exult overhis defeated opponents but attributes his victory to an accident; Ihave seen the defeated crew in a boat race applauding their winningopponents. It is a noble example for the defeated contestants to givecredit to and to applaud the winner, an example which I hope will befollowed by my countrymen. As an ardent believer in the natural, healthy and compassionate life Iwas interested to find in the Encyclopaedia Britannica how frequentlyvegetarians have been winners in athletic sports. [1] They won theBerlin to Dresden walking match, a distance of 125 miles, theCarwardine Cup (100 miles) and Dibble Shield (6 hours) cycling races(1901-02), the amateur championship of England in tennis (foursuccessive years up to 1902) and racquets (1902), the cyclingchampionship of India (three years), half-mile running championship ofScotland (1896), world's amateur cycle records for all times from fourhours to thirteen hours (1902), 100 miles championship Yorkshire RoadClub (1899, 1901), tennis gold medal (five times). I have not accessto later statistics on this subject but I know that it is the reverseof truth to say, as Professor Gautier, of the Sarbonne, a Catholicfoundation in Paris, recently said, that vegetarians "suffer from lackof energy and weakened will power. " The above facts disprove it, andas against Prof. Gautier, I quote Dr. J. H. Kellogg, the eminentphysician and Superintendent of Battle Creek Sanitarium in Michigan, U. S. A. , who has been a strict vegetarian for many years and who, thoughover sixty years of age, is as strong and vigorous as a man of forty;he told me that he worked sixteen hours daily without the leastfatigue. Mrs. Annie Besant, President of the Theosophical Society, isanother example. I am credibly informed that she has been a vegetarianfor at least thirty-five years and that it is doubtful if anyflesh-eater who is sixty-five can equal her in energy. Whatever elsevegetarians may lack they are not lacking in powers of endurance. It is needless for me to say that hunting, or, as it is called, "sport", is entirely opposed to my idea of the fitness of things. I donot see why it should not be as interesting to shoot at "clay pigeons"as to kill living birds; and why moving targets are not as suitable arecreation as running animals. "The pleasures of the chase" are nodoubt fascinating, but when one remembers that these so-calledpleasures are memories we have brought with us from the time when wewere savages and hunted for the sake of food, no one can be proud ofstill possessing such tastes. To say that hunters to-day only kill toeat would be denied indignantly by every true sportsman. That thequarry is sometimes eaten afterward is but an incident in the game; thesplendid outdoor exercise which the hunt provides can easily be foundin other ways without inflicting the fear, distress, and pain which thehunted animals endure. It is a sad commentary on the stage at whichhumanity still is that even royalty, to whom we look for virtuousexamples, seldom misses an opportunity to hunt. When a man has astrong hobby he is unable to see its evil side even though in otherrespects he may be humane and kind-hearted. Thus the sorry spectacleis presented of highly civilized and humane people displaying theircourage by hunting and attacking wild animals, not only in their ownnative country but in foreign lands as well. Such personages are, Iregret to have to add, not unknown in the United States. The fact that hunting has been followed from time immemorial, that theancient Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians indulged in this pastime, does not make it any more suitable an occupation for us to-day. Thegood qualities of temper and patience which hunting demands are equallywell developed by athletic sports. I understand that a good huntingestablishment will cost as much as $10, 000 (2000 Pounds) a year. Surely those who can afford so much on luxuries could find a morerefined amusement in yachting and similar recreations. To sail a yachtsuccessfully in half a gale of wind, is, I should imagine, moreventuresome, more exciting, and a pastime requiring a manifestation ofmore of the qualities of daring, than shooting a frightened animal fromthe safe retreat of the saddle of a trusty horse; and not even the huntof the wild beast can equal in true sportsmanship a contest with thewind and the waves, for it is only occasionally that a beast showsfight because he is wounded, and even then man is well protected by hisgun; but whether yachting or swimming the sportsman's attitude ofwatchfulness is uninterrupted. I fancy it is convention and custom, rather than conviction of the superiority of the sport, that has givenhunting its pre-eminence. It is on record that four thousand years agothe ancient emperors of China started periodically on huntingexpeditions. They thus sought relief from the monotony of life inthose days; in the days of the Stuarts, in England, royalty foundpleasure in shows which were childish and even immoral. Of course inbarbarous countries all savages used to hunt for food. For themhunting was an economic necessity, and it is no slander to say that themodern hunt is a relic of barbarism. It is, indeed, a matter ofsurprise to me that this cruel practice has not ceased, but stillexists in this twentieth century. It goes without saying that huntingmeans killing the defenseless, inflicting misery and death on thehelpless; even if it be admitted that there is some justification forkilling a ferocious and dangerous animal, why should we take pleasurein hunting and killing the fox, the deer, the hare, the otter, andsimilar creatures? People who hunt boast of their bravery andfearlessness, and to show their intrepidity and excellent shooting theygo to the wilderness and other countries to carry on their "sport". Iadmire their fearless courage but I am compelled to express my opinionthat such actions are not consistent with those of a good-heartedhumane gentleman. Still less excuse is there for the practice of shooting. What righthave we to wantonly kill these harmless and defenseless birds flying inthe air? I once watched pigeon shooting at a famous watering place, the poor birds were allowed to fly from the trap-holes simply that theymight be ruthlessly killed or maimed. That was wanton cruelty; toreprobate too strongly such revolting barbarity is almost impossible. I am glad to say that such cruel practices did not come under myobservation during my residence in the States, and I hope that they arenot American vices but are prohibited by law. No country, with theleast claim to civilization, should allow such things, and ourdescendants will be astonished that people calling themselves civilizedshould have indulged in such wholesale and gratuitous atrocities. Whenpeople allow animals to be murdered--for it is nothing but murder--forthe sake of sport, they ought not to be surprised that men are murderedby criminals for reasons which seem to them good and sufficient. Ananimal has as much right to its life as man has to his. Both may becalled upon to sacrifice life for the sake of some greater good to agreater number, but by what manner of reasoning can killing forkilling's sake be justified? Does the superior cunning and intellectof man warrant his taking life for fun? Then, should a race superiorto humanity ever appear on the earth, man would have no just cause ofcomplaint if he were killed off for its amusement. There formerlyexisted in India a "well-organized confederacy of professionalassassins" called Thugs, who worshipped the goddess Kali with humanlives. They murdered according to "rigidly prescribed forms" and forreligious reasons. The English, when they came into power in India, naturally took vigorous measures to stamp out Thuggeeism; but from ahigher point of view than our own little selves, is there after all somuch difference between the ordinary sportsman and the fanatic Thuggee?If there be, the balance is rather in favor of the latter, for the Thugat least had the sanction of religion, while the hunter has nothing toexcuse his cruelty beyond the lust of killing. I do not understand whythe humane societies, such as "The Society for the Prevention ofCruelty to Animals", are so supine in regard to these practices. TheChinese are frequently accused of being cruel to animals, but I thinkthat those who are living in glass houses should not throw stones. In this connection I would remark that birds are shot not only forpleasure and for their flesh, but in some cases for their plumage, andwomen who wear hats adorned with birds' feathers, do, thoughindirectly, encourage the slaughter of the innocent. Once a Chinesewas arrested by the police in Hongkong for cruelty to a rat. Itappeared that the rat had committed great havoc in his household, stealing and damaging various articles of food; when at last it wascaught the man nailed its feet to a board, as a warning to other rats. For this he was brought before the English Magistrate, who imposed apenalty of ten dollars. He was astonished, and pleaded that the ratdeserved death, on account of the serious havoc committed in his house. The Magistrate told him that he ought to have instantly killed the rat, and not to have tortured it. The amazed offender paid his fine, butmurmured that he did not see the justice of the British Court in notallowing him to punish the rat as he chose, while foreigners in Chinawere allowed the privilege of shooting innocent birds withoutmolestation. I must confess, people are not always consistent. The Peace Societies should take up this matter, for hunting is animitation of war and an apprenticeship to it. It certainly can find nojustification in any of the great world religions, and not even theBritish, or the Germans, who idolize soldiers, would immortalize a mansimply because he was a hunter. From whatever point the subject beviewed it seems undeniable that hunting is only a survival of savagery. [1] E. B. , 9th ed. , vol. 33, p. 649.