And as for questions such as this which we have been discussing, it is, after all, enough for us to know that all will some day be revealed; enough for us to know that there are other duties incumbent upon us, other interests more vital to our spiritual well-being, than that of peering into these hidden mysteries, which do not at all concern our present existence, which do not promote our present or future happiness, or help us forward on our eternal road.
Egbert Phelps.
Matter and Spirit.—Our contributor, under this title, has entered upon a boundless field of speculation, in which we have no thought of following him to any considerable distance. A metaphysical discussion of this character would scarcely be appropriate to the pages ofThe Continental; and our readers would doubtless find the controversy uninteresting, if not altogether unprofitable. We, however, cheerfully insert the paper offered by Lieutenant Phelps, on account of the spirit of earnest piety and love of truth which seem to pervade it; and we shall confine ourselves here to the briefest possible comment which will enable us to make understood our grounds of dissent.
We demur to the suggestion that our ideas, as expressed in the July number, have necessarily any affinity to 'the dogmas of pantheism.' We then wrote thus: 'It is spirit only that animates, informs, and shapes the whole universe. Wherever law prevails (and where does it not?), there is intelligence, spirit, soul, acting to sustain it, during every moment of its operation.' Can anyone seriously question the correctness, and even the entire orthodoxy of this statement? In truth, we do not understand that our contributor himself denies it absolutely, but only in a qualified sense, as we shall presently show. Of course, it could be no other spirit than the Deity, to which our language would be applicable; and we do not see how it can in any way derogate from His attributes, to represent him as acting, by an exertion of spiritual power, to sustain and uphold his creation, during every moment of its existence.
Nor can we comprehend the pertinence of our contributor's disquisition on the great question of free will and necessity, as applicable to our ideas of the relations existing between mind and matter. 'Spirit acts independently of God,' says he. We might well question the truth of this assertion; but we may equally well admit it, so far as any inference may be drawn against the positions we have assumed. The question is not whether the soul of man is compelled to action according to the law of its creation, or is permitted by spontaneous choice to follow its own independent will. This is not point of disagreement; for we have expressed no opinion on this subject, nor upon any other which involves it. On the contrary, we took the question to be simply whether there can be, in the nature of things, any relations of reciprocal influence and mutual coöperation between mind and matter. If this be not the question at issue, both our contributor and ourselves are engaged in a fruitless attempt to enlighten each other. We are well aware that his digression from the main argument to the disputed question of free will, is made for the purpose of attempting to show that all spiritual agency must be like that which he claims for the soul of man—that is to say, it must have a free will, 'constantly departing from its normal state,' acting irregularly and according to the freaks of its own spontaneity. And because there is no such caprice and irregularity in the operation of the laws of nature, the inference is drawn that they cannot be the evidences of spiritual power, in the forces which they govern.
Upon this point there seems to be aradical difference of understanding between our contributor and ourselves. Be it pantheism, or whatever any one else may choose to call it, we entertain the very simple belief that the ultimate laws of nature, impressed upon the material world, are nothing less than the direct power of the Almighty upholding the universe, and controlling all its operations throughout all time from the origin of the creation to its end, if it shall have one. We cannot look upon the system of nature as a piece of machinery, wound up and set a-going, and destined to run its appointed course, with only an occasional glance of its Author to interfere with its regular working. We do not suppose that this constant exercise of power imposes any burden upon the Author of the creation; nor are we conscious of any diminution of his glory, or any denial of his absolute personality, when we consider him as being ever present in all his works, 'animating, informing, and shaping them,' by the perpetual exertion of his omnipotent will.
We do not, by any means, understand our contributor as denying the agency of the Almighty in the establishment of general laws; but his view of the subject is totally different from ours. If we have not misconceived his meaning entirely, he considers the laws of nature as something independent of the operations which they control—atertium quidinterposed between the creator and his work. God is the author; law is the active agent; and material changes are the results. Law is not spirit; and therefore matter is not moved and controlled by spirit. We entirely disclaim any want of respect for our contributor and his thoughts; but we must express our surprise that he should resort to this clumsy and unphilosophical theory, in order to deny the direct agency of spirit in the operations of nature. Law is not separate and distinct from the phenomena which it regulates. It is only a rule or principle, as he himself admits, 'which ceases to be with the accomplishment of its end.' This rule or principle, which implies intelligence and will, must be in the mind of the Author, who operates in accordance with it, and not in the mere matter whose changes it controls. Yet our author strangely says, 'all the objects of nature are the products, not of spirit, but of law, which is itself the product of the one great Creative Spirit whereby all things are.'
But let us admit that this extraordinary theory is sound, and thatLAWis the active agent which controls all physical phenomena. Now this thing, calledLAW, must be either spirit or matter, or a compound of both. If it be spirit, then it acts upon matter directly; if, on the contrary, it be itself matter, then spirit acts upon it; and, finally, if it be a compound of the two, then it affords still stronger evidence of reciprocal effects, which are decisive of the whole question in dispute. We are conscious, however, that this reasoning is almost puerile; for laws are mere abstractions, and not actual entities. They indicate the mode in which causes produce effects; in other words, they are signs of the intention and purpose with which the Great Spirit carries on all his mighty works.
It is hardly necessary, in order to sustain our position, to follow the steps of our contributor, in his attempted investigation of the mode of communication between the human soul and the outer world, through the senses. Many of his ideas might afford ground for interesting comment. But the point in dispute is too distinct and circumscribed to require many words for its elucidation. It is sufficient to say that in the process of perception through sensation, there must be some point of contact, at which the mind and the material object perceived by it are brought into the relations of mutual influence. Whenever a material object is cognized, there is a direct effect of matter upon the mind. And so, likewise, in every case of voluntary muscular exertion, the mandate of the will is communicated through the nerves, and the spirit thus acts directly upon matter. No refinement of theory will avail to get rid of these obvious facts; for, whatever intermediate agencies may be imagined by way of explanation, they leave the ultimate truth indisputable, that in some mysterious way, spirit and matter do effectually operate upon each other.
We are in no degree committed to the doctrines of modern spiritualism, and we shall not take issue with our contributor in his vehement protest against the belief that disembodied spirits ever visit 'the warm precincts of the cheerful day,' and make themselves known to living mortals. An orthodox Christian, however, might have some hesitation, in view of certain passages of Scripture, in utterly denying thepossibilityof such phenomena; and every reader of history and student of philosophy might well exclaim with Tennyson:
'Dare I sayNo spirit ever brake the bandThat stays him from the native landWhere first he walked when wrapped in clay?'
But we are quite as far from having asserted the existence of such preternatural phenomena, and we shall surely not attempt to establish facts of which we have no experience whatever. All that we have done has been merely to question the validity of that curt and summary argument, which assumes that matter and spirit are incapable of acting upon each other, and in this way cuts off all investigation.
We were somewhat disappointed and discouraged as we followed our contributor into that passage in which he seems to think that after death, the soul of man is removed beyond all knowledge of material things, and becomes incapable of ever perceiving their existence. It is true, this is but the logical deduction from his premises; and yet we felt some emotions of terror—some shrinking from that great and impassable gulf which he represents as then to be fixed between us and the objects of our life-long acquaintance—'the gulf which separates time from eternity.' But we were soon relieved; for in the conclusion of his article he waxes eloquent upon the higher faculties with which the soul will doubtless be endowed in its new state of existence, and with apparent unconsciousness of all inconsistency, assumes the very opposite of the whole preceding part of his argument. 'But,' he exclaims, 'when we shall stand in all the nakedness ofpure, unfettered spirit,' 'and gaze with all the clearness of unveiled spiritual visionupon the wonderful mechanism of the universe,' etc. We might inquire of our author how, upon his principles, with merely spiritual vision, we can expect to behold anything so gross and material as the mechanism of the universe; but we overlook and forgive the apparent inconsistency—we are willing ourselves to be vanquished in the argument—for the sake of the noble idea that we may hereafter 'pass from blindness to far-stretching, unimpeded sight,' and 'be able at a glanceto count the very stars, and to see the network of laws which binds them to their places, and controls, not only their motions, but the minutest particulars of their internal organism.' We are thankful, at all events, that, though matter and spirit may be so far apart in this our mortal state of existence, in the spiritual world, at least, we shall not lose all memory and knowledge of the grand material creation, of which we have learned so little here, but shall still be able, with even clearer vision, to perceive and comprehend the works of God, and, in the light of a nobler understanding, to adore the unfathomable wisdom which the Omnipotent Spirit has displayed in the arrangements of the boundless universe—the magnificent dwelling place of his creature man.
F. P. S.
History pays no more than a just tribute to commerce, when she accords to that agency important civilizing influences; yet it must be admitted that it has frequently pursued a tortuous course, has often been unscrupulous in the means that it has employed, and has not always been reciprocal in its advantages. Like religion, it has been used as an opening wedge to conquest. As the establishment of a factory in Bengal prepared the way for the battle of Plassy, so the founding of a mission in Manilla led to the subjugation of the Philippines. Or as, in our day, opium breached the walls of China, so the Society of Jesus, by its labor in Anam, has caused the dismemberment of that empire. British commerce demanded for its development successive wars. Gallican religion exacts from each dynasty the employment of the sword as an auxiliary of propagandism.
These aggressions have been facilitated by the assumption, on the part of Christian powers, of the exemption of their subjects from local jurisdiction in Mohammedan and pagan countries. A factory or a mission is established, which, from the outset, is animperium in imperio, and becomes a permanent conspiracy which soon finds causes of complaint against the government of the land in which, without invitation, its members have become domiciled. Essentially this is filibusterism, more dangerous because more insidious than an armed invasion; it has caused nearly all the collisions which have occurred in oriental and occidental intercourse. If, in the discussions that have arisen on eastern questions, this consideration of the subject had not been wholly ignored, the courses pursued by western powers would be even less defensible than they have been made to appear. No one can arrive at correct conclusions on questions affecting China, Japan, Siam and other pagan states without an attentive consideration of the claims which those weak countries have upon us in view of their being compelled to join the family of nations, and render themselves amenable to international law, while they are debarred from the semblance of reciprocity.
Extraterritoriality originated in the Levant. The mercantile establishments that sprang up in Western Asia and Northern Africa, as Moslem power began to wane, partook of a semi-official character; being recognized as an appendage of the diplomatic corps of that country, it became the practice to accord to the trading Frank the exemption from local jurisdiction which was accorded to the official representative of his country.
This abdication of authority, on the part of those states, has been effected gradually, and the usurpation on the part of Christian powers has only been perfected and secured by treaty in our own day. Great Britain, in her treaty with the emperor of Morocco (1760), agreed that 'if there shall happen any quarrel or dispute between an Englishman and a Mussulman, by which any of them shall receive detriment, the same shall be heard and determined by the emperoralone.'
In the following year we find the sublime Porte, in a treaty with Prussia, jealously guarding Turkish interterritorial rights, stipulating that the Ottoman tribunals should take cognizance of cases arising between Prussian subjects and those of the Porte. All that the Porte was then willing to concede, was the presence of the Prussian consulat such trials, and the privilege of adjudicating in disputes arising between his countrymen.
In the treaty between France and Algiers (1764), it was agreed that offences occurring atsea, should be tried by the French consul, when the offender was a Frenchman; and by the dey, when the offender was an Algerine. And, at the same time, in her treaty with Morocco, France merely secured the stipulation that 'if a Frenchman should strike a subject of Morocco, he shall be tried only in presence of his consul, who shall defend his cause, and he shall be judged impartially.' A French edict of 1778, in reference to the duties of consuls, alludes to trials occurring in Constantinople, which clearly admit interterritorial jurisdiction. The Republic, in 1801, also admitted that right on the part of Moslem states.
Algiers, in her treaty with Denmark (1792), expressly provides for jurisdiction over the Danes in her dominion.
Russia negotiated a treaty, in 1783, with the Porte, stipulating only for the privilege of exercising jurisdiction through her ministers or consuls, in cases of quarrels between Russians.
Spain was content, in 1784, to secure from Tripoli the presence in a Tripolitan court of a Spanish consul on the trial of a Spaniard.
Our own country uniformly conceded to Barbary powers entire jurisdiction over our resident citizens. The treaty with Morocco (1787) reads: 'When a citizen of the United States kills or wounds a subject of Morocco, or if a subject of Morocco kills or wounds a citizen of the United States, the laws of the country are to be followed; equal justice, and the presence of the consul, being alone stipulated for.' And in the treaty with Algiers (1816), we merely require that the 'sentence of punishment of an American citizen shall not be greater, or more severe, than it would be against a Turk in the same predicament.'
With Tunis there was the same understanding. Again, in the treaty of 1836, with Morocco, no claim is made for jurisdiction by us over our citizens; the presence of the consul at a trial being deemed a sufficient guarantee for an equitable trial; showing, that up to that date Morocco resisted the extraterritorial aggression to which the Ottoman power had already yielded.
So far as appears from Marten'sRecueil des Traités, the Sublime Porte was the first to yield the point, suffering it to go by default, however, of exempting resident foreigners from local jurisdiction, rather than by a formal abdication of authority in a treaty. The earliest admission that we have met with, strange to say, occurs in the United States' treaty, negotiated with Turkey in 1830. 'If litigation and disputes should arise between subjects of the Sublime Porte and citizens of the United States, the parties shall not be heard, nor shall judgment be pronounced, unless the American dragoman be present. Citizens of the United States, committing an offence, shall not be arrested and put to prison by the local authorities, but they shall be tried by their minister or consul, and punished according to their offence, following in this respect theusageobserved toward other Franks.'
With Persia, in 1856, we stipulated only that the American consul shall be present at the tribunal, when Americans are parties in a trial.
Our earliest treaty in Eastern Asia was negotiated in 1833, with Siam, with which power we agreed, 'that merchants of the United States, trading in the kingdom of Siam, shall respect andfollowthe laws andcustomsof the country inallpoints'—conceding not only interterritoriality to the fullest extent; but making it the duty of American traders to creep on all fours when in the presence of a high functionary of that kingdom, and to become orthodox Buddhists! Inadvertently, no doubt, going farther than Joel Barlow, who thought it expedient in histreaty with Tripoli (1797) to insert a sort of disclaimer against Christianity, inserting in the treaty, 'the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,' a sort of offset, in accordance with the fashion of the period, to the Austrian treaty of nearly the same date, which was negotiated in the name of the 'Most Holy Trinity.'
As regards Mohammedan countries, it is not likely that grave evils will soon arise from the exempting of foreigners from local jurisdiction; there is yet so much vigor in the government of those states, and so much vindictiveness toward the giaour foreigners there will be deterred from those practices which render them a terror to the more servile people of Buddhist countries. But the extension of the principle to Eastern Asia has been extremely disastrous to the peoples of those countries, and has not been unattended by inimical reflex influences on the wrong doers of the West.
To understand the operation of extraterritorial jurisdiction, let us suppose the principle to be applied to ourselves. A European merchant or sailor inflicts corporal chastisement on one of our citizens in Broadway, and the prestige which the foreigner enjoys, precludes interference on the part of bystanders and police. If the New Yorker happens to be desirous of obtaining redress, he must first discover and identify the assailant, and next ascertain his nationality. [A Chinaman, in like circumstances, would find as much trouble in arriving at the truth, as if he were to attempt the investigation of the assailant's pedigree; he knows as little of our nationalities as we do of the forty tribes of Borneo.] Our persevering citizen succeeds at length in lodging a complaint at the consulate of the offender. The consul is perhaps a fellow merchant of the defendant, or head of the firm to which the offender is consigned. The complainant is accommodated with a blundering interpreter, and the case is tried according to the foreigner's code, which, on such occasions, is endowed with more than wonted elasticity. If, contrary to all probability, the foreigner is convicted, the citizen has the satisfaction of seeing the foreign assailant placed in confinement on the consul's premises, or perhaps mulcted to a small amount; and with this administration of justice, he and his country must be content. Who does not see that such an abdication of authority on our part would lead to the perpetration of wrongs that would soon become unendurable, even if we were first to become a broken spirited people? And, considering the arrogance and recklessness of many foreigners in China, and the pusillanimous character of the natives, what can be expected but contempt and aggression on one side, and mistrust and finesse on the other? What but a chronic discontent, wholly incompatible with healthful commerce and peaceful intercourse, can be expected from such a state of things? Consider further that this occurs among a people of the highest antiquity, with a history and a civilization of which they are justly proud; who, in political and moral science, were in advance of Greece and Rome, at a time when those, whom they now designate 'barbarians,' really were so. When our ancestors were half naked savages, the Chinese were a polished literary people. In calling attention to this subject we do so, not less in the interest of our oriental clients than in that of our own lands; for our relations with the empire of China will, with the growth of our power on the Pacific, assume such importance, that good policy demands that we should avoid any course likely to render hostile such a large portion of the human race. Many years ago we deprecated Chinese emigration into California, on the ground that, asprolétaires, they would degrade labor, and leave that State without its most important element of strength; yet to the Chinese, in theirown country, we would pursue a conciliatory instead of a domineering course.
Hardly had the Portuguese doubled the Cape of Good Hope, when the Chinese, who had but imperfectly resisted aggression from neighboring countries, began to suffer annoyance from the 'barbarians from the Western Ocean.' At an early day the Portuguese established a factory at the mouth of the river on which Ningpo is situated. The factory became a colony, and the colony a little state. 'At the origin of colonies,' says M. Cochin, 'we find in general two men, a filibuster and a missionary. To go so far, one must have either a devil in his body, or God in his heart. When to these two men is joined a third—a ruler—all goes on well; the first subjugates, the second converts, and the third organizes.' All these went to work in China: as elsewhere, affairs went on well as regards filibuster, missionary, and ruler. Courts of justice, hospitals, seminaries, and military posts were established. Natives joined the colonists in large numbers, adopting the foreign dress, customs, and religion, without a moment's hesitation. If the Chinese had been as few in number as the Aztecs, a Portuguese dominion would soon have arisen in Cathay; but the raids made by the colonists, the slaying of villagers, the violation and carrying off of women, the cruelty and robberies of the Christians, became so intolerable that the whole region was aroused, and the colonists exterminated. From that period Europeans were rigorously restricted to the port of Canton, and the coast enjoyed quiet, except interrupted by an occasional buccaneer, until the present century, when the opium traffic brought violent men to every port.
The Portuguese were not the only sufferers from trespassing upon the soil of China. Twenty Japanese filibusters were boiled to death in the streets of Ningpo, by order of an envoy of their country, who then (1406) happened to be in Peking. All their intercourse with foreigners seemed to confirm Chinamen in the belief that the barbarians were in their dispositions like wild beasts, unamenable to reason, and to be treated accordingly.
With feelings of mutual mistrust and hostility, commerce was long conducted by Europeans and Chinese at Canton. The question of foreign exemption from local jurisdiction only came up for discussion in cases of homicide; but in every instance the Chinese insisted on their right to punish the murderer. Foreign resistance to the claim was based only on the unwillingness of the Chinese to distinguish between killing by accident, in self-defence, or from malice. In the Chinese code such distinctions exist; but life for life was the inexorable demand when a native was slain by a foreigner; it was not, however, so much jealousy of foreign jurisdiction, as a desire of revenge, that actuated them, as was shown on many occasions. Whenever foreigners tried and executed one of their number for a murder of a Chinaman, the mandarins and people were satisfied. It was the practice of the local authorities to make a representation to the emperor to the effect that such trials and executions were in obedience to their orders, the foreigners being their submissive agents. The real difficulties occurred when an accidental or extenuating homicide took place, or where there was insufficient proof of the guilt of the accused. The condign punishment of those convicted did not meet the requirements of the Chinese authorities. They seized, and held as hostages, countrymen of the murderer, and demanded blood for blood, seeking not justice but revenge. The object was explicitly expressed by the emperor Kienlung, in an edict (1749): 'It is incumbent to have life for life, in order to frighten and repress the foreigner.'
Four years subsequent to the issuing of the edict of Kienlung, the Canton local government memorialized the emperor to disallow to foreigners the privilege of appeal, when sentenced to death. Except in times of insurrection no Chinaman can be executed until his death warrant is signed by the emperor. In compliance with that memorial, foreigners, guilty of homicide, were outlawed. It was formally announced that 'The barbarians are like beasts, and not to be ruled on the same principles as citizens. Were any to attempt controlling them by the great maxim of reason, it would tend to nothing but confusion. The ancient kings well understood this, and accordingly ruled barbarians by misrule. Therefore, to rule barbarians by misrule is the true way of ruling them.' It suited the purpose of European residents at Canton to descant upon the arrogance and inhumanity of the Chinese, as manifested by proceedings based upon those hostile edicts, while the provocations which explained and extenuated them were studiously concealed.
Considered apart from the misdemeanors of foreigners, the measures of the Chinese authorities justified the appeal to arms by the nation, whose interests were chiefly concerned in commercial dealings with that empire. The supremacy claimed by the Chinese over all countries occasioned frequent altercations between the mandarins at Canton and the English officers who were in charge of the East India Company's factory in that city. Hostile collisions were, however, comparatively unfrequent, owing to the authority exercised over all British subjects by the East India Company, that body having authority to deport any of their countrymen who acted disorderly. Their proceedings in that way gave a tone to the entire foreign community, and as intercourse was restricted to a single port, where the people were jealous, and mandarins vigilant, murderous affrays did not often take place; yet, when they did occur, the Chinese were resolute in claiming jurisdiction in each instance. In cases of assault, pecuniary recompense always satisfied the complainant; and in business transactions mutual confidence in each other's integrity rendered official intervention unnecessary.
Thus, except in cases of homicide, the foreign claim of exemption from local jurisdiction was tacitly admitted, and no inconvenience followed. But where life was lost, even when both the murderer and his victim were foreigners, the right to try and execute the guilty was contended for, and in some cases admitted. Kienlung's demand of 'life for life' was always made, an innocent victim being not less acceptable than the real culprit. On one occasion (1772), when a Chinaman was killed in the Portuguese settlement of Macao, an Englishman, demanded by the Chinese, whom the Portuguese admitted to be guiltless, was by them given up, and by the Chinese strangled, to meet the claim of life for life. No regard was had for those who by accident caused loss of life. In 1780 a native was killed by the firing of a salute from an English vessel. The mandarins decoyed the supercargo and held him as a hostage until the gunner was delivered up. The innocent cause of the calamity was given up under a promise from the mandarins that he should have a fair trial, and that his life should not be endangered. He was immediately strangled. In 1821 an Italian sailor, in the service of an American merchantman, was the indirect cause of the death of a China boatwoman, who was by the side of his vessel. Trade was stopped until the poor man was delivered up; the committee of American merchants, in the examination of the sailor, protested against its irregularity. In sending the prisoner to be strangled, they said, 'We are bound to submit to your laws, while in your waters; be they ever so unjust, we will not resist them.' A plausible reason for a culpable act. They should have allowed the trade to stop, and quit the Chinese waters, rather than become parties to the murder of the Italian.
The abrogation of the monopoly of the East India Company, and the rapid extension of the illicit traffic in opium, caused a great influx of foreigners into China, who often forced their way to ports where intercourse was prohibited; these were among the causes which prepared the way for the war with Great Britain; but the question which precipitated that war, was one touching Chinese jurisdiction over contraband merchandise, smuggled into the empire in defiance of the efforts of the Chinese authorities to keep it out. Opium, the bane of their race, was stored up in the foreigners' vessels in Chinese waters. To obtain possession of the fatal drug, they placed the foreigners in duresse. The opium war followed, and next the treaty of Nanking, which secured all that Britain desired, save the legalization of the opium traffic.
Neither in the treaty of Nanking, nor the supplementary treaty, was the concession of exemption of British subjects from local Chinese jurisdiction formally expressed. Security to British subjects was guaranteed, while the British Government stipulated that they should keep a ship of war at each port 'to restrain sailors on board the English merchant vessels, which power the consuls may also avail themselves of, to keep in order the merchants of Great Britain and her colonies.'
That the Chinese regarded the principle of extraterritoriality as having been conceded, was shown by their ready assent to the insertion in the American treaty of a clause formally abdicating sovereignty to that extent. Our treaty says: 'Subjects of China, who may be guilty of any criminal act toward citizens of the United States, shall be arrested and punished by the Chinese authorities, according to the laws of China; and citizens of the United States, who may commit any crime in China, shall be tried and punished by the consul or other public functionary of the United States.' Provision was made for joint action between American and Chinese officials in certain cases. It was also stipulated that there should be no interference by the Chinese in any misunderstanding that might arise between Americans and people of other foreign countries.
In the third treaty—that negotiated by the French—foreign exemption from Chinese law was yet more explicitly declared: 'Every Frenchman, who harbors resentment or ill will toward a Chinese, ought first to inform the consul thereof, who will again distinctly investigate the matter, and endeavor to settle it. If a Chinese has a grudge against a Frenchman, the consul must impartially examine and fully arrange it for him. But if any dispute should arise, which the consul is unable to assuage, he will request the Chinese officer to coöperate in arranging the matter, and having investigated the facts, justly bring the same to a conclusion. If there is any strife between French and Chinese, or any fight occurs in which one, two, or more men are wounded, or killed by firearms, or other weapons, the Chinese will, in such cases, be apprehended and punished, according to the laws of the Central Empire; the consul will use means to apprehend the Frenchmen, speedily investigate the matter, and punish them according to the French law. France will in future establish laws for their punishment. All other matters, not distinctly stated in this paragraph, will be arranged according to this, and greater or lesser crimes committed by the French, will be judged according to French law.'
China, stunned by the blows so unexpectedly inflicted by the barbarians, whom she despised and thought herself able to exterminate, made no resistance to the demands made for extraterritoriality. As a Chinaman does not hesitate to commit suicide when excited and alarmed, so Taukwang quietly acquiesced in terms which were fatal to the independence of his empire. When, subsequently, the English demanded from the Siamese similar conditions, those people, although feeble and servile, could not easily be made to brook the degradation. Sir John Bowring, who negotiated the treaty with that state, says, in his Kingdom and Prospects of Siam, 'The most difficult part of my negotiation was the emancipation of British subjects from subjection to Siamese authority.' Who can wonder? The emancipation of the guests required for its complement the disfranchisement of the host! The fact that the Siamese were aware of the nature of the concession affords hope that they will succeed in averting some of its mischievous consequences. Subsequently the Siamese made the same concession to Americans, thus abrogating our former self-stultifying stipulation.
Mr. Urquhart, in his work on Turkey and its Resources, expresses the opinion that the Ottoman empire and the Barbary States have acted unwisely in exempting resident Franks from jurisdiction; on which Mr. Cushing, who negotiated our treaty, remarked, when attorney-general of the United States: 'It may be unwise for them; but it will be time enough for them to obtain jurisdiction over Christian foreigners, when these last can visit Mecca, Damascus, or Fez as safely and freely as they do Rome and Paris, and when submission to local jurisdiction becomes reciprocal.' When have Mohammedans or Pagans refused submission to rulers in Christian lands? As regards China, Christian travellers enjoy the same immunities there that are accorded to them in Europe or America—they are safe and free; it is not easy, therefore, to frame a valid reason for extraterritorial practice in that empire.
No less a jurist than John Quincy Adams, in a lecture on the British war with China, delivered before the Massachusetts Historical Society (December, 1841), pronounced the cause of Britain 'righteous.' Mr. Adams, however, proceeded on the assumption that the real matter at issue was whether the assumption of Chinese supremacy should be admitted or not. He regarded the opium question as a mere incident in the controversy, and entirely overlooked the other question at issue, viz., the independence of China.
Let us now observe the operation of the extraterritorial policy. Besides Canton, four other ports were opened for trade, and the grant is made to England of full sovereignty of the island of Hongkong, commanding the entrance of the Pearl or Canton river. If the Chinese had been able to restrict its concession to the three treaty powers, England, United States, and France, the baneful consequences might have been easily controlled, for these countries immediately empowered their consuls to exercise jurisdiction over their respective countrymen. In one respect, Congress fully met the demands made upon the country by the position which we with others had assumed in China. Laws sufficiently stringent were enacted for the government of our citizens in that empire; but the consular system, that was inaugurated to meet the new order of things, was so defective, as to render those laws nearly inoperative. The salaries attached to these offices being totally inadequate, competent persons could not be induced to accept appointments; or when accepted, they were relinquished as soon as the incumbent became fully qualified by experience for the discharge of consular duties. Having to act as a magistrate, some knowledge of law was requisite; and having peculiar diplomatic duties to perform, considerable knowledge of Chinese polity, history, and customs was needed. The consequence was, as regards Americans, such a lax administration of justice that our disorderly countrymen were not subject to due restraint; and as American offenders easily eluded apprehension, or escaped punishment, lawless British subjects often found it advantageous to claim to beAmerican citizens, insomuch as to cause irreparable damage to American character and influence. When the ports were first opened for trade, no people were regarded with as much favor as our countrymen; but since that period we have lost ground, and our influence has been greatly impaired through those causes.
The British consular system was made a service, its members being fairly remunerated and induced to make their occupation the profession of their lives; consequently the Government has at all times competent and reliable servants. British consuls, moreover, in their magisterial capacity were a terror to evil doers, the means placed at their disposal for repressing the unruly were ample; while the American consul, being unprovided with interpreters, and ignorant of the language, having no constable or marshal, clerks or assistants of any kind, and having no place wherein to confine a criminal, often failed to inspire respect.
It was, however, from the subjects of non-treaty powers that China was destined to suffer most from her concession of extraterritoriality. Men of every clime and nation claimed exemption from her laws. Vagabonds, whose government had no consular authority to restrain them, boldly defied the local authorities, becoming a law unto themselves. Lawless adventurers from the gold regions of Australia and California personated those nationalities; and the bewildered Chinese often despaired of success in distinguishing even the names of the nationalities they were called to encounter. When discharging consular duties in Ningpo, the mandarins frequently consulted us, soliciting information on this subject; they were apprehensive of offending one government or another, while seeking to afford protection to their own people.
One disastrous result of the war with England was the discovery by the Chinese of the impotency of their rulers. No sooner had the lawless among them seen the ease with which a few foreigners dictated terms to the hitherto formidable mandarins, than they took to the sea as pirates. In a short space of time the coast became so infested by these marauders, that Chinese junks dared not put to sea without being under the convoy of a foreign, square-rigged vessel. A lucrative business soon sprang up in convoying. A foreign merchantman would sail in company with a fleet of junks, and by his presence intimidate the Chinese pirate. Gradually this business was monopolized by the Portuguese; the proximity of their Chinese possession, Macao, enabled them to fit out lorchas, or coasting sloops, which, being manned largely by Manilla men, were able to serve as a cheap and effective navy for the Chinese mercantile marine. Enjoying exemption from all control, these armed, irresponsible lorchamen early began to dictate terms to the Chinese mariners, and in a few months the unfortunate Chinaman was puzzled which to avoid, the piratical junk or the buccaneering lorcha, the extortions of the latter being as damaging as the robberies of the former. He was no more at liberty to decline the protection of a Portuguese convoy, on the terms which the foreigner saw fit to impose, than to refuse the demands of the professed pirate.
The Chinese pirates, finding their occupation so much interfered with by their foreign rivals, turned their attention to the poor fishermen, whom they mercilessly plundered. Foreign protection was invoked; and the protection of this important branch of industry was committed to the unprincipled lorchamen. When junkmen and fishermen discovered that the extortions of the foreigner were damaging as the exactions of the native pirate, they tried to make terms with the latter; but it was too late. It was no longer optional with them to accept or refuse protection. Black mail was levied upon all with the method and certainty of arevenue service. This was not effected without violence and bloodshed; but of this there were none to take cognizance. The outrages were perpetrated at ports or off coast, where there were no consuls. Hence anarchy reigned at all points beyond the precincts of the consular ports.
It is the nature of such a condition of things to extend; and it was not long before the lawless foreigners, chiefly Portuguese, but with a mixture of English, Americans, and all other nationalities, carried their depredations to the villages on the islands and mainland. Robbery and murder at sea were succeeded by like crimes on land. Whole villages were reduced to ashes; the men butchered, and the women violated; some being carried on board the lorchas and held to ransom. Chinese officials were slain on attempting to resist the corsairs. Much of our surgical practice in China was due to these piracies and forays.
Adventurers, who could not command a lorcha, fitted up native boats, and hoisting some foreign flag, carried on like depredations in the estuaries and rivers. Others went so far as to open offices in the small towns for the sale of passes, which boats crossing from headland to headland were compelled to show, in order to escape from greater exactions when under way. Not a small part of the wrongs thus perpetrated were by natives attired in foreign habiliments and under foreign direction. Such was the fear entertained of foreigners, that a bold and unscrupulous man could do anything with impunity. Take the following occurrence as an illustration: At the mouth of the Ningpo river is a small village of salt makers, at which the salt commissioner stations a deputy. This officer, after having been cruelly beaten, was driven away by the Portuguese, who issued a proclamation authorizing their employés to collect the salt gabel in the name of the Portuguese consul!
It is proper to remark that the transition from the protective to the piratical character of the lorchas was owing in some measure to the fatuous procedure of the mandarins themselves toward a formidable body of pirates, whose submission they purchased by conferring ranks and emoluments on the chiefs, and by giving employment to the whole fleet, constituting them guardians of the coast. In transforming the wolves into shepherds, a change of occupation was not attended by a change of character. In their new capacity as legalized fleecers, they came into collision with those of Macao; and what they lost as convoyers, they aimed to gain as pirates.
A general massacre of the Portuguese at Ningpo, by the Cantonese pirates, served to mitigate the evil by calling the attention of the English and Portuguese authorities to the anarchy which drew much of its support from Hongkong and Macao. The Portuguese were subjected to greater restraint, and a greater degree of order was thereby secured.
It is not easy to estimate the evil effects upon China of the possession of Hongkong and of Macao by the Portuguese. They are like corroding ulcers in her side. Imagine Bermuda and Nassau just off Sandy Hook, with every conceivable facility for smuggling into the port of New York; suppose the contraband traffic to be fatal to the health and morals of our citizens, as well as prejudicial to our revenue, and then extraterritorial privilege giving immunity to many of the foreigners' misdeeds; and the difficult position of Chinese authorities will be partially appreciated.
It was in part a question of jurisdiction that led to the second war with England—the 'lorcha' war. But for the assumption, on the part of the British, that the Chinese were in a measure a subjugated people, or not in possession of full sovereignty, they could not have again invaded China with any show of reason.
On the breaking out of hostilities there was a general demand, on the part of all mercantile powers, for the entire and unrestricted opening of the Chinese empire to all foreigners. At that juncture we felt called upon to remonstrate against such injustice toward an unoffending country. In a series of articles, published in theNorth China Herald, we attempted to show that an unqualified compliance with the demands of chambers of commerce and the press would be inimical to foreign no less than to Chinese interests: 'With one voice Christian nations demand the entire opening of China, and an extension of commercial advantages, regardless of Chinese rights in the matter. I believe that these rights cannot be infringed with impunity. China, it is true, must succumb before a requisite force; but the real difficulties of the aggressors will only then commence. Let us consider the consequences of an unconditional compliance with the demands of foreigners. You shall see the horrid barbarities, which have devastated the coast, reënacted in the interior. You shall see the adventurers, who shoot down Chinamen with no more malice or compunction than they shoot a pheasant, go further and travel faster than consul, merchant, or missionary. Murder, robbery, rape, and the like, will be common wherever the arm of authority is unfelt. Up her far-reaching rivers, along her interminable network of canals, on the surface of her broad lakes, through her every navigable water-course, China will be infested by desperadoes from all lands, scattering misery in every valley and throughout the great plain. Then will follow the assassination of the peaceful traveller; massacres, foreign intervention, blockades and wars, and the lasting impediments to commerce and civilization which these disorders engender.'
We proposed, as a check to the evil, a system of passports, limiting the privilege of travel or residence beyond consular ports to responsible persons—to those who could give some guarantee that the privilege should not be abused. Lord Elgin and Baron Gros, the allied plenipotentiaries, accepted the plan, and proposed it to the imperial commissioners. It is said that the commissioners eagerly seized the proposition, as, after the capture of Tien-tsin by the allied forces, they saw that submission was inevitable, yet durst not propose to the emperor unconditional acquiescence with the conquerors' demands, and represented the proposed passport system as a condition which they had imposed upon the barbarians. Thus they were empowered to negotiate the treaty of Tien-tsin, which averted a battle between that port and Peking, which neither party felt itself quite ready to commence.
About a dozen additional ports, some in the heart of the empire, are now open to the foreigner, and extraterritoriality obtains throughout the vast region subject to the sway of the Son of Heaven—which, with other corresponding causes, seems to be effecting the dismemberment of that hoary empire. The regimen to which the oldest of nations is subjected, is fast placing it in the condition of the 'sick man' of the Bosphorus.
As an evidence of the aggressive character of the foreigner, and of the desire of rendering extraterritoriality a means of subjugation, examine the claims set up within the past few months by mercantile interests. China, having surrendered her right over criminals in her territory, has been further called on to submit to British consular investigation and adjudication with the assistance of two assessors (British merchants), in all cases of seizure and confiscation by her customs authorities, whenever hardship or injustice is alleged—the custom-house officers to be cited before the consul to receive his judgment in the case!
Again, there is a foreign as well as a native Shanghai. This settlement, or city of foreigners, adjacent to Shanghaiproper, occupies a considerable space of territory, and is a place of great wealth. Its warehouses are palatial, it has beautiful public and private edifices, and is governed by a municipality chosen by property holders from among themselves. Its police, streets, piers, race-course, and all the appurtenances of a city, are admirably arranged. Nowhere, in the whole empire, is there so much security for life and property; hence natives, who can afford to hire, from foreigners, houses which have been erected on this conceded ground, are glad to do so; it has consequently become a place of resort for well-to-do natives, who thus become exempt from the extortion of the mandarins. Latterly the Chinese local authorities have undertaken to impose a tax upon these extraterritorial natives, which their foreign clients resist, although one of the reasons assigned by the mandarins, for the levying of taxes on their people residing in the foreign settlement, is an increase of expenditure consequent on the employment of the Anglo-Chinese flotilla.
Happily the British Government has refused to enforce the claims of the merchants, as regards the exemption of their contraband goods from confiscation; and Sir F. Bruce, the British ambassador, and Mr. Burlingame, the United States ambassador, have admitted 'that the so-called foreign settlement of Shanghai is Chinese territory, and that the fact of Chinese occupying houses, which are the property of foreigners, does not in any way entitle such foreigners to interfere with the levying of taxes by Chinese officials.'
No additional evidence need be adduced to show that, in exempting resident foreigners from criminal and civil jurisdiction, the Chinese have opened the way for endless complications, for ever-recurring aggressions. What are the duties of our Government and people with regard to the Chinese, in view of the position in which those people are placed? We hold that it is not our duty to abandon the concession, which thus imperils the existence of the Chinese empire. It is not clear that if all nations, having intercourse with China, were to agree to renounce the privilege they have extorted, it would be best to suffer their people to trust wholly to Chinese tribunals for protection. Cases could not fail to arise demanding foreign interference, if foreigners were permitted to go to China at all. And since the re-sealing of the empire is out of the question, less evil is perhaps likely to accrue, as things now are, than by a change of policy. There is so little regard for human life among the Chinese, so much venality at the tribunals of justice, that foreigners would be endangered in person and property, unless protected by some extraordinary safeguards, perhaps even to the extent secured by treaty. Assuming, then, as we do, this jurisdiction in China, we incur a grave responsibility. It is incumbent on us loyally to fulfil the obligations that we have assumed; to see that we do not, by a lax administration of justice, encourage unprincipled men in violating Chinese law. No new laws are required, but a faithful enforcement of those already enacted. To accomplish this, we need to amend and improve our consular system. Consulates in China cannot be rendered efficient until they are filled by competent men, who shall hold their office during good behavior, and to whom inducement should be made to spend the best part of their lives in the service. We cannot, like the English, hold out the prospect of a retiring pension to one who serves the State twenty years in that uncongenial climate; but we can refrain from making those frequent changes which prove so detrimental to every interest concerned. The consuls should either be acquainted with the Chinese language, a work for a lifetime, or have an American interpreter. The practice of having a Chinese linguist is most damaging—the native linguist being invariably a lying knave, who becomes consulde facto, whom no native can approach without a bribe, which it is supposed goes in part to the consul. As the points where consuls are needed are numerous, some of them being where the honorable merchantman from the United States rarely visits, it may seem that the expense would prove an insuperable objection to the establishment of a full and efficient consular system. This objection ought to have no weight. If we are not prepared to allow the Chinese to exercise jurisdiction over our wandering citizens, we are bound, at any cost, ourselves to discharge that duty. And in view of the fact that American officials possess power of life and death over their fellow citizens, our Government should appoint a judicial officer, also holding office during good behavior, by whom all grave cases should be tried. If we cannot afford to be just, let us economize by abrogating the office of commissioner or ambassador to Peking. That is an office which, from its emoluments, must always be given, whichever party may be in power, as a reward for party services to one who will return or be recalled before he begins to understand his business. Achargé des affaires, with our admiral on the station, could attend to all needful diplomacy, and thus a saving could be made and carried to the credit of the consulates.
Further, as by express stipulation we debar the Chinese from adjudicating in quarrels which may arise between our citizens and the people of other countries in China, we ought to take measures for the establishing of a mixed tribunal to exercise jurisdiction in such cases; and there ought to be an arrangement by which countries which are properly represented in China might investigate and adjudicate in offences committed by foreigners not properly represented in that country: a most dangerous class of persons, who enjoy the privilege of extraterritoriality, without amenability to any tribunal, and who by their misconduct place every foreign interest in jeopardy.
As with the advance of Christian civilization, society is more and more disposed to accord the rights of manhood to men of every race; so, let us hope, nations will yet be found willing to forego the advantages that greater power confers, no longer employing that power in oppressing or subverting weak states.