in the burden of patriotism by providing the labourers with the means for their future lavlihood. The Hongkong
merchants were after all Chinese, and the strikers were,
taking a long view, striking partly in their interests. It was logical that the Canton merchants should share
no PA
the burden, but it was longer possible to use the old
method of a compulsory levy, and it was doubtful whether the Canton merchants could be persuaded to pay any substantial sum. Mr. Sung concurred that the logical conclusion from his line of argument was that there
was no possible ground for payment by British merchants.
He hoped that the British merchants would join in, in order that a sufficient sum might be raised, but it
was immaterial where the money came from.
Two things should be very clearly under- stood. Firstly, the Canton Government could never under
any circumstances let labour down. Labour had helped them to their present position, they depended largely upon labour for their future maintenance in power, and
the movement which they were heading was one for the government of the whole of China by the people. The power of labour in China was not properly understood. It was now very great indeed. In September last Chang Tso-lin
had forcibly closed the Shanghai Unions and had shot
certain strikers in Tientsin. The Canton Authorities
were at once certain that his fall must be a matter of
weeks only. The event had proved them right. A few defections might be explained away, but the only possible
explanation of the wholesale desertions by the rank
and file was the fact that he had offended labour.
The second point regarding which there
should be no misunderstanding was the definite fact that,
if it was merely a question of finance, the strikers
ཤ་༽
could