CO129-337 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1906 — Page 309

303

2

opposing the new Treaty and urging the Central Government, if the United States' Government complained of the boycott, to reply that there was no law in China to compel the people to buy any special quality of goods or raise a boycott." It was also alleged with some show of probability that the Empress-Dowager favoured the movement in the Privy Council, and that many members of the Central Government "were exceedingly pleased to receive such unanimous support from the people of the country." The Decree of the 16th July appointing Commissioners to travel abroad in search of information on which to base a Constitution and other radical measures of reform synchronized closely with a large meeting held at Shanghae to decide measures "for putting the boycott into operation, the period of two months having expired on the 20th July." This was a remarkable and representative gathering of delegates from the Chambers of Commerce and kindred associations of the majority of the Treaty ports, and from many inland cities, members of the Chinese Educational Association, students of some twenty schools, and representatives of the leading commercial guilds and firms of Shanghae, Canton, Hankow, Fukien, and Shantung. A novel feature was the presence of some hundred Chinese ladies, who are said to have followed the proceedings "with a firm front to show intelligent interest." There were many speeches exhorting to the world that in this instance, at any rate, there is a united China," and in some a point was made of the success of "little Japan" over her huge opponent Russia, showing the world what Asiatics were able to do when thoroughly roused." Towards the close of this meeting the members of the Piece Goods Guild present came forward and took an oath that, beginning from the 20th July, they would not buy any more American piece or other goods until the purpose in view of the nation had been properly obtained.” On the 20th July a number of shops doing business in the Shanghae foreign Settlements sent "voluntary declarations" to the Boycott Committee solemnly undertaking not to buy or sell American goods, and the boycott may be said to have commenced,

From the very beginning this boycott movement found American sympathisers, and was conducted in a manner characteristically American—public meetings, speeches, distribution of literature, and selection of delegates to attend larger conferences. The "Journal of the American Association of China" mentions that "the American members of the Educational Association meeting in Shanghae, as early as May, took action in about the same behalf of the Chinese, especially those belonging to the student class.

time the American Association in Shanghae passed resolutions and sent telegrams both in behalf of students and merchants desiring to enter the United States." On the 2nd June a Petition prepared by the Chinese students of the Anglo-Chinese College, a missionary institution at Foochow, was sent through the American Consul to President Roosevelt, and by the beginning of July native Christians at Canton joined the movement, and, with the public support of American missionaries, sent protests against exclusion to Washington. In America the question was forced on public attention by the treatment accorded to the Chin (King) family at Boston on the 1st June by the United States' Chinese Inspector. Three sons and a daughter of a well-known Chinese silk merchant of Shanghae, who had been educated in London (the sons at King's College), were returning to China through the United States, and were provided with passports and a special letter of introduction from the United States' Ambassador, Mr. Choate. On their arrival at Boston they were refused permission to land, detained on the steamer, and compelled to be photographed and to furnish bonds. (I may mention that one of these young Chins is the Assistant Magistrate referred to in the correspondence on the Mixed Court incident of the 8th December.) On the 12th June a delegation of members of the American Asiatic Association saw President Roosevelt in Washington, and "entered a formal protest against such an enforcement of the Chinese exclusion laws as might imperil the export trade of this country with China." The President is reported to have responded cordially, and no doubt the Chinese agitators concluded from this conciliatory attitude that the threat of a boycott was likely to effect their purpose better than the diplomacy of the Chinese Government. A native paper of Shanghae reported on the 25th July that, in answer to a telegram of the Wai-wu Pu to the Boycott Committee warning the members to be careful, and stating that the American Minister was "most peaceable and affable in speaking of the proposed Treaty," Tseng Taotai, the Chairman, telegraphed back that "the American Minister shows himself peaceable and affable because he fears our manner of protest. If we were not to start a boycott of American goods, you may be sure that he would not be so peaceable and affable in dealing with the Exclusion Treaty clauses.

23

It is clear that at the outset the movement was tacitly, if not actively, approved by the Chinese Government, and that the Wai-wu Pu only began to exercise a moderating influence when it appeared that more than a mere threat of boycott was intended. The attitude of the four principal Viceroys was characteristic. Viceroy Yuan let it be known that he would have none of the agitation in his jurisdiction, and trade in Chibli and North China generally was not affected in consequence. The Viceroys of Wuchang and Nanking made no public attempt to stem the tide. Viceroy Ts'en openly sided with the boycotters, as mentioned above, and when the United States' Consul-General at Canton asked him to prohibit mass meetings and the posting of inflammatory placards, replied that "the people are at liberty to deal in whatever goods they like, and I cannot prohibit them from buying or refusing to buy American goods. I have no such power. The meetings are held by people who consider them necessary to protect the interests of their own country, and if undue force were employed to suppress them I am afraid it would make matters worse, and the people might be so enraged that I could not control them."

In August 1905, more meetings were held at Shanghae to maintain a "firm front against the Exclusion Treaty," and the boycott movement was spread so dangerously by means of inflammatory placards, pictures, and pamphlets, that from being anti-American it showed signs of becoming anti-foreign and anti-dynastic. The Nanking Viceroy was ordered from Peking to take steps for the suppression of the agitation, and he appears to have taken advantage of the large losses which the accumulating stocks of goods "arrived and to arrive" were causing to merchants, to appeal to the material interests of the boycotters, but with little result. As I reported in my despatch No. 298 of the 5th September to Lord Lansdowne, the United States' Minister demonstrated strongly with the Chinese Government in regard to their treatment of the agitation, and his representations finally produced a Decree of the 31st August, which commanded the provincial Governments to exert themselves in suppressing it. It happened that a typhoon occurred at Shanghae on the 1st September, and this caused a rising of the river, which flooded the principal wharves and warehouses. Naturally, "boycott" goods were stored at the bottom in most warehouses, and the result was that boycotting merchants were the chief sufferers. This was looked upon as a judgment by many Chinese traders, who are much influenced by "joss," and in the estimation of some foreign merchants the typhoon had no little effect in making the boycott unpopular. There is no doubt that from the date of the Decree there was an end to the active and public propagation of the agitation, and whatever has occurred since has not been of a nature to excite serious notice. But a recurrence is by no means a remote contingency if the United States' Government make no serious attempt to fulfil the expectations raised in China by the conciliatory assurances of United States' officials and public men, the best examples of which will be found in the conversation held at Hong Kong on the 5th September, 1905, in the presence of Sir Matthew Nathan, between Mr. Taft, Secretary of War of the United States, and certain Chinese gentlemen. A Memorandum of this conversation will be found in an inclosure of Lord Lansdowne's despatch to me, No. 264 of the 17th November.

A noteworthy feature of this movement has been the sympathetic attitude of many Americans, and even in Mr. Taft's speech, just referred to, are to be found admissions that the agitation was not entirely without justification, as for instance, when he said that one of the troubles connected with the Exclusion Law was corruption existing in the United States' Consular system, by which, in many cases, the certificate of the Consul was wholly unreliable because procured through fraud." Mr. Taft further spoke of the President's earnest desire that the classes of Chinamen, the merchants, students and others, who have the right to enter the United States, should not be in any way hindered in their free coming and going between China and America. It might be necessary, he said, in order to accomplish this, that there should be some change in the law or Treaty, and if so, the President would certainly take pleasure in effecting and recommending to Congress such reasonable changes. In reply to this, the senior Chinese member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council responded by stating what he and his friends considered desirable modifications, to all of which Mr. Taft said he would draw the attention of the President, and in regard to most of them he expressed his own personal approval.

If, therefore, the expectations aroused by him should ultimately be disappointed, a recrudescence of the agitation seems by no means improbable. The boycott against American goods did not affect American interests alone, because the majority of the mercantile houses engaged in their importation into China are British and American, and the loss resulting from it consequently was felt as acutely by them as by the American exporters. A notable instance was the case of the British-American Tobacco Company. The raw material of the goods they deal in is American, and a great deal of the capital is also American, though the Company is

[1946 x-4]

B 2

means