The outrageous treatment to which the privileged classes (merchants, students, and travellers) have been subjected, under cover of enforcing the Exclusion Laws, has caused a deep-rooted resentment, of which the boycott is only a superficial manifestation.  That movement may not be of long duration, but it has already lasted long enough to do us no little damage.

[Page 254] Besides occasioning embarrassment to our trade, it has excited a feeling of hostility which it will require years of conciliatory policy to eradicate.

The letter makes no direct reference to the boycott, neither does it allude to coming negotiations; yet there can be little doubt that, in making this appeal, the writer had both in view.  The viceroy and his officials are right in regarding the present as a grave crisis in the intercourse of the two countries.

Their amicable relations have never been interrupted except during a fanatical outbreak known as the “Boxer Troubles,” which aimed at the expulsion of all foreigners.  The leading part taken by our country in the subsequent settlement, especially in warding off the threatened dismemberment of China, added immensely to our influence.  Again, on the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese conflict, which was waged mainly on Chinese territory, it was American diplomacy that secured for China the advantage of neutrality, and once more warded off a danger that menaced her existence.

Yet every spark of gratitude for these transcendent services is liable to be extinguished by the irritation caused by discrimination against her labourers and the consequent ill-treatment of other classes of her people.  No argument is required to show how important it is to remove all grounds of complaint in the interest of our growing commerce.

That any sweeping alteration will be made in our existing laws, I have given my mandarin friends no reason to expect.  Self-preservation stands on a higher plane than the amenities of intercourse.  For many years these laws served as a bulwark without which the [Page 255] sparse population of our Western States would have been swamped by the influx of Asiatics.  In early days it was easier for the Chinese to cross the ocean than for the people of our Eastern States to cross the Continent.  Now, however, the completion of railroads has reduced the continental transit to five or six days, in lieu of many months; and the population of our Pacific Coast is so considerable that there is no longer any danger of its being overrun by immigrants from the Far East.  Is it not therefore a fair question whether the maintenance of these old restrictions is desirable or politic?  Swaddling bands, necessary for the protection of an infant, are an impediment to a growing boy.  That question can perhaps be best decided by ascertaining the general sentiment of our Pacific States.  My impression is that, with the exception of the fruit-growers of California and some others, they are strongly opposed to what they call “letting down the bars.”