{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-11:the-three-philanthropists",
  "slug": "the-three-philanthropists",
  "title": "The Three Philanthropists",
  "subtitle": "Three sketches of the good man.",
  "excerpt": "Three sketches in contrasting keys — \\\"He Was the Providence of the Poor,\\\" \\\"He Lived for Others,\\\" and \\\"He Allowed Others to Live for Themselves\\\" — on what it really means to do good.",
  "year": 1890,
  "volume": 11,
  "category": "Essay",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/the-three-philanthropists/",
  "wordCount": 6813,
  "body": "\"Well, while I am a beggar, I will rail,\n    And say there is no sin but to be rich.\"\n\nMR. A. lived in the kingdom of————. He was a sincere professional\nphilanthropist. He was absolutely certain that he loved his fellow-men,\nand that his views were humane and scientific. He concluded to turn his\nattention to taking care of people less fortunate than himself.\n\nWith this object in view he investigated the common people that lived\nabout him, and he found that they were extremely ignorant, that many of\nthem seemed to take no particular interest in life or in business, that\nfew of them had any theories of their own, and that, while many had\nmuscle, there was only now and then one who had any mind worth speaking\nof. Nearly all of them were destitute of ambition. They were satisfied\nif they got something to eat, a place to sleep, and could now and\nthen indulge in some form of dissipation. They seemed to have great\nconfidence in to-morrow—trusted to luck, and took no thought for the\nfuture. Many of them were extravagant, most of them dissipated, and a\ngood many dishonest.\n\nMr. A. found that many of the husbands not only failed to support their\nfamilies, but that some of them lived on the labor of their wives; that\nmany of the wives were careless of their obligations, knew nothing about\nthe art of cooking; nothing about keeping house; and that parents, as a\ngeneral thing, neglected their children or treated them with cruelty. He\nalso found that many of the people were so shiftless that they died of\nwant and exposure.\n\nAfter having obtained this information Mr. A. made up his mind to do\nwhat little he could to better their condition. He petitioned the king\nto assist him, and asked that he be allowed to take control of five\nhundred people in consideration that he would pay a certain amount into\nthe treasury of the kingdom. The king being satisfied that Mr. A.\ncould take care of these people better than they were taking care of\nthemselves, granted the petition.\n\nMr. A., with the assistance of a few soldiers, took these people from\ntheir old homes and haunts to a plantation of his own. He divided\nthem into groups, and over each group placed a superintendent. He\nmade certain rules and regulations for their conduct. They were only\ncompelled to work from twelve to fourteen hours a day, leaving ten hours\nfor sleep and recreation. Good and substantial food was provided. Their\nhouses were comfortable and their clothing sufficient. Their work was\nlaid out from day to day and from month to month, so that they knew\nexactly what they were to do in each hour of every day. These rules\nwere made for the good of the people, to the end that they might not\ninterfere with each other, that they might attend to their duties, and\nenjoy themselves in a reasonable way. They were not allowed to waste\ntheir time, or to use stimulants or profane language. They were told to\nbe respectful to the superintendents, and especially to Mr. A.; to be\nobedient, and, above all, to accept the position in which Providence had\nplaced them, without complaining, and to cheerfully perform their tasks.\n\nMr. A. had found out all that the five hundred persons had earned the\nyear before they were taken control of by him—just how much they had\nadded to the wealth of the world. He had statistics taken for the\nyear before with great care showing the number of deaths, the cases of\nsickness and of destitution, the number who had committed suicide, how\nmany had been convicted of crimes and misdemeanors, how many days they\nhad been idle, and how much time and money they had spent in drink and\nfor worthless amusements.\n\nDuring the first year of their enslavement he kept like statistics. He\nfound that they had earned several times as much; that there had been no\ncases of destitution, no drunkenness; that no crimes had been committed;\nthat there had been but little sickness, owing to the regular course\nof their lives; that few had been guilty of misdemeanors, owing to\nthe certainty of punishment; and that they had been so watched and\nsuperintended that for the most part they had traveled the highway of\nvirtue and industry.\n\nMr. A. was delighted, and with a vast deal of pride showed these\nstatistics to his friends. He not only demonstrated that the five\nhundred people were better off than they had been before, but that his\nown income was very largely increased. He congratulated himself that he\nhad added to the well-being of these people not only, but had laid the\nfoundation of a great fortune for himself. On these facts and these\nfigures he claimed not only to be a philanthropist, but a philosopher;\nand all the people who had a mind to go into the same business agreed\nwith him.\n\nSome denounced the entire proceeding as unwarranted, as contrary to\nreason and justice. These insisted that the five hundred people had\na right to live in their own way provided they did not interfere with\nothers; that they had the right to go through the world with little food\nand with poor clothes, and to live in huts, if such was their choice.\nBut Mr. A. had no trouble in answering these objectors. He insisted\nthat well-being is the only good, and that every human being is under\nobligation, not only to take care of himself, but to do what little\nhe can towards taking care of others; that where five hundred people\nneglect to take care of themselves, it is the duty of somebody else, who\nhas more intelligence and more means, to take care of them; that the man\nwho takes five hundred people and improves their condition, gives\nthem on the average better food, better clothes, and keeps them out of\nmischief, is a benefactor.\n\n\"These people,\" said Mr. A., \"were tried. They were found incapable of\ntaking care of themselves. They lacked intelligence or will or honesty\nor industry or ambition or something, so that in the struggle for\nexistence they fell behind, became stragglers, dropped by the wayside,\ndied in gutters; while many were destined to end their days either in\ndungeons or on scaffolds. Besides all this, they were a nuisance to\ntheir prosperous fellow-citizens, a perpetual menace to the peace of\nsociety. They increased the burden of taxation; they filled the ranks\nof the criminal classes, they made it necessary to build more jails, to\nemploy more policemen and judges; so that I, by enslaving them, not\nonly assisted them, not only protected them against themselves, not only\nbettered their condition, not only added to the well-being of-society at\nlarge, but greatly increased my own fortune.\"\n\nMr. A. also took the ground that Providence, by giving him superior\nintelligence, the genius of command, the aptitude for taking charge\nof others, had made it his duty to exercise these faculties for the\nwell-being of the people and for the glory of God. Mr. A. frequently\ndeclared that he was God's steward. He often said he thanked God that he\nwas not governed by a sickly sentiment, but that he was a man of sense,\nof judgment, of force of character, and that the means employeed by him\nwere in accordance with the logic of facts.\n\nSome of the people thus enslaved objected, saying that they had the same\nright to control themselves that Mr. A. had to control himself. But it\nonly required a little discipline to satisfy them that they were wrong.\nSome of the people were quite happy, and declared that nothing gave them\nsuch perfect contentment as the absence of all responsibility. Mr. A.\ninsisted that all men had not been endowed with the same capacity; that\nthe weak ought to be cared for by the strong; that such was evidently\nthe design of the Creator, and that he intended to do what little he\ncould to carry that design into effect.\n\nMr. A. was very successful. In a few years he had several thousands of\nmen, women, and children working for him. He amassed a large fortune.\nHe felt that he had been intrusted with this money by Providence. He\ntherefore built several churches, and once in a while gave large sums to\nsocieties for the spread of civilization. He passed away regretted by a\ngreat many people—not including those who had lived under his immediate\nadministration. He was buried with great pomp, the king being one of the\npall-bearers, and on his tomb was this:\n\nHe Was the Providence of the Poor\n\nII.\n    \"And, being rich, my virtue then shall be\n    To say there is no vice but beggary.\"\n\nMr. B. did not believe in slavery. He despised the institution with\nevery drop of his blood, and was an advocate of universal freedom. He\nheld all the ideas of Mr. A. in supreme contempt, and frequently spent\nwhole evenings in denouncing the inhumanity and injustice of the whole\nbusiness. He even went so far as to contend that many of A.'s slaves had\nmore intelligence than A. himself, and that, whether they had\nintelligence or not, they had the right to be free. He insisted that Mr.\nA.'s philanthropy was a sham; that he never bought a human being for the\npurpose of bettering that being's condition; that he went into the\nbusiness simply to make money for himself; and that his talk about his\nslaves committing less crime than when they were free was simply to\njustify the crime committed by himself in enslaving his fellow-men.\n\nMr. B. was a manufacturer, and he employeed some five or six thousand\nmen. He used to say that these men were not forced to work for him; that\nthey were at perfect liberty to accept or reject the terms; that, so far\nas he was concerned, he would just as soon commit larceny or robbery as\nto force a man to work for him. \"Every laborer under my roof,\" he used\nto say, \"is as free to choose as I am.\"\n\nMr B. believed in absolutely free trade; thought it an outrage to\ninterfere with the free interplay of forces; said that every man should\nbuy, or at least have the privilege of buying, where he could buy\ncheapest, and should have the privilege of selling where he could get\nthe most. He insisted that a man who has labor to sell has the right to\nsell it to the best advantage, and that the purchaser has the right to\nbuy it at the lowest price. He did not enslave men—he hired them. Some\nsaid that he took advantage of their necessities; but he answered\nthat he created no necessities, that he was not responsible for their\ncondition, that he did not make them poor, that he found them poor and\ngave them work, and gave them the same wages that he could employ others\nfor. He insisted that he was absolutely just to all; he did not give one\nman more than another, and he never refused to employ a man on account\nof the man's religion or politics; all that he did was simply to employ\nthat man if the man wished to be employed, and give him the wages, no\nmore and no less, that some other man of like capacity was willing to\nwork for.\n\nMr. B. also said that the price of the article manufactured by him\nfixed the wages of the persons employed, and that he, Mr. B., was not\nresponsible for the price of the article he manufactured; consequently\nhe was not responsible for the wages of the workmen. He agreed to pay\nthem a certain price, he taking the risk of selling his articles, and he\npaid them regularly just on the day he agreed to pay them, and if they\nwere not satisfied with the wages, they were at perfect liberty to\nleave. One of his private sayings was: \"The poor ye have always with\nyou.\" And from this he argued that some men were made poor so that\nothers could be generous. \"Take poverty and suffering from the world,\"\nhe said, \"and you destroy sympathy and generosity.\"\n\nMr. B. made a large amount of money. Many of his workmen complained\nthat their wages did not allow them to live in comfort. Many had large\nfamilies, and therefore but little to eat. Some of them lived in crowded\nrooms. Many of the children were carried off by disease; but Mr. B. took\nthe ground that all these people had the right to go, that he did not\nforce them to remain, that if they were not healthy it was not his\nfault, and that whenever it pleased Providence to remove a child, or one\nof the parents, he, Mr. B., was not responsible.\n\nMr. B. insisted that many of his workmen were extravagant; that they\nbought things that they did not need; that they wasted in beer and\ntobacco, money that they should save for funerals; that many of them\nvisited places of amusement when they should have been thinking about\ndeath, and that others bought toys to please the children when\nthey hardly had bread enough to eat. He felt that he was in no way\naccountable for this extravagance, nor for the fact that their wages did\nnot give them the necessaries of life, because he not only gave them the\nsame wages that other manufacturers gave, but the same wages that other\nworkmen were willing to work for.\n\nMr. B. said,—and he always said this as though it ended the\nargument,—and he generally stood up to say it: \"The great law of supply\nand demand is of divine origin; it is the only law that will work in\nall possible or conceivable cases; and this law fixes the price of all\nlabor, and from it there is no appeal. If people are not satisfied\nwith the operation of the law, then let them make a new world for\nthemselves.\"\n\nSome of Mr. B.'s friends reported that on several occasions, forgetting\nwhat he had said on others, he did declare that his confidence was\nsomewhat weakened in the law of supply and demand; but this was only\nwhen there seemed to be an over-production of the things he was engaged\nin manufacturing, and at such times he seemed to doubt the absolute\nequity of the great law.\n\nMr. B. made even a larger fortune than Mr. A., because when his workmen\ngot old he did not have to care for them, when they were sick he paid no\ndoctors, and when their children died he bought no coffins. In this way\nhe was relieved of a large part of the expenses that had to be borne by\nMr. A. When his workmen became too old, they were sent to the poorhouse;\nwhen they were sick, they were assisted by charitable societies; and\nwhen they died, they were buried by pity.\n\nIn a few years Mr. B. was the owner of many millions. He also considered\nhimself as one of God's stewards; felt that Providence had given him the\nintelligence to combine interests, to carry out great schemes, and\nthat he was specially raised up to give employment to many thousands\nof people. He often regretted that he could do no more for his laborers\nwithout lessening his own profits, or, rather, without lessening his\nfund for the blessing of mankind—the blessing to begin immediately\nafter his death. He was so anxious to be the providence of posterity\nthat he was sometimes almost heartless in his dealings with\ncontemporaries. He felt that it was necessary for him to be economical,\nto save every dollar that he could, because in this way he could\nincrease the fund that was finally to bless mankind. He also felt that\nin this way he could lay the foundations of a permanent fame—that\nhe could build, through his executors, an asylum to be called the \"B.\nAsylum,\" that he could fill a building with books to be called the\n\"B. Library,\" and that he could also build and endow an institution of\nlearning to be called the \"B. College,\" and that, in addition, a\nlarge amount of money could be given for the purpose of civilizing the\ncitizens of less fortunate countries, to the end that they might become\nimbued with that spirit of combination and manufacture that results in\nputting large fortunes in the hands of those who have been selected by\nProvidence, on account of their talents, to make a better distribution\nof wealth than those who earned it could have done.\n\nMr. B. spent many thousands of dollars to procure such legislation as\nwould protect him from foreign competition. He did not believe the law\nof supply and demand would work when interfered with by manufacturers\nliving in other countries.\n\nMr. B., like Mr. A., was a man of judgment. He had what is called a\nlevel head, was not easily turned aside from his purpose, and felt that\nhe was in accord with the general sentiment of his time. By his own\nexertions he rose from poverty to wealth. He was born in a hut and died\nin a palace. He was a patron of art and enriched his walls with the\nworks of the masters. He insisted that others could and should follow\nhis example. For those who failed or refused he had no sympathy. He\naccounted for their poverty and wretchedness by saying: \"These paupers\nhave only themselves to blame.\" He died without ever having lost a\ndollar. His funeral was magnificent, and clergymen vied with each other\nin laudations of the dead. Over his dust rises a monument of marble with\nthe words:\n\nHe Lived for Others\n\nIII\n    \"But there are men who steal, and vainly try\n    To gild the crime with pompous charity.\"\n\nThere was another man, Mr. C., who also had the genius for combination.\nHe understood the value of capital, the value of labor; knew exactly\nhow much could be done with machinery; understood the economy of things;\nknew how to do everything in the easiest and shortest way. And he, too,\nwas a manufacturer and had in his employ many thousands of men, women,\nand children. He was what is called a visionary, a sentimentalist,\nrather weak in his will, not very obstinate, had but little egotism; and\nit never occurred to him that he had been selected by Providence, or any\nsupernatural power, to divide the property of others. It did not seem\nto him that he had any right to take from other men their labor without\ngiving them a full equivalent. He felt that if he had more intelligence\nthan his fellow-men he ought to use that intelligence not only for his\nown good but for theirs; that he certainly ought not to use it for the\npurpose of gaining an advantage over those who were his intellectual\ninferiors. He used to say that a man strong intellectually had no more\nright to take advantage of a man weak intellectually than the physically\nstrong had to rob the physically weak.\n\nHe also insisted that we should not take advantage of each other's\nnecessities; that you should not ask a drowning man a greater price for\nlumber than you would if he stood on the shore; that if you took into\nconsideration the necessities of your fellow-man, it should be only to\nlessen the price of that which you would sell to him, not to increase\nit. He insisted that honest men do not take advantage of their fellows.\nHe was so weak that he had not perfect confidence in the great law\nof supply and demand as applied to flesh and blood. He took into\nconsideration another law of supply and demand; he knew that the\nworkingman had to be supplied with food, and that his nature demanded\nsomething to eat, a house to live in, clothes to wear.\n\nMr. C. used to think about this law of supply and demand as applicable\nto individuals. He found that men would work for exceedingly small wages\nwhen pressed for the necessaries of life; that under some circumstances\nthey would give their labor for half of what it was worth to the\nemployer, because they were in a position where they must do something\nfor wife or child. He concluded that he had no right to take advantage\nof the necessities of others, and that he should in the first place\nhonestly find what the work was worth to him, and then give to the man\nwho did the work that amount.\n\nOther manufacturers regarded Mr. C. as substantially insane, while\nmost of his workmen looked upon him as an exceedingly good-natured\nman, without any particular genius for business. Mr. C., however,\ncared little about the opinions of others, so long as he maintained his\nrespect for himself.\n\nAt the end of the first year he found that he had made a large profit,\nand thereupon he divided this profit with the people who had earned\nit. Some of his friends said to him that he ought to endow some public\ninstitution; that there should be a college in his native town; but Mr.\nC. was of such a peculiar turn of mind that he thought justice ought\nto go before charity, and a little in front of egotism, and a desire\nto immortalize one's self. He said that it seemed to him that of all\npersons in the world entitled to this profit were the men who had earned\nit, the men who had made it by their labor, by days of actual toil. He\ninsisted that, as they had earned it, it was really theirs, and if it\nwas theirs, they should have it and should spend it in their own way.\nMr. C. was told that he would make the workmen in other factories\ndissatisfied, that other manufacturers would become his enemies, and\nthat his course would scandalize some of the greatest men who had\ndone so much for the civilization of the world and for the spread of\nintelligence. Mr. C. became extremely unpopular with men of talent, with\nthose who had a genius for business. He, however, pursued his way, and\ncarried on his business with the idea that the men who did the work were\nentitled to a fair share of the profits; that, after all, money was not\nas sacred as men, and that the law of supply and demand, as understood,\ndid not apply to flesh and blood.\n\nMr. C. said: \"I cannot be happy if those who work for me are defrauded.\nIf I feel I am taking what belongs to them, then my life becomes\nmiserable. To feel that I have done justice is one of the necessities of\nmy nature. I do not wish to establish colleges. I wish to establish\nno public institution. My desire is to enable those who work for me to\nestablish a few thousand homes for themselves. My ambition is to\nenable them to buy the books they really want to read. I do not wish to\nestablish a hospital, but I want to make it possible for my workmen\nto have the services of the best physicians—physicians of their own\nchoice.\n\n\"It is not for me to take their money and use it for the good of others\nor for my own glory. It is for me to give what they have earned to them.\nAfter I have given them the money that belongs to them, I can give them\nmy advice—I can tell them how I hope they will use it; and after I have\nadvised them, they will use it as they please. You cannot make great\nmen and great women by suppression. Slavery is not the school in\nwhich genius is born. Every human being must make his own mistakes for\nhimself, must learn for himself, must have his own experience; and if\nthe world improves, it must be from choice, not from force; and every\nman who does justice, who sets the example of fair dealing, hastens the\ncoming of universal honesty, of universal civilization.\"\n\nMr. C. carried his doctrine out to the fullest extent, honestly and\nfaithfully. When he died, there were at the funeral those who had worked\nfor him, their wives and their children. Their tears fell upon his\ngrave. They planted flowers and paid to him the tribute of their love.\nAbove his silent dust they erected a monument with this inscription:\n\nHe Allowed Others to Live for Themselves\n\nNorth American Review, December, 1831.\n\nShould the Chinese Be Excluded\n\nTHE average American, like the average man of any country, has but\nlittle imagination. People who speak a different language, or worship\nsome other god, or wear clothing unlike his own, are beyond the horizon\nof his sympathy. He cares but little or nothing for the sufferings or\nmisfortunes of those who are of a different complexion or of another\nrace. His imagination is not powerful enough to recognize the human\nbeing, in spite of peculiarities. Instead of this he looks upon every\ndifference as an evidence of inferiority, and for the inferior he has\nbut little if any feeling. If these \"inferior people\" claim equal\nrights he feels insulted, and for the purpose of establishing his own\nsuperiority tramples on the rights of the so-called inferior.\n\nIn our own country the native has always considered himself as much\nbetter than the immigrant, and as far superior to all people of a\ndifferent complexion. At one time our people hated the Irish, then the\nGermans, then the Italians, and now the Chinese. The Irish and Germans,\nhowever, became numerous. They became citizens, and, most important of\nall, they had votes. They combined, became powerful, and the political\nparties sought their aid. They had something to give in exchange for\nprotection—in exchange for political rights. In consequence of this\nthey were flattered by candidates, praised by the political press, and\nbecame powerful enough not only to protect themselves, but at last to\ngovern the principal cities in the United States. As a matter of fact\nthe Irish and the Germans drove the native Americans out of the trades\nand from the lower forms of labor. They built the railways and canals.\nThey became servants. Afterward the Irish and the Germans were driven\nfrom the canals and railways by the Italians.\n\nThe Irish and Germans improved their condition. They went into other\nbusinesses, into the higher and more lucrative trades. They entered\nthe professions, turned their attention to politics, became merchants,\nbrokers, and professors in colleges. They are not now building railroads\nor digging on public works. They are contractors, legislators, holders\nof office, and the Italians and Chinese are doing the old work.\n\nIf matters had been allowed to work in a natural way, without the\ninterference of mobs or legislators, the Chinese would have driven the\nItalians to better employments, and all menial labor would, in time, be\ndone by the Mongolians.\n\nIn olden times each nation hated all others. This was considered natural\nand patriotic. Spain, after many centuries of war, expelled the Moors,\nthen the Moriscoes, and then the Jews. And Spain, in the name of\nreligion and patriotism, succeeded in driving from its territory its\nindustry, its taste and its intelligence, and by these mistakes became\npoor, ignorant and weak. France started on the same path when the\nHuguenots were expelled, and even England at one time deported the Jews.\nIn those days a difference of race or religion was sufficient to justify\nany absurdity and any cruelty.\n\nIn our country, as a matter of fact, there is but little prejudice\nagainst emigrants coming from Europe, except among naturalized citizens;\nbut nearly all foreign-born citizens are united in their prejudice\nagainst the Chinese.\n\nThe truth is that the Chinese came to this country by invitation. Under\nthe Burlingame Treaty, China and the United States recognized:\n\n\"The inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and\nallegiance, and also the mutual advantage of free migration and\nemigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from one country\nto the other for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent\nresidents.\"\n\nAnd it was provided:\n\n\"That the citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China\nand Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States should\nreciprocally enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions, in\nrespect to travel or residence, as shall be enjoyed by the citizens or\nsubjects of the most favored nation, in the country in which they shall\nrespectively be visiting or residing.\"\n\nSo, by the treaty of 1880, providing for the limitation or suspension of\nemigration of Chinese labor, it was declared:\n\n\"That the limitation or suspension should apply only to Chinese who\nemigrated to the United States as laborers; but that Chinese laborers\nwho were then in the United States should be allowed to go and come of\ntheir own free will and should be accorded all the rights, privileges,\nimmunities and exemptions, which were accorded to the citizens and\nsubjects of the most favored nations.\"\n\nIt will thus be seen that all Chinese laborers who came to this country\nprior to the treaty of 1880 were to be treated the same as the citizens\nand subjects of the most favored nation; that is to say, they were to be\nprotected by our laws the same as we protect our own citizens.\n\nThese Chinese laborers are inoffensive, peaceable and law-abiding.\nThey are honest, keeping their contracts, doing as they agree. They\nare exceedingly industrious, always ready to work and always giving\nsatisfaction to their employers. They do not interfere with other\npeople. They cannot become citizens. They have no voice in the making or\nthe execution of the laws. They attend to their own business. They have\ntheir own ideas, customs, religion and ceremonies—about as foolish as\nour own; but they do not try to make converts or to force their dogmas\non others. They are patient, uncomplaining, stoical and philosophical.\nThey earn what they can, giving reasonable value for the money they\nreceive, and as a rule, when they have amassed a few thousand dollars,\nthey go back to their own country. They do not interfere with our\nideas, our ways or customs. They are silent workers, toiling without any\nobject, except to do their work and get their pay. They do not establish\nsaloons and run for Congress. Neither do they combine for the purpose\nof governing others. Of all the people on our soil they are the least\nmeddlesome. Some of them smoke opium, but the opium-smoker does not beat\nhis wife. Some of them play games of chance, but they are not members of\nthe Stock Exchange. They eat the bread that they earn; they neither beg\nnor steal, but they are of no use to parties or politicians except as\nthey become fuel to supply the flame of prejudice. They are not citizens\nand they cannot vote. Their employers are about the only friends they\nhave.\n\nIn the Pacific States the lowest became their enemies and asked for\ntheir expulsion. They denounced the Chinese and those who gave\nthem work. The patient followers of Confucius were treated as\noutcasts—stoned by boys in the streets and mobbed by the fathers. Few\nseemed to have any respect for their rights or their feelings. They were\nunlike us. They wore different clothes. They dressed their hair in\na peculiar way, and therefore they were beyond our sympathies. These\nideas, these practices, demoralized many communities; the laboring\npeople became cruel and the small politicians infamous.\n\nWhen the rights of even one human being are held in contempt the rights\nof all are in danger. We cannot destroy the liberties of others without\nlosing our own. By exciting the prejudices of the ignorant we at last\nproduce a contempt for law and justice, and sow the seeds of violence\nand crime.\n\nBoth of the great political parties pandered to the leaders of the\ncrusade against the Chinese for the sake of electoral votes, and in the\nPacific States the friends of the Chinese were forced to keep still\nor to publicly speak contrary to their convictions. The orators of\nthe \"Sand Lots\" were in power, and the policy of the whole country was\ndictated by the most ignorant and prejudiced of our citizens. Both\nof the great parties ratified the outrages committed by the mobs, and\nproceeded with alacrity to violate the treaties and solemn obligations\nof the Government. These treaties were violated, these obligations were\ndenied, and thousands of Chinamen were deprived of their rights, of\ntheir property, and hundreds were maimed or murdered. They were driven\nfrom their homes. They were hunted like wild beasts. All this was done\nin a country that sends missionaries to China to tell the benighted\nsavages of the blessed religion of the United States.\n\nAt first a demand was made that the Chinese should be driven out, then\nthat no others should be allowed to come, and laws with these objects in\nview were passed, in spite of the treaties, preventing the coming of any\nmore. For a time that satisfied the haters of the Mongolian. Then came\na demand for more stringent legislation, so that many of the Chinese\nalready here could be compelled to leave. The answer or response to this\ndemand is what is known as the Geary Law.\n\nBy this act it is provided, among other things, that any Chinaman\nconvicted of not being lawfully in the country shall be removed to\nChina, after having been imprisoned at hard labor for not exceeding one\nyear. This law also does away with bail on habeas corpus, proceedings\nwhere the right to land has been denied to a Chinaman. It also compels\nall Chinese laborers to obtain, within one year after the passage of the\nlaw, certificates of residence from the revenue collectors, and if found\nwithout such certificate they shall be held to be unlawfully in the\nUnited States.\n\nIt is further provided that if a Chinaman claims that he failed to get\nsuch certificate by \"accident, sickness or other unavoidable cause,\"\nthen he must clearly establish such claim to the satisfaction of the\njudge \"by at least one credible white witness.\"\n\nIf we were at war with China then we might legally consider every\nChinaman as an enemy, but we were and are at peace with that country.\nThe Geary Act was passed by Congress and signed by the President simply\nfor the sake of votes. The Democrats in Congress voted for it to save\nthe Pacific States to the Democratic column; and a Republican President\nsigned it so that the Pacific States should vote the Republican ticket.\nPrinciple was forgotten, or rather it was sacrificed, in the hope of\npolitical success. It was then known, as now, that China is a peaceful\nnation, that it does not believe in war as a remedy, that it relies\non negotiation and treaty. It is also known that the Chinese in\nthis country were helpless, without friends, without power to defend\nthemselves. It is possible that many members of Congress voted in\nfavor of the Act believing that the Supreme Court would hold it\nunconstitutional, and that in the meantime it might be politically\nuseful.\n\nThe idea of imprisoning a man at hard labor for a year, and this man\na citizen of a friendly nation, for the crime of being found in this\ncountry without a certificate of residence, must be abhorrent to the\nmind of every enlightened man. Such punishment for such an \"offence\" is\nbarbarous and belongs to the earliest times of which we know. This law\nmakes industry a crime and puts one who works for his bread on a level\nwith thieves and the lowest criminals, treats him as a felon, and\nclothes him in the stripes of a convict,—and all this is done at the\ndemand of the ignorant, of the prejudiced, of the heartless, and because\nthe Chinese are not voters and have no political power.\n\nThe Chinese are not driven away because there is no room for them. Our\ncountry is not crowded. There are many millions of acres waiting for\nthe plow. There is plenty of room here under our flag for five hundred\nmillions of people. These Chinese that we wish to oppress and imprison\nare people who understand the art of irrigation. They can redeem the\ndeserts. They are the best of gardeners. They are modest and willing to\noccupy the lowest seats. They only ask to be day-laborers, washers and\nironers. They are willing to sweep and scrub. They are good cooks. They\ncan clear lands and build railroads. They do not ask to be masters—they\nwish only to serve. In every capacity they are faithful; but in this\ncountry their virtues have made enemies, and they are hated because of\ntheir patience, their honesty and their industry.\n\nThe Geary Law, however, failed to provide the ways and means for\ncarrying it into effect, so that the probability is it will remain a\ndead letter upon the statute book. The sum of money required to carry it\nout is too large, and the law fails to create the machinery and name the\npersons authorized to deport the Chinese. Neither is there any mode of\ntrial pointed out. According to the law there need be no indictment by\na grand jury, no trial by a jury, and the person found guilty of being\nhere without a certificate of residence can be imprisoned and treated as\na felon without the ordinary forms of trial.\n\nThis law is contrary to the laws and customs of nations. The punishment\nis unusual, severe, and contrary to our Constitution, and under its\nprovisions aliens—citizens of a friendly nation—can be imprisoned\nwithout due process of law. The law is barbarous, contrary to the spirit\nand genius of American institutions, and was passed in violation of\nsolemn treaty stipulations.\n\nThe Congress-that passed it is the same that closed the gates of the\nWorld's Fair on the \"blessed Sabbath,\" thinking it wicked to look at\nstatues and pictures on that day. These representatives of the people\nseem to have had more piety than principle.\n\nAfter the passage of such a law by the United States is it not indecent\nfor us to send missionaries to China? Is there not work enough for them\nat home? We send ministers to China to convert the heathen; but when we\nfind a Chinaman on our soil, where he can be saved by our example, we\ntreat him as a criminal.\n\nIt is to the interest of this country to maintain friendly relations\nwith China. We want the trade of nearly one-fourth of the human race.\nWe want to pay for all we get from that country in articles of our\nown manufacture. We lost the trade of Mexico and the South American\nRepublics because of slavery, because we hated people in whose veins was\nfound a drop of African blood, and now we are losing the trade of China\nby pandering to the prejudices of the ignorant and cruel.\n\nAfter all, it pays to do right. This is a hard truth to\nlearn—especially for a nation. A great nation should be bound by the\nhighest conception of justice and honor. Above all things it should be\ntrue to its treaties, its contracts, its obligations. It should\nremember that its responsibilities are in accordance with its power and\nintelligence.\n\nOur Government is founded on the equality of human rights—on the idea,\nthe sacred truth, that all are entitled to life, liberty and the\npursuit of happiness. Our country is an asylum for the oppressed of\nall nations—of all races. Here, the Government gets its power from\nthe consent of the governed. After the abolition of slavery these\ngreat truths were not only admitted, but they found expression in our\nConstitution and laws.\n\nShall we now go back to barbarism?\n\nRussia is earning the hatred of the civilized world by driving the Jews\nfrom their homes. But what can the United States say? Our mouths are\nclosed by the Geary Law. We are in the same business. Our law is as\ninhuman as the order or ukase of the Czar.\n\nLet us retrace our steps, repeal the law and accomplish what we justly\ndesire by civilized means. Let us treat China as we would England; and,\nabove all, let us respect the rights of men,—North American Review,\nJuly, 1893.\n"
}