Chapter XII: Preface: To the Seventh Volume (11)

In an extended letter to the London _Times_, published
August 19, 1909, Miss Florence Davenport-Hill traced the
origin of children’s courts to Massachusetts, and gave the
following account of their introduction from that source of
suggestion into Australia, and thence, to some extent, into
Great Britain. Miss Davenport-Hill’s statements on the subject
are, in part, as follows:

"Although we hear little now from our earliest exemplar,
Massachusetts—possibly because she has, I believe, cleared
away the class to be dealt with—it is desirable to remember it
was she who evolved the then new principle of absolute
separation of child from adult, and devised its potent
supporter, the probation system—a system affording watchful
and kindly help to strong and maybe wilful weaklings. Thus did
Massachusetts become a noble example, making the way plain for
her successors. Mr. Joseph Sturge, attracted early in the
eighties by reports of the ‘plan,’ visited Boston to
investigate its methods. He describes in a pithy narrative
subsequently published how his highest expectations were
fulfilled; and it is interesting to learn from his pen that
‘the probation system by which juvenile offenders are saved
from imprisonment has been so successful, economically and
morally, that the city of Boston now employs a probation agent
to deal with suitable adult cases in a corresponding manner.’

"A copy of Mr. Sturge’s narrative reached, by good fortune,
the Chief Justice of South Australia, then presiding at a
Royal Commission of inquiry concerning adult and juvenile
dependents on the State. He recognized, and in his forthcoming
report expounded, the value of the Massachusetts plan in its
application to children. The result was the creation by the
South Australian Government of a department, entitled the
State Children’s Council, consisting of 12 ladies and
gentlemen nominated by the State as honorary members, to deal
with erring and neglected children on the lines of that plan.
…

"Nineteen years ago the Children’s Court was opened in
Adelaide, and in October, 1903, thanks, Sir, to your
sympathetic courtesy, the reproduction in _The Times_ of
a letter describing it in the _Melbourne Argus_ from Miss
Alice Henry made known among us its scope, methods, and
success. Gradually Benches of Magistrates in various parts of
Great Britain and of Ireland who led the way tried the
experiment, which was then discovered to be already existing
among us here and there, and in a more or less developed form,
as at Greenwich, Hull, &c."

CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: As Workers:
Canada: Child Labor Legislation.

"There is not in any province a comprehensive act dealing with
the subject of child labor as a whole, and even in Ontario,
which has its Factories Act, its Shops Act, its Mines Act, its
Municipal Act, its Truancy Act—all bearing on the matter more
or less directly—it is still possible for young children to be
kept at work by their parents for mercilessly long hours under
sweat-shop conditions.
{87}
Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and Alberta have neither
Shops nor Factories Acts. Ontario, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and
British Columbia have both; Quebec and New Brunswick have
Factories Acts, and six of the provinces have Mines Acts. The
several Factories Acts resemble one another closely. In
general, they prohibit the employment of girls under eighteen
and boys under sixteen in factories where the work is
dangerous or unhealthy; forbid the employment of children
under fourteen in any manufacturing establishment (except
canning factories) in three provinces; limit the hours of
labor for women and children to ten hours a day and sixty
hours a week; and specify the amount of overtime permissible
for these classes of workers. The Shops Acts, upon the whole,
allow greater latitude to the employers of children; thus the
hours of labor are longer and the conditions often not less
injurious than those in factories. Except in Ontario, no age
limit is set under which a child may not begin work in a shop.
Again by the Mines Acts of British Columbia, children of
twelve may be employed above ground, and by those of
Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia boys of twelve may work under
ground. The enforcement of the laws restricting child labor
has, from various causes, proved somewhat inadequate. For
instance, Nova Scotia has had a Factories Act since 1901, but
no inspector of factories till the present year; while
Ontario, with a Truancy Act that, if enforced, would prevent
many children from engaging in unsuitable labor, has vested
the appointment of truancy officers in the municipalities, and
these, in many instances, have neglected to make
appointments."

_The Outlook,
November 14, 1908._

Recent changes in child labor laws in Canada are as follows:

In Ontario the Factories Act limits the working time of boys
under sixteen to ten hours, forbids the employment of children
under twelve within doors, and restricts the privileges
extended to canning factories. The Shops Act is amended by
raising the age limit from ten to twelve years. Manitoba
forbids the employment of minors as bartenders. Alberta has
raised the age limit of children employed in mines from twelve
to sixteen years. British Columbia prohibits the employment of
boys under fourteen and girls under fifteen except in the
canning of fish.

CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: England:
The Employment of Children Act, 1903.

An Act "to make Better Provision for Regulating the Employment
of Children" became law in August, 1903. Most of the
responsibility for a proper protective regulation of child
labor was imposed by this enactment on the local authorities
of the Kingdom. Among its provisions were the following:

"1. Any local authority may make byelaws—
(i) prescribing for all children, or for boys and girls
separately, and with respect to all occupations or to any
specified occupation,—
(a) the age below which employment is illegal; and
(b) the hours between which employment is illegal; and
(c) the number of daily and weekly hours beyond
which employment is illegal:
(ii) prohibiting absolutely or permitting, subject to
conditions, the employment of children in any specified
occupation.

"2. Any local authority may make byelaws with respect to
street trading by persons under the age of sixteen. …

"3.
(1) A child shall not be employed between the hours of nine
in the evening and six in the morning: Provided that any
local authority may, by byelaw, vary these hours either
generally or for any specified occupation.

(2) A child under the age of eleven years shall not be
employed in street trading.

(3) No child who is employed half-time under the Factory
and Workshop Act, 1901, shall be employed in any other
occupation.

(4) A child shall not be employed to lift, carry, or move
anything so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to the
child.

(5) A child shall not be employed in any occupation likely
to be injurious to his life, limb, health or education,
regard being had to his physical condition. …

"4.
(1) A byelaw made under this Act shall not have any effect
until confirmed by the Secretary of State, and shall not
be so confirmed until at least thirty days after the local
authority have published it in such manner as the
Secretary of State may by general or special order direct. …

"13. In this Act—The expression ‘child’ means a person under
the age of fourteen years:

"The expression ‘guardian,’ used in reference to a child,
includes any person who is liable to maintain or has the
actual custody of the child:

"The expression ‘employ’ and ‘employment,’ used in reference
to a child, include employment in any labour exercised by way
of trade or for the purposes of gain, whether the gain be to
the child or to any other person: …

"The expression ‘street trading’ includes the hawking of
newspapers, matches, flowers, and other articles, playing,
singing, or performing for profit, shoe-blacking, and any
other like occupation carried on in streets or public places."

CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: Germany:
Child Labor Legislation and its operation.

The Reichstag, in 1903, passed a new law for the protection of
children, concerning the operation of which a well known
English student of social conditions in Germany wrote as
follows in 1908:

"Several significant facts may be noted in relation to the
protection of childhood in Germany. The legal age of admission
to full employment in factories and workshops is fourteen
years, though on the production of efficiency certificates
children may be employed for not more than six hours daily at
the age of thirteen, yet of the 5,607,657 industrial workers
subject to inspection in 1905 only 10,245, or under 0.2 per
cent., were below fourteen years, and in some States there
were none. To show the progress which has been made in this
respect it may be stated that in 1875 10 per cent. (88,000 out
of a total of 880,500) of the factory workers were between
twelve and fourteen years of age. … At the same time there is
reason to believe that a serious exhaustion of juvenile
strength takes place in the unregulated home industries of
Germany. Further, from the age of six the child of the people
attends the primary school for seven or eight years, and in
many cases he is required to attend a continuation school
several years longer. In most of the large towns the scholar
from first to last receives free systematic medical care at
the hands of the school doctors. It begins with a thorough
examination on admission, and the health record thus opened is
continued throughout the whole period of school life, so that
the child is under constant medical supervision until it
reaches the working age. Many towns have gone further, and
have established dental surgeries, and attached eye and ear
specialists to the primary schools."

_W. H. Dawson,
The Evolution of Modern Germany,
page 327 (Unwin, London; Scribner’s, New York)_.

{88}

CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: United States:
Child Labor Laws of the several States in 1908,
and as amended since.

The requirements of an effective child labor law are set forth
in Pamphlet No. 60 of the National Child Labor Committee as
resting "primarily upon certain definite prohibitions, among
which are the following:

Labor is prohibited (1) for all children under the age of
fourteen years;

labor is prohibited (2) for all children under sixteen years
of age who do not measure sixty inches and weigh eighty pounds;

labor is prohibited (3) for all children under sixteen years
of age who cannot read fluently and write legibly simple
sentences in the English language;

labor is prohibited (4) for all children under the age of
sixteen years, between the hours of 7 p. m. and 7 a. m. or
longer than eight hours in any twenty-four hours, or longer
than forty-eight hours in any week;

labor is prohibited (5) for all children under the age of
sixteen years in occupations dangerous to life, limb, health
or morals."

Further prescriptions of the Committee relate to the
regulations and agencies of authority requisite to an
effective enforcement of the Law.

In Bulletin Number 62 of the United States Bureau of Labor
published in January, 1906, there is published a compilation
of the laws relating to child labor in each State of the
Union, as amended and in force at the close of the year 1905.
An examination of them shows that the proposed standard had
not then been measured up to in any State, or approached even
nearly by more than a few. In not one had the law prescribed a
test by weight or measure of the bodily development of a child
that should mark Nature’s consent to his employment in any
kind of work.

Thirteen States, namely, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin,
prohibited in general terms the employment of children under
fourteen years in mechanical, manufacturing or mercantile
establishments, or to that apparent effect. New York did the
same, with the proviso that children over twelve might have
employment during school vacation times. Rhode Island,
likewise, excepted the vacation time for children under
fourteen. The State of Washington allowed certain judges to
make exemptions from a similar prohibition, for the needed
support of helpless parents. Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire,
North Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin fixed the age under which no child may be employed
in wage-earning labor at twelve. Louisiana appointed it at
twelve for a boy and fourteen for a girl. Colorado placed it
at twelve for labor in mines only. Florida raised it to
fifteen, but only as prohibitory without consent of "those
having legal control" of the child. Alabama and Nebraska had
it lowered to ten years. South Carolina had kept it at ten
until 1903, at eleven until 1904, and at twelve until May,
1905. In the Massachusetts law no absolute prohibition of
child labor within any age line appeared.

Educational requirements, conditioning the employment of
children, were in most of the State laws, as they stood at the
end of 1905, and many of them satisfied the third rule
propounded by the National Child Labor Committee, as given
above.

In the next three years after the Bureau of Labor’s
compilation of child labor laws, great reforms in them were
brought about, as shown by comparison with the "Handbook 1908"
of "Child Labor Legislation" compiled by Josephine Goldmark
for the National Consumers’ League, and published originally
as a Supplement to the Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, May, 1908. Some statements from
this are given below:

"The age below which child labor is prohibited varies from
sixteen to ten years. The number of employments prohibited
also varies greatly—from all employment during school hours to
mine work only. … Eleven states prohibit work to the sixteenth
birthday in either mines or specific occupations injurious to
health, or both. These are, for mines, New York, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania (inside anthracite mines), Texas; for specific
occupations, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin;
for both, Illinois and Montana."

The fifteen year age limit is prescribed in only one State,
South Dakota, which forbids it in mines, factories, hotels,
laundries, theatres, bowling alleys, elevators, messenger
service, or places where liquors are sold.

The age limit of fourteen years is prescribed differently in
different States. With various qualifications, employment
below that age in factories, stores, offices, laundries,
hotels, theatres, bowling alleys, is prohibited in California,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri,
Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

In factories or stores it is forbidden in Connecticut,
Massachusetts, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and
Washington.

In factories it is not permitted in Arkansas, Colorado,
Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey,
Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin.

In messenger service it is made unlawful in California, Idaho,
Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska,
New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington,
Wisconsin.

Children under this age are excluded from mines in Arkansas,
Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota,
Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

In all the prohibitions above cited many and various
exceptions are allowed in the laws of different States—as for
school-vacation periods, for children of widows and disabled
fathers, etc. In like manner, the following State laws which,
on general principles, forbid all employment of children under
fourteen years during school hours, provide for numerous and
different exceptional circumstances: California, Colorado,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota,
Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

{89}

The thirteen year age limit is fixed only in North Carolina,
which excepts apprentices.

The twelve year limit is applied (with exceptions for the
vacation months) to factories or stores in California, to most
descriptions of regular employment in Maryland, and to
factories in West Virginia. It is applied to factories, with
varied exceptions, in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, and
Texas. It applies to factories, quarries, railroads, and
messenger service in Vermont, and to factories, stores, and
mines in Virginia. To mines distinctly it applies in Alabama,
Florida, Maryland (if the twelve-year child is not wholly
illiterate), North Carolina, North Dakota (in school hours),
Pennsylvania (in bituminous mines only), South Carolina,
Virginia, West Virginia (vacation excepted).

The ten year old limit for labor to be lawful was only in
Georgia factories, with exceptions for the babes of widows and
disabled fathers.

As to hours of labor, "six states limit employment to 9 hours
in one day and 54 in one week:—California, Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Missouri, and New York (applying to children under 16
in stores and as messengers).

"Twenty-four states restrict work to 10 hours in one day and
either 55, 58 or 60 hours in one week.

"Five states, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania
and Tennessee allow more than 10 hours work in one day," in
the hours per week they permit.

"Those states which fail to restrict the hours of labor
allowed in one _week_ as well as in one _day_ invite
the possibility of seven days’ labor. In Washington, for
example, women and girls may not only work ten hours at night,
they may do this every night, including Sunday.

"Work at night is effectively restricted to the 16th birthday
in 18 states. Twelve states set an early closing hour for
children under 16 years, New York fixing 5 p. m.; Michigan,
Ohio, Oregon and Wisconsin 6 p. m., and Alabama, Idaho,
Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri and New Jersey (in
stores) fixing 7 p. m. Of these, the Ohio law is the most
comprehensive, since it includes girls to the 18th birthday."

"Children have no positive immunity from night work unless the
hours are explicitly stated between which it is unlawful to
employ them. … The District of Columbia, 4 territories and 20
states fail to prohibit work at night after a definite closing
hour. The sinister feature of this list is the presence of
Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
New Hampshire, Tennessee and West Virginia, all of them
important manufacturing states having industries in which
children are employed."

Since the compilation of the above several states have made
important changes in or additions to their child labor laws,
as follows:

In Kentucky the age limit is raised to 14 years during school
terms, children between 14 and 16 not to be employed without
certificate from school authorities. The hours of labor are
limited to ten hours a day and sixty hours a week, and night
work is prohibited for children under 16 years.

In Louisiana a fourteen-year age limit is established, with a
9 hour working day, and night work is prohibited for boys
under 16 and girls under 18 years.

Mississippi has established a twelve-year limit, applicants
under sixteen being required to furnish a certificate of age
and educational advantages, and one from county health officer
showing physical condition. The time limit is ten hours daily,
58 hours a week.

"New Jersey enacted a compulsory education law, requiring
school attendance of all children between the ages of seven
and seventeen, except that children of fifteen who have
completed the grammar grades and are regularly employed may be
excused. This places the age limit for employment during the
school period at fifteen years.

"In New York a law was passed transferring the enforcement of
the mercantile child labor law from local boards of health in
cities of the first class to the State Labor Department, and
providing for the creation of a bureau of mercantile
inspection. This law became effective October 1st, 1908." It
made important changes, affecting dangerous employments, which
became effective October 1st, 1909.

"In Ohio an important measure was passed limiting the hours
for boys under sixteen and girls under eighteen to eight per
day and forty-eight per week."

_National Child Labor Committee
(General Secretary’s Annual Report)._

An act to regulate the employment of child labor in the
District of Columbia was passed by Congress on May 28, 1908.
This law prescribes an age limit of fourteen years, and
prohibits employment during school hours. Exceptions may be
made for children in the service of the Senate, or for those
whose labor is necessary for the support of a disabled or
widowed parent. Street trades are forbidden to boys under ten
and girls under sixteen years of age. The time limit for
children under sixteen is eight hours a day and forty-eight
hours a week.

The report of the National Child Labor Committee, for the year
ending September 30, 1909, gives the following additional
changes: In South Carolina a system of factory inspection was
adopted. The hours of labor, however, were changed from 10 to
11 hours a day. In Maine an educational test was adopted, and
the hours reduced from 60 to 58 per week. Rhode Island reduced
the hours for women and children from 60 to 56 per week.
Pennsylvania enacted a law requiring adequate proof of age of
children seeking employment, and requiring school certificate.

Hours of labor have been reduced in the following States:
Michigan to 54 hours a week for all women and for males under
18; Kansas, Oklahoma, North Dakota to 8 hour day and 48 hour
week; Delaware to 9 hour day and 54 hour week; Maine to 10
hour day and 58 hour week for boys under 16, and girls under
18; Rhode Island to 56 hour week for minors under 16 and all
women.

Night work has been prohibited in the following additional
States: Delaware, Kansas, North Dakota, Michigan, Oklahoma,
California.

Compulsory education laws have been passed in Arkansas and
Tennessee, and revised and improved in New Jersey, New York,
and Missouri.

See, also.
LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR.

----------CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: End--------

{90}

CHILDREN, Public Playgrounds for.

See (in this Volume)
PLAYGROUND MOVEMENT.

CHILDS, RICHARD S.

See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES.

----------CHILE: Start--------

CHILE: A. D. 1901-1906.
Participation in Second and Third International Conferences
of American Republics, at Rio de Janeiro.

See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

CHILE: A. D. 1902.
Noble Peace Agreements between Chile and the Argentine
Republic.
Treaty for Arbitration of all Disputes.
Limitation of Armaments.

See (in this Volume)
War, The Revolt against: A. D. 1902.

CHILE: A. D. 1903.
Sale of war vessels to Great Britain.

Pursuant to her Convention with Argentina, for the reduction
of armaments, Chile, in this year, sold two newly built war
vessels to Great Britain.

CHILE: A. D. 1906.
Installation of President Montt.
His prospective difficulties.

Don Pedro Montt, elected President of Chile in June, 1906,
was installed in office on the 10th of September following—the
anniversary of Chilean independence. United States Minister
Hicks, reporting the ceremony to his Government, added the
following remarks on the political situation:

"The new President takes office while enjoying great personal
popularity. He is the son of Don Manuel Montt, who was
President of Chile from 1851 to 1862. His reputation is that
of a calm, well-balanced man, of unimpeachable integrity,
strong and self-reliant, but conciliatory and far-seeing. He
begins his career with many difficulties on his hands. One
question left over from the last administration—that of the
rectorship of the university—is already causing considerable
trouble. Under the law the President appoints the rector from
three persons named by the doctors of the university itself.
Señor Letelier has been so named, but as he is said to be a
liberal and even a freethinker, the church party and the
conservatives generally are fighting him. The new President
selected a cabinet last week entirely different from the one
now in office, but owing to the rectorship question and some
other things it failed and a new one had to be appointed
hurriedly.

"Among other difficulties to be met by the new President is
the opposition of the Senate. It is understood that there is a
majority in that body against him, and it is liable to operate
unfavorably to him. Still his friends have full confidence that
he will succeed in quieting opposition and will retain the
unlimited confidence of the people.

"Under the Chilean constitution much of the power delegated to
the President under the American Constitution is retained by
Congress. That body really dictates to the President the
appointment or removal of his cabinet and thus his functions
are quite different from those of the President of the United
States."

CHILE: A. D. 1906.
Destructive earthquake.

See (in this Volume)
EARTHQUAKES: CHILE.

CHILE: A. D. 1907.
Diplomatic relations with Peru reestablished.

Diplomatic relations with Peru were reestablished in 1907; but
the old sore question between the two countries, concerning
the interpretation of the peace treaty of Ancón (1884),
relative to the provinces of Tacna and Arica, which Chile took
from Peru in the preceding war, remains open.

See (in Volume VI.)
CHILE.

CHILE: A. D. 1909.
Contract given for the Arica-La Paz Railway.

See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: CHILE-BOLIVIA.

CHILE: A. D. 1909.
Arbitration of the Alsop Claim of the United States.

"Many years ago diplomatic intervention became necessary to
the protection of the interests in the American claim of Alsop
and Company against the government of Chili. The government of
Chili had frequently admitted obligation in the case, and had
promised this government to settle it. There had been two
abortive attempts to do so through arbitral commissions, which
failed through lack of jurisdiction. Now, happily, as the
result of the recent diplomatic negotiations, the governments
of the United States and Chili, actuated by the sincere desire
to free from any strain those cordial and friendly relations
upon which both set such store, have agreed by a protocol to
submit the controversy to definitive settlement by his
Britannic Majesty, Edward VII."

_Message to Congress of President Taft,
December, 1909._

The claim referred to is that of "the Alsop Company of New
York and Connecticut which advanced large sums of money to the
Bolivian government in exchange for the right to valuable
guano deposits in that country and other concessions. The
government contracted further to return a part of the loan
from the receipts of customs at the port of Arica. Before her
contract could be fulfilled Bolivia lost Arica and the
adjoining districts to Chili in war. In 1885, following
representations by the American State Department, Chili agreed
to assume the obligations of Bolivia to the Alsop Company. She
has never, however, made good her promise, and the matter has
been the subject of diplomatic negotiations ever since. The
claim now amounts to more than $1,500,000."

CHILE: A. D. 1909.
Building of the Transandine Railway Tunnel.

See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: ARGENTINA-CHILE.

CHILE: A. D. 1909 (October).
Naval plans.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL: CHILEAN.

----------CHILE: End--------

----------CHINA: Start--------

CHINA: A. D. 1887-1907.
Increase of Christian Mission Schools.

See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: CHINA.

CHINA: A. D. 1900-1905.
Sudden and rapid upspringing of newspapers.

"Without giving actual statistics, it may be mentioned that
Peking, which had no newspaper up to the time of the Boxer
rising—except a short-lived weekly started by the Peking
Reform Club and suppressed by the Empress Dowager—has now
three daily newspapers and two fortnightly ones, some of these
being partly illustrated. Tientsin has at least three dailies,
one of these, the _‘Ta-kung Pao’_ ('The Impartial’),
having the very respectable circulation of twenty thousand.
The official organ which calls itself the ‘Times’ (the
_‘Shih Pao’_), although not so widely circulated, is well
written under European auspices and has considerable
influence.
{91}
In Shanghai there are now sixteen daily papers (price, eight
to ten _cash_ each), some of which have circulations of
as much as ten thousand, and besides these there are many
journals published there. Further south (at Foochow, Soochow,
and Canton), there are in all some six or seven daily papers,
and at Hong-Kong five, while Kiaochow has one, which is
supported by the local German government. In addition to
these, several papers are now published in the interior, but
the majority, for various reasons, flourish in the treaty
ports."

_A. R. Colquhoun
The Chinese Press of To-day
(North American Review, January, 1906)._

CHINA: A. D. 1900-1906.
Progressive tariff and internal taxation measures to check
the consumption of opium.

See (in this Volume)
OPIUM PROBLEM.

CHINA: A. D. 1901-1902.
The Russian grip on Manchuria.
Coercive negotiations with China.
Protests from other Powers.
The Manchurian Treaty of 1902 and its impotence.

Early in December, 1901, the American Minister to China, Mr.
Conger, reported to Secretary Hay, at Washington, an impending
treaty which Russia seemed likely to force on the Chinese
Government, which would practically secure to that aggressive
Power, through a prolonged agreement of China with the
Russo-Chinese Bank, exclusive railway and mining concessions
in Manchuria, and which would protract the Russian evacuation
of that country through three years. England and Japan were
using all their influence at Peking to prevent the signing of
the treaty, and Mr. Hay entered a vigorous protest on the part
of the Government of the United States, "animated now, as
heretofore, by the sincere desire to insure to the whole world
full and fair intercourse with China on equal footing." The
pressure from Russia on China was so potent, however, that Mr.
Conger, on the 29th of January, 1902, reported to Mr. Hay that
Prince Ch’ing, who acted with authority from his Government in
the negotiation with Russia, had informed him "that the latter
has done the best he could and has held out as long as
possible, but that Russian possession of Manchuria has become
intolerable, and that China must at once sign the convention
or lose everything; that he has therefore agreed to sign the
convention [modified in some particulars] and will also sign
the separate agreement with the Russo-Chinese Bank, which
practically gives exclusive privileges of industrial
development in Manchuria." Nevertheless the consummation of
the Russian project of coercive diplomacy was delayed until
the 8th of April, and the terms of the treaty then signed were
considerably moderated from the original design. Its
provisions of interest to others than the contracting parties
were as follows:

"ARTICLE I.
His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, desiring to give a
fresh proof of his love of peace and his sentiments of
friendship for His Majesty the Emperor of China,
notwithstanding the fact that the first attacks upon the
peaceable Russian population were made from various points of
Manchuria, which is situated on the frontier, consents to the
reestablishment of the authority of the Chinese Government in
the aforesaid province, which remains an integral part of the
Empire of China, and restores to the Chinese Government the
right to exercise governmental and administrative powers there
as before its occupation by the Russian troops.

"ARTICLE II.
In resuming possession of governmental and administrative
powers in Manchuria, the Chinese Government confirms, as well
in regard to the terms as to all the other articles, the
engagement strictly to observe the stipulations of the
contract concluded with the Russo-Chinese Bank on the 27th of
August, 1896, and assumes, according to article 5 of said
contract, the obligation to protect the railroad and its
personnel by every means, and also pledges itself to guarantee
the security in Manchuria, of all Russian subjects in general
who reside there and the enterprises established by them. The
Russian Government, in view of the assumption of this
obligation by the Emperor of China, consents on its part, in
case there shall be no agitations of any sort, and if the
action of the other powers shall offer no obstacle thereto,
gradually to withdraw all its troops from Manchuria so as
(_a_) To withdraw, in the course of six months from the
signing of the convention, the Russian troops from the
southwest portion of the province of Moukden, as far as the
Liao-he River, and again to place China in control of the
railways;
(_b_) To withdraw, in the course of the six months
following, the Imperial Russian troops from the remaining
portion of the province of Moukden and the province of Kirin;
and
(c) To withdraw, in the course of the six months following,
the remainder of the Imperial Russian troops now in the
province of Hei-lung Kiang.

"ARTICLE. III.
In view of the necessity of obviating in future a repetition
of the disturbances of 1900, in which the Chinese troops
quartered in the provinces adjacent to Russia took part, the
Russian Government and the Chinese Government agree to order
the Russian military authorities and the dzian-dziuns, to come
to an understanding for the purpose of regulating the number
and determining the places of cantonment of the Chinese troops
in Manchuria until the Russian troops shall have been
withdrawn therefrom. The Chinese Government further pledges
itself not to organize any other troops above the number thus
agreed upon by the Russian military authorities and the
dzian-dziuns which shall be sufficient to exterminate the
brigands and to pacify the country. After the complete
evacuation of the country by the Russian troops, the Chinese
Government shall have the right to make an examination of the
number of troops in Manchuria which are subject to increase or
diminution, giving timely notice of such examination to the
Imperial Government, for the maintenance of troops in the
aforesaid province in superfluous numbers would manifestly
lead to the increase of the Russian military forces in the
adjacent districts, and would thus occasion an increase of
military expenses, to the great disadvantage of both
countries. For police service and the maintenance of internal
order in this region outside of the territory ceded to the
Chinese Eastern Railway Company, there shall be formed, near
the local dzian-dziun governors, a police force, both on foot
and mounted, composed exclusively of subjects of the Emperor
of China

"ARTICLE IV.
The Russian Government consents to restore to their owners the
railway lines of Shan-hai-kwan—Yin-kow—Simminting, which have
been occupied and protected by the Russian troops since the
end of the month of September, 1900. In consideration of this
the Government of the Emperor of China pledges itself:

{92}

"1. That in case it shall become necessary to insure the
security of the aforesaid railway lines it will itself assume
that obligation, and will not request any other power to
undertake or participate in the defense, construction, or
exploitation of these lines, and will not permit foreign
powers to occupy the territory restored by Russia.

"2. That the above-mentioned railway lines shall be completed
and exploited on the precise bases of the agreement made
between Russia and England April 16, 1899, and on those of the
contract concluded September 28, 1898, with a private company,
relative to a loan for the construction of the aforesaid
lines, and, moreover, in observance of the obligations assumed
by the company, especially: Not to take possession of the
Shan-hai-kwan—Yin-kow—Simminting line or to dispose of it in
any manner whatever.

"3. That if a continuation of the railway lines in the south
of Manchuria, or the construction of branch lines connecting
with them, and the construction of a bridge at Yin Kow or at
the transfer of the terminus of the Shan-hai-kwan Railroad,
which is situated there, shall hereafter be undertaken, it
shall be done after a previous understanding between the
Government of Russia and that of China."

_Papers relating to the Foreign Relations
of the United States, 1902, pages 271-281._

During the next two years Russia was accused from all sides of
infidelity to the engagements of this treaty, and her conduct,
which seemed especially menacing to Japan, gave rise to the
Russo-Japanese War.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904.

CHINA: A. D. 1901-1902.
Edicts for educational reform.
Modernizing examinations for literary and military degrees.
Establishing universities, colleges, and schools.
Sending students abroad.

See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: CHINA: A. D. 1901-1902.

CHINA: A. D. 1901-1904.
Persistent occupation of Manchuria by the Russians.
Remonstrances of the Japanese.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904.

CHINA: A. D. 1901-1908.
Settlement of the indemnity to be paid to fourteen Powers on
account of the Boxer Rising.
Remission of part of it by the United States.

In April, 1901, when the record of events connected with the
Boxer rising against foreigners in China was closed in Volume
VI. of this work, the Chinese government had promised
satisfaction and indemnity to the fourteen Powers whose
subjects had suffered from the barbarous attack and whose
forces had overcome it, and the measure of indemnity to be
paid was then being discussed. The discussion and the
reckonings involved were prolonged till September. The final
protocol was signed September 7, but it was not until the 30th
of that month that the formulated claims of the Powers
concerned were accepted by China, and the responsibility of
payment assumed by an imperial decree. The total was
450,000,000 taels, equivalent to $334,000,000, divided between
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great
Britain, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain,
Sweden, and the United States. The sum was not reckoned solely
for the covering of losses and expenses, consequent on the
Boxer outrages, but was intended to be, in some degree, a
penalty imposed on the Chinese nation; and some of the
claimant nations were said to be more exacting on this score
than others were.

The amount for which the United States stipulated was
$24,440,000, and the American government received an indemnity
bond for that sum. But when the expenses of the American
relief expedition had been accurately ascertained, and all
losses and destruction of property belonging to American
claimants had been settled, it was found that they would be
largely overpaid. It was possible, according to common
practice in international dealings, to regard the excess as
justly punitive; but a different view was dictated by the wish
to show friendliness to China, and a return of the overpayment
was proposed. Recommended by President Roosevelt, the
necessary sanction was given by Congress, and on the 11th of
July, 1908, the American Minister to China addressed the
following communication to the Prince of Ch’ing, President of
the Wai-Wu-Pu, or Board of Foreign Affairs, at Peking:

"_Your Highness:_
"It is with great satisfaction that I have the honor to inform
your Highness, under direction of the Secretary of State of
the United States, that a bill has passed the Congress of the
United States authorizing the President to modify the
indemnity bond given the United States by China under the
provisions of Article VI. of the final protocol of September
7, 1901, from twenty-four million, four hundred and forty
thousand dollars ($24,440,000), United States gold currency,
to thirteen million, six hundred and fifty-five thousand, four
hundred and ninety-two dollars and twenty-nine cents
($13,655,492.29), with interest at four per cent (4%) per
annum. Of this amount two million dollars ($2,000,000) are
held pending the result of hearings on private claims
presented to the Court of Claims of the United States within
one year. Any balance remaining after such adjudication is
also to be returned to the Chinese Government, in such manner
as the Secretary of State shall decide.

"The President is further authorized under the Bill to remit
to China the remainder of the indemnity as an act of
friendship, such payments and remissions to be made at such
times and in such a manner as he may deem just.

"I am also directed by the Secretary of State to request the
Imperial Government kindly to favor him with its views as to
the time and manner of the remissions.

"Trusting that your Imperial Highness will favor me with an
early reply to communicate to my Government, I avail myself of
this occasion to renew to your Highness the assurance of my
highest consideration
—W. W. ROCKHILL."

In his reply, after reciting the statements conveyed to him by
Mr. Rockhill, the Prince wrote (as translated) the following:

"On reading this despatch I was profoundly impressed with the
justice and great friendliness of the American government, and
wish to express our sincerest thanks.

"Concerning the time and manner of the return of the amounts
to be remitted to China, the Imperial Government has no wishes
to express in the matter. It relies implicitly on the friendly
intentions of the United States Government, and is convinced
that it will adopt such measures as are best calculated to
attain the end it has in view.

{93}

"The Imperial Government, wishing to give expression to the
high value it places on the friendship of the United States,
finds in its present action a favorable opportunity for doing
so. Mindful of the desire recently expressed by the President
of the United States to promote the coming of Chinese students
to the United States to take courses in the schools and higher
educational institutions of the country, and convinced by the
happy results of past experience of the great value to China
of education in American schools, the Imperial Government has
the honor to state that it is its intention to send henceforth
yearly to the United States a considerable number of students
there to receive their education. The Board of Foreign Affairs
will confer with the American Minister in Peking concerning
the elaboration of plans for the carrying out of the intention
of the Imperial Government.
"A necessary despatch.
"SEAL OF THE WAI-WU-PU."

Simultaneously with the note from Prince Ch’ing, the Wai-Wu-Pu
as a body addressed the following to Mr. Rockhill:

"_To his Excellency W. W. Rockhill,
American Minister, Peking_:

"Referring to the despatch just sent to your Excellency
regarding sending students to America, it has now been
determined that from the year when the return of the indemnity
begins, one hundred students shall be sent to America every
year for four years, so that four hundred students may be in
America by the fourth year. From the fifth year and throughout
the period of the indemnity payments a minimum of fifty
students will be sent each year.

"As the number of students will be very great, there will be
difficulty in making suitable arrangements for them.
Therefore, in the matter of choosing them, as well as in the
matters of providing suitable homes for them in America and
selecting the schools which they are to enter, we hope to have
your advice and assistance. The details of our scheme will
have to be elaborated later, but we take this occasion to
state the general features of our plan, and ask you to inform
the American Government of it. We sincerely hope that the
American Government will render us assistance in the matter.

"Wishing you all prosperity,
(Signed)
PRINCE OF CH’ING, YUAN-SHIH-K’AI,
NA-TUNG LIEN-FANG
LIANG-TUN-YEN."

The remittance of somewhat more than $10,000,000 of the
indemnity did not involve a repayment of that sum of money to
the Chinese government, for the reason that payments on the
original indemnity bond were to be in annual instalments,
running until 1940, certain revenues being pledged to secure
them. The remittance is effected, accordingly, by a
readjustment of those payments hereafter.

Writing in _The Outlook_ of this transaction, and of the
impression it has made in China, Mr. George Marvin, who has
been for some time in official connection with the Chinese
Government, says:

"In pledging itself to the American educational mission the
Chinese Government has given the fullest evidence of its
appreciation. According to estimates made in Peking last
summer, it was calculated that by and after the fourth year of
the proposed educational foundation the investment necessary
to finance the Chinese students in America would amount to
$500,000 annually, a sum nearly equivalent to the entire
yearly revenue remitted. Already, and quite apart from the
scheme proposed in the note of the Wai-Wu-Pu, there are
maintained in the United States by Imperial and Provincial
funds one hundred and fifty-five Chinese students, picked boys
and young men, sons of officials and prominent and wealthy
merchants, chosen often by competitive examinations. The
students now to be sent annually by the Imperial Government
will be still more carefully selected. These are the men
destined for positions of responsibility and influence in that
‘Awakening China’ of which we hear so much."

_G. Marvin, in _The Outlook_, November 14, 1908._

A Special Ambassador from China, bearing a letter of thanks
from the Emperor, presented it to the President on the 2d of
December, 1908.

CHINA: A. D. 1902.
Return to Peking of the Emperor, Empress-Dowager, and Court.
Receptions to foreign representatives.
Withdrawals of foreign troops.
Recurrence of Boxer outbreaks.

The Emperor, Empress Dowager, and their suite reentered Peking
on the 7th of January, 1902. On the 22d the foreign
representatives were admitted to audience with the Emperor; on
the 28th the Emperor and Empress-Dowager, together, gave a
reception to the diplomatic body, the Empress-Dowager being
throned on a higher seat than the Emperor; on the 1st of
February the Empress-Dowager entertained the ladies of the
foreign legations at a banquet, where presents of jewelry were
made to all the guests. Sorrow for the misdoings from which
the foreigners in China had suffered was expressed on all
these occasions, and there seemed to be an earnest desire to
make amends for them.

Foreign troops were withdrawn from Tien-tsin on the 15th of
August, 1902, and the city delivered to the Chinese Viceroy.
Many improvements in streets, bridges, and public grounds had
been made by the provisional government which the Allies
instituted in 1900. Shanghai was evacuated by the allied
forces at the end of the year 1902.

Some recurrence of Boxer movements and insurrections occurred
in different parts of the Empire during 1902. Several
missionaries and a number of native converts were murdered,
chapels were burned, and other outrages committed; but in
general there was a restoration of order in the country, and
considerable building of railways and forwarding of other
enterprises went on.

CHINA: A. D. 1902.
Russo-Chinese Treaty concerning Tibet.

See (in this Volume)
TIBET: A. D. 1902.

CHINA: A. D. 1902 (January).
Agreement respecting China between Great Britain and Japan.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1902.

CHINA: A. D. 1902 (February).
Wei-hai-wei found to be strategically worthless by the
British Government.

See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (FEBRUARY).

CHINA: A. D. 1902-1904.
The British opening of Tibet by force.

See TIBET: A. D. 1902.

{94}

CHINA: A. D. 1903 (MAY-OCTOBER).
Treaty with the United States.
Opening of two ports in Manchuria.
Rights and privileges enlarged.

"In the protocol of September 7, 1901, China had agreed to
extend the scope of her commercial treaties with the powers.

_See, (in this Volume)
above, A. D. 1901-1908._

When the negotiation of a new treaty was begun by
Consul-General Goodnow at Shanghai, the United States demanded
that at least two new ports in Manchuria be opened to foreign
trade and residence. The Chinese commissioners declined to
discuss this subject, on the alleged ground that they had no
instructions to do so. It was evident that there was secret
opposition somewhere, and on May 7, 1903, Mr. Conger reported
that it came from the Russian charge d'affaires. Later he
secured a written acknowledgment from the Chinese government
that such was the case. … Mr. Hay then appealed with the
utmost directness to the Russian government. … On July 14 a
definite answer was at length received from Russia, in which
she declared that it had never entered into her views to
oppose the opening of certain cities in Manchuria to foreign
commerce, but that this declaration did not apply to Harbin,
one of the cities selected by the United States, which was
situated within the railway zone, and therefore was not under
the complete jurisdiction of China. A copy of this note was
shown to the Chinese government; which finally agreed to
insert in the treaty on October 8 (the date on which Russia
had agreed to completely withdraw from Manchuria) a provision
for the opening of two ports. The United States agreed to this
arrangement, and on October 8 the treaty was signed, and
Mukden and Antung named as the open ports."

_John H. Latané,
America as a World Power,
chapter 6 (Harper & Bros., New York, 1907)._

The further scope of the treaty was announced by President
Roosevelt in his Message to Congress, December 7, 1903, as
follows: "It provides not only for the ordinary rights and
privileges of diplomatic and consular officers, but also for
an important extension of our commerce by increased facility
of access to Chinese ports, and for the relief of trade by the
removal of some of the obstacles which have embarrassed it in
the past. The Chinese Government engages, on fair and
equitable conditions, which will probably be accepted by the
principal commercial nations, to abandon the levy of ‘liken’
and other transit dues throughout the Empire, and to introduce
other desirable administrative reforms. Larger facilities are
to be given to our citizens who desire to carry on mining
enterprises in China. We have secured for our missionaries a
valuable privilege, the recognition of their right to rent and
lease in perpetuity such property as their religious societies
may need in all parts of the Empire."

CHINA: A. D. 1904.
Railways and Chinese travel on them.
Unused British Concessions.

"It may not have passed out of the public mind that in
February, 1899, Mr. Balfour came down to the House of Commons
and paraded before it and the country the magnificent triumph
England had won in China in respect of Railway Concessions.

See, in Volume VI.,
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER.).

They totalled up to 2,800 miles! The House cheered, the
country indulged in a fit of self-complacency, and the critic
who asked questions was an ignoramus or a nuisance. Well, five
years have gone by, and not one mile of those railways is in
existence except the Chinese Northern State Railway, which has
passed out of our hands. Of the rest the two great trunk
lines, one from Hankow to Canton, and the other in Yunnan,
have been abandoned, while among those of shorter length the
only one that still remains in active force is the subject of
this paper. …

"In more than one recently published consular dispatch
attention has been drawn to the fact that the Chinese,
backward or hesitating in the adoption of every other European
or Western innovation, have shown no reluctance to avail
themselves of improved means of locomotion. The Northern
Railway is used by several million passengers every year; the
sections already open of the German railway in Shantung and of
the Belgian in Shansi can complain of no lack of traffic. The
fears of an earlier period as to what the Chinese would do
with regard to railways have been dissipated by experience."

_D. C. Boulger,
The Shanghai-Nanking Railway
(Contemporary Review, June, 1904)._

CHINA: A. D. 1904.
The Russo-Japanese War in Manchuria.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY) and after.

CHINA: A. D. 1904-1909.
The Hankau Sze-chuen Railway Loan.
The question of American participation.

In 1904 the American Minister at Peking concluded an agreement
with the Chinese Government to the effect that, when loans for
the construction of a projected railway into the western
province of Sze-chuen, from Hankau, should be negotiated,
Americans should have an opportunity to subscribe to it.
Nearly five years passed before arrangements for the loan were
made, and then, in the spring of 1909, it was found that terms
had been concluded with a group of British, German, and French
bankers for the whole sum sought, of $27,500,000, while
American capitalists had not been given the promised
opportunity. On behalf of the latter the Government of the
United States intervened, claiming fulfilment of the agreement
of 1904. The matter was regarded as being both politically and
financially important. "A precedent is what we want to
establish," said Mr. Crane, the newly appointed Minister to
China, in an interview on the subject at New York. "The task
of this Government to maintain its position with the European
Powers in the East will be less difficult. We are looking
twenty years ahead." As the result of communications in July
from Washington to Peking, in which President Taft took part
personally, the loan arrangement was readjusted, and American
capitalists became participant in it to the extent of
one-fourth.

According to a despatch from Peking, August 17, the matter was
settled definitely that day, on the following terms: "The loan
to be increased from $27,500,000 to $30,000,000, and of this
latter amount American bankers to get one-quarter, the other
three-quarters going to British, French, and German interests.
Americans are to have equal opportunity with the other nations
to supply material for both the Sze-chuen and the Canton lines
and the branches; they will appoint subordinate engineers, and
they will have also one-half of all future loans of the
Sze-chuen Railroad and its branches with the corresponding
advantages."

{95}