fullest extent, securing immense profits from the abundance of labor, but wages would in apparent violation of economic laws remain low. The effect would be precisely that of an excessive multiplication of the laboring class, a case under Malthus' law, except so far as the abundance of land acted in modification. Labor would not receive in cheapened products a compensation for lessened wages, for the increasing population would retard the fall of prices; neither would wages rise, for that tendency would be checked by an increased importation of Chinese.

The employers of labor would thus be masters of the situation. Any attempt on the part of the laboring classes to secure higher wages would be hopeless. The condition of affairs

would resemble that in the southern states before the rebellion. The capitalists would be irresistible masters, the Chinese almost their slaves, and American laborers would have to content themselves with the position of the "poor whites." The condition of Italy under the empire, when the peasantry were extinguished by the unlimited importation of slaves, would furnish singularly apt and instructive material for a historical parallel. American laborers could not hope to compete with Chinese except by reducing their standard of living. Granting that a Chinaman is only one half so efficient as an American, an assumption that would probably be true only for the severest kind of labor, the American would be unable to live in the comfort to which he is now accustomed. The food and shelter that the Irishman gives to his pig would suffice for the wants of a Chinese laborer; and while this is so the Chinaman can compel the Irishman to descend to the level of his pig. Economists generally maintain that the increased production arising from lessened wages, restores ultimately to the laborer, in cheaper subsistence, what he loses in wages. But we should bear in mind, what is often overlooked, that the benefit is not immediate, while the suffering from reduced wages follows at once. It is of little practical importance to the laborer that his present loss will tend to his future gain, provided he starves in the interval. No doubt the English peasants that burned the newly invented threshing machines were foolish in the judgment of the economist, who reflected that these machines would make the bread of the laborer cheaper; but the immediate effect

was ruin to themselves. The price of bread is a matter of indifference to those who have no money at all. To philosophize when one is in security is not hard; as Gibbon remarks, to follow Stoicism with Seneca's purse is to enjoy at once the advantages of fortune and philosophy. But to one who asks for bread, the offer of a stone, even though it be that of the philosopher, is not satisfactory. If the supply of Chinese labor were to cease now, the American workman might soon find his condition no worse than it was before the immigration began. To be sure the Chinese have already monopolized certain occupations in San Francisco, but the temporary suffering of those who were driven from these trades, might be atoned for by other considerations. But if Chinese immigration is to continue at the rate of seven or eight or ten thousand a month, no human power can prevent the social degradation of American labor. Strikes would only bring an increase of the evil against which they were directed; hostile demonstrations would only incline the public to sympathize with the Chinese. Less fortunate than Sampson, the laborer would find that he had overwhelmed himself while his enemies had escaped. He would be granted only the miserable choice between living like a Chinaman and not living at all.

It would be carrying speculation too far to follow the economical effects on the remainder of the country of such an immigration to the Pacific coast. Of course cheap labor would attract capital, and manufacturers at the East would find themselves obliged to reduce wages or abandon business. Certain articles are already produced by Chinese labor at rates that threaten to drive competitors even out of the Eastern market. Immense quantities of salmon, for instance, are preserved and already exported to a considerable extent. The star of commercial empire may take its way westward, and the manufac turing population of the East may come to look back with regret at the times they now find so hard.

On the whole, then, the economical results of Chinese immigration would be a great increase of wealth, confined principally to those who already possess it, the capitalists, and a temporary, and probably permanent reduction of the rate of wages of American labor. At present, it is true, the Chinese

do not remain in this country perhaps more than five or six years, so that this danger is still remote; but there are indications that they may be disposed to make a longer stay. Doubtless too the bad treatment they have received, and are likely to receive, will operate as a check on further immigration, as the Chinese companies in San Francisco have already given orders to discourage applicants at Hong Kong. The worship of ancestors requiring the return of all dead bodies to China will operate strongly as a discouragement to permanent emigration, until some one, like the pious Eneas, hits on the happy plan of carrying with him his father and his household gods. The danger and expense of the passage, ignorance of our language, and a thousand other causes will all tend to retard the results above described. Time is the best prophet.

Some political aspects of the question remain to be considered. In case the Chinese should choose to make their permanent abode in our country, there is nothing to prevent them from being naturalized. They have the right under the Burlingame treaty to whatever privileges are accorded "to the most favored nation." As they already constitute one-fifth of the population of California, and are almost entirely adult males, they nearly equal in numbers the legal voters in that State. A slight addition would put them in the majority, and if they chose to combine, as they naturally would, the government of the State would, under our democratical system, fall into their hands. Adopting our principle of compulsory State-education they would be justified in teaching their own views of science, religion and morals. They would have the same right to compel American scholars to listen to the institutes of Confucius, that a Yankee majority has to compel Irish children to listen to the Protestant Bible. They would have as much right to displace all American office-holders as a republican majority has to displace all servants of the State that hold with another party. The consequences of such an inversion of races could not fail to be serious. The Chinese would have the advantage of law on their side; all they have to do is to open their eyes to the advantages of naturalization, to import a few more of their brethren, and they become the legal majority. Opposition to their rule must therefore be in violation of the fundamental

principles of our government; the choice would lie between submission and revolution. Californians are not subdued rebels, and the disgraceful history of South Carolina since the war, would not be repeated on the Pacific coast among a people the most independent in the world, and far removed from the central authority. United States marshals and troops may be able to enforce Negro supremacy in the South; they would find in the far West a more difficult field for their labors.

Hitherto in the history of the world, the possession of the earth has been decided by force. Stronger races have destroyed or expelled the weaker; vae victis has been the rule of invaders. "Let them take who have the power, and let them keep who can," may be regarded as the principle that has practically regulated the ownership of the soil. Natural selection knows nothing of the doctrine that all men are created equal. Formerly, as Cicero observed, although he put a wrong explanation on the phenomenon, the word for "enemy" was the same with that for "stranger;" and "outlandish" still means to us something repulsive. We are witnessing for the first time the experiment of the peaceful mingling of men of different races in one republic. Views may differ as to the success of the experiment hitherto; but no one is so rash as to maintain that the result is not a matter for anxiety. It was a severe strain on our institutions to admit the Negroes to the suffrage, and the most ardent believer in democracy might well be disposed to wait for a few years before extending the same privilege to the Chinese. "Government of the people, for the people, by the people," means one thing when the people are mainly of English blood, but it may have quite a different signification in the case of France or Spain. In spite of the declaration of independence, it is well to remember that self-government is not a characteristic of all races. In short, it is wise to reflect that we are trying a gigantic experiment in nation-building, on an entirely new principle. By our theory of equal rights, we have removed one of the conditions unfavorable to the survival of weaker races. If the Chinese were to be left to their natural enemies, the lower class of laborers, the problem would be quickly solved. They would be exterminated in the literal sense of the word. For a more powerful race to admit an

inferior one to its boundaries on terms of equality is as marvellous an inversion of natural laws, as an eastward emigration is in the history of mankind.

Self-interest as a motive may be condemned in the individual. He will be a zealous and consistent intuitionist, indeed, who will insist that his principle applies also to States. Can it be said to be the duty of a people to sacrifice itself to the good of the world at large? A life-boat is designed for saving men from drowning, but if it is loaded beyond its capacity it will sink. Our ship of State may suffer a similar experience. Nothing in the history of Political Economy has excited more serious discussion than the elevation of the laboring classes; to a nation of freemen, the possible degradation of a large number of citizens, a degradation proverbially hard to overcome, would be an appalling danger. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that a number of millions of Chinese come to our shores, are we ready to accept all the possible consequences? Is the declaration of equal rights a venerable platitude, a "glittering generality," or shall it be logically applied? Do we feel so firmly convinced that the Chinese are created our equals, that we should surrender to them the control of our government in case they become the majority? Or if this supposition seem too absurd, let us imagine the question asked where the absurdity no longer exists, by a citizen of California.

It is not here maintained that the Chinese are about to overrun the United States. It is not even asserted that they will outnumber the American population on the Pacific slope. The elements of the problem are as yet too uncertain to admit of any positive statement. But a possible danger there certainly is, and where the questions involved are so momentous, it is perhaps not too soon to begin their discussion.