Tae manifesto of General Garfield, the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the United States, on the subject of Chinese immigration, will doubtless excite attention and criticism wherever it is read. General Garfield makes capital out of the fact that the presence of Chinese immigrants in large numbers in the Republic militates against the dignity of labour. Of course the Chinese immigration question may be described as one of the burning questions of the hour, and therefore General Garfield is bound to notice it, and to endeavour in the way that seems to him best to make political capital out of it. We are inclined to pay special attention, when considering this matter, to a paper read by Dr. S. Wells Williams before the Social Science Association at Saratoga in the autumn of last year. Whatever Dr. Williams writes on Chinese matters is important and comes weighted with authority, and he says with trath that "the question of Chinese immigration has drawn to it a degree of attention since the immigrants began to laud in this country thirty years ago, which can hardly be explained by their numbers, their conduct, or their capacity. The total arrivals from China during a quarter of a century have not equalled the number of persons which have landed at New York from Europe in six months daring most of those same years." This is worth remembering, as when Chinese immigration is referred to, persons exaggerate in their own minds the numbers of the invading heathen and speak of them as a very locust swarm. However, we have seen the prejudice against them. The anti-Chinese cry is one that can be raised with political effect, and we may examine, without attempting to pass a judgment on its merits, how certain portions of the indictment against the Chinese bear the practical and careful handling of an able student of the questi To begin with; there are three causes which deter the Chinese from pouring into America in the numbers that alarmists apprehend first, they are separated from each other by the barrier of different dialects; second, they have in their strong love of country a passion which induces them to place the Middle Kingdom above all realms under heaven in patriotic regard; and, thirdly, there is the sectional antipathy between the natives of different provinces. Still, as the new constitution of California shows, the States have a horror of " Asiatic coolieism." "Asiatic coolieism is a form of human slavery and is forever prohibited in this State, and all contracts for coolie Labour shall be void." The article goes on to say, "the Legislature shall delegate all necessary power to the incorporated cities and towns of this State for the removal of Chinese without the limits of such cities and towns, or for their location within prescribed portions of those limits." We are disposed to view this provision with less indignation than Dr. Williams does. He regards it "as a re-enaction by the Republic of the silly laws of China and mediceval Europe," and he speaks of the Chinese quarters as "now Ghettos." Now we fancy there is a fallacy here. The Ghetto became a foul place because the inhabitants were compelled to crowd in a small space situated in an unwholesome quarter, and because in the days when Ghettos abounded there were no sanitary laws worth naming. Now the Chinese suffer no hardship if they are compelled to live together, and if the place provided for them is healthy. One slight exaggeration, however, does not impair the value of the pamphlet before us. It is a protest against the danger and the injustice ut the ery raised by the anti-Chinese party, and it contains a formidable array of proofs, We find certainly many things that we have read before, for instance, how the Courts of California decided that the term Indian included the Chinese or Mongolian Race, how at Antioch, at Teuckee, at Rocklin, Penryn, and Secret Ravine, Chinese property was destroyed and Chinese life taken without a shadow of reparation being offered. The Chinese experience of Western law in the Pacific States has been unfavourable indeed, and the appeals made by various senators' and states. meu reveal how strongly the conscience of the best men in the States is wounded by the recurrence of acts so injurious to the national character, The writers of a memorial on the subject ask the question:-—Whoro is your boasted independence when agrarian mob dictates what kind of labour you must employ Where is your boasted freedom of speech when a daily Press dare not discuss both sides of a question or speak a word in favour of an abused and porsecated stranger? Where is that liberty your fathers fought for that a mob led by aliens can undis-tarped hold their daily gatherings and threaten to hang your best citizens, burn their property, and denounce them as thieves? And where doos this Inwloss element look for encourage. mont but to that class which occupies a higher political place, whose oxaggerated opinions concerning the Chinese we have quoted?" Now these are strong words, but we do not think that they are too strong. The ground has been traversed over and over again. The question has been twisted so as to be soon under various lights, and when a Chinese Legation had boon received at Washington, and Chinese Consul accepted for San Francisco, there seemed reason to hope that a better day was about to dawn, but when we read the "dignity of labour" argument urged by a candidate for the Presidency against the hard. working, economical, patient Chinese, we confess to an uncomfortable sensation. Look at the two types. See the Irishman reeking with giv, begging, shuffling, and lying to avoid an extra hour's work, in order that he may return to his dram-shop, and the quiet, thrifty Chinese doing his daily task with scrupulous regularity, saving and peace-loving, looking forward to the day of return to his lares and penates, Let any dispassionate person compare these two figures, and see which realises his ideal of "the dignity of labour."
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.