wu_tingfang_raw.py

#!/usr/bin/env python
# coding: utf-8

# In[1]:


wu_raw = """
The Importance of Names

  "What's in a name?  That which we call a rose
  By any other name would smell as sweet."


Notwithstanding these lines, I maintain that the selection of names is
important.  They should always be carefully chosen.  They are apt to
influence friendships or to excite prejudices according to their
significance.  We Chinese are very particular in this matter.  When a
son is born the father or the grandfather chooses a name for the infant
boy which, according to his horoscope, is likely to insure him success,
or a name is selected which indicates the wish of the family for the
new-born child.  Hence such names as "happiness", "prosperity",
"longevity", "success", and others, with like propitious import, are
common in China.  With regard to girls their names are generally
selected from flowers, fruits, or trees.  Particular care is taken not
to use a name which has a bad meaning.  In Washington I once met a man
in an elevator whose name was "Coffin".  Was I to be blamed for
wondering if the elevator would be my coffin?  On another occasion I
met a man whose name was "Death", and as soon as I heard his name I
felt inclined to run away, for I did not wish to die.  I am not
superstitious.  I have frequently taken dinner with thirteen persons at
the table, and I do not hesitate to start on a journey on a Friday.  I
often do things which would not be done by superstitious persons in
China.  But to meet a man calling himself "Coffin" or "Death" was too
much for me, and with all my disbelief in superstition I could not help
showing some repugnance to those who bore such names.

Equally important, if not more so, is the selection of a name for a
state or a nation.  When the several states of America became
independent they called themselves the "United States of America"--a
very happy idea.  The Union was originally composed of thirteen states,
covering about 300,000 square miles; it is now composed of forty-eight
states and three territories, which in area amount to 3,571,492 square
miles, practically as large in extent as China, the oldest nation in
the world.  It should be noted that the name is most comprehensive:  it
might comprise the entire continent of North and South America.  It is
safe to say that the founders of the nation did not choose such a name
without consideration, and doubtless the designation "United States of
America" conceals a deep motive.  I once asked a gentleman who said he
was an American whether he had come from South or North America, or
whether he was a Mexican, a Peruvian or a native of any of the
countries in Central America?  He replied with emphasis that he was an
American citizen of the United States.  I said it might be the United
States of Mexico, or Argentina, or other United States, but he answered
that when he called himself a citizen it could not mean any other than
that of the United States of America.  I have asked many other
Americans similar questions and they all have given me replies in the
same way.  We Chinese call our nation "The Middle Kingdom"; it was
supposed to be in the center of the earth.  I give credit to the
founders of the United States for a better knowledge of geography than
that possessed by my countrymen of ancient times and do not assume that
the newly formed nation was supposed to comprise the whole continent of
North and South America, yet the name chosen is so comprehensive as to
lead one naturally to suspect that it was intended to include the
entire continent.  However, from my observation of their national
conduct, I believe their purpose was just and humane; it was to set a
noble example to the sister nations in the Western Hemisphere, and to
knit more closely all the nations on that continent through the bonds
of mutual justice, goodwill and friendship.  The American nation is,
indeed, itself a pleasing and unique example of the principle of
democracy.  Its government is ideal, with a liberal constitution, which
in effect declares that all men are created equal, and that the
government is "of the people, for the people, and by the people."
Anyone with ordinary intelligence and with open eyes, who should visit
any city, town or village in America, could not but be impressed with
the orderly and unostentatious way in which it is governed by the local
authorities, or help being struck by the plain and democratic character
of the people.  Even in the elementary schools, democracy is taught and
practised.  I remember visiting a public school for children in
Philadelphia, which I shall never forget.  There were about three or
four hundred children, boys and girls, between seven and fourteen years
of age.  They elected one of their students as mayor, another as judge,
another as police commissioner, and in fact they elected for the
control of their school community almost all the officials who usually
govern a city.  There were a few Chinese children among the students,
and one of them was pointed out to me as the police superintendent.
This not only eloquently spoke of his popularity, but showed goodwill
and harmony among the several hundred children, and the entire absence
of race feeling.  The principals and teachers told me that they had no
difficulty whatever with the students.  If one of them did anything
wrong, which was not often, he would be taken by the student policeman
before the judge, who would try the case, and decide it on its merits,
and punish or discharge his fellow student as justice demanded.  I was
assured by the school authorities that this system of self-government
worked admirably; it not only relieved the teachers of the burden of
constantly looking after the several hundred pupils, but each of them
felt a moral responsibility to behave well, for the sake of preserving
the peace and good name of the school.  Thus early imbued with the idea
of self-government, and entrusted with the responsibilities of its
administration, these children when grown up, take a deep interest in
federal and municipal affairs, and, when elected for office, invariably
perform their duties efficiently and with credit to themselves.

It cannot be disputed that the United States with its democratic system
of government has exercised a great influence over the states and
nations in Central and South America.  The following data showing the
different nations of America, with the dates at which they turned their
respective governments from Monarchies into Republics, all subsequent
to the independence of the United States, are very significant.

Mexico became a Republic in 1823, Honduras in 1839, Salvador in 1839,
Nicaragua in 1821, Costa Rica in 1821, Panama in 1903, Colombia in
1819, Venezuela in 1830, Ecuador in 1810, Brazil in 1889, Peru in 1821,
Bolivia in 1825, Paraguay in 1811, Chile in 1810, Argentina in 1824,
and Uruguay in 1828.

These Republics have been closely modelled upon the republican form of
government of the United States; thus, nearly all the nations or states
on the continent of America have become Republics.  Canada still
belongs to Great Britain.  The fair and generous policy pursued by the
Imperial Government of Great Britain accounts for the Canadians'
satisfaction with their political position, and for the fact that they
do not wish a change.  It must be noted, however, that a section of the
American people would like to see Canada incorporated with the United
States.  I remember that at a public meeting held in Washington, at
which Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Premier of Canada, was present, an
eminent judge of the Federal Supreme Court jocularly expressed a wish
that Canada should be annexed to the United States.  Later, Mr. Champ
Clark, a leader of the Democratic party in the House of
Representatives, addressed the House urging the annexation of Canada.
Even if these statements are not taken seriously they at least show the
feelings of some people, and he would be a bold man who would prophesy
the political status of Canada in the future.  There is, however, no
present indication of any change being desired by the Canadians, and it
may be safely presumed that the existing conditions will continue for
many years to come.  This is not to be wondered at, for Canada though
nominally a British colony practically enjoys almost all the privileges
of an independent state.  She possesses a constitution similar to that
of the United Kingdom, with a parliament of two houses, called the
"Senate", and the "House of Commons".  The Sovereign of Great Britain
appoints only the Governor General who acts in his name, but the
Dominion is governed by a responsible Ministry, and all domestic
affairs are managed by local officials, without interference from the
Home Government.  Canadians enjoy as many rights as the inhabitants of
England, with the additional advantage that they do not have to bear
the burden of maintaining an army and navy.  Some years ago, if I
remember rightly, in consequence of some agitation or discussion for
independence, the late Lord Derby, then Secretary of State for the
Colonies, stated that if the Canadians really wished for independence,
the Home Government would not oppose, but that they should consider if
they would gain anything by the change, seeing that they already had
self-government, enjoyed all the benefits of a free people, and that
the only right the Home Government reserved was the appointment of the
Governor-General, although it assumed the responsibility of protecting
every inch of their territory from encroachment.  Since this sensible
advice from the Colonial Secretary, I have heard nothing more of the
agitation for independence.

From a commercial point of view, and for the welfare of the people,
there is not much to choose to-day between a Limited Monarchy and a
Republic.  Let us, for instance, compare England with the United
States.  The people of England are as free and independent as the
people of the United States, and though subjects, they enjoy as much
freedom as Americans.  There are, however, some advantages in favor of
a Republic.  Americans until recently paid their President a salary of
only $50,000 a year; it is now $75,000 with an additional allowance of
$25,000 for travelling expenses.  This is small indeed compared with
the Civil List of the King or Emperor of any great nation.  There are
more chances in a Republic for ambitious men to distinguish themselves;
for instance, a citizen can become a president, and practically assume
the functions of a king or an emperor.  In fact the President of the
United States appoints his own cabinet officials, ambassadors,
ministers, etc.  It is generally stated that every new president has
the privilege of making more than ten thousand appointments.  With
regard to the administration and executive functions he has in practice
more power than is usually exercised by a king or an emperor of a
Constitutional Monarchy.  On the other hand, in some matters, the
executive of a Republic cannot do what a king or an emperor can do; for
example, a president cannot declare war against a foreign nation
without first obtaining the consent of Congress.  In a monarchical
government the king or the cabinet officials assume enormous
responsibilities.  Lord Beaconsfield (then Mr. D'Israeli), while he was
Prime Minister of England, purchased in 1875 from the Khedive of Egypt
176,602 Suez Canal shares for the sum of 3,976,582 Pounds on his own
responsibility, and without consulting the Imperial Parliament.  When
Parliament or Congress has to be consulted about everything, great
national opportunities to do some profitable business must undoubtedly
be sometimes lost.  No such bold national investment as that made by
Lord Beaconsfield could have been undertaken by any American president
on his own responsibility.  Mr. Cleveland, when president of the United
States, said that "the public affairs of the United States are
transacted in a glass house."

Washington, in his farewell address, advised his compatriots that on
account of the detached and distant situation of their country they
should, in extending their commercial relations with foreign nations,
have as little political connection with them as possible; and he asked
this pertinent and pregnant question, "Why, by interweaving our destiny
with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in
the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or
caprice?" In 1823, twenty-seven years after Washington's celebrated
address, President Monroe in his annual message to Congress warned the
European Powers not to plant any new colonies on any portion of the
American hemisphere, as any attempt on their part to extend their
system in that part of the world would be considered as dangerous to
the peace and safety of the United States.  This "Monroe Doctrine", as
it has since been called, practically protects every state and country
on the American continent from attack or interference by any foreign
power, and it cannot be denied that it has been and is now the chief
factor in preserving the integrity of all the countries on that
continent.  Thus the United States is assuming the role of guardian
over the other American nations.  In the city of Washington there is an
International Bureau of the American Republics, in which all the
Republics of Central and South America are represented.  It is housed
in a magnificent palace made possible by the beneficence of Mr. Andrew
Carnegie, the American multi-millionaire and philanthropist, and the
contributions of the different governments.  It cost 750,000 gold
dollars, and Mr. John Barrett, the capable and popular director of the
Bureau, has well called it "a temple of friendship and commerce and a
meeting place for the American Republics."  The Bureau is supported by
the joint contributions of the twenty-one American Republics, and its
affairs are controlled by a governing board composed of their
diplomatic representatives in Washington, with the American Secretary
of State as chairman ex officio.  This institution no doubt strengthens
the position of the United States and is calculated to draw the
American Republics into closer friendship.



Chapter 2.  American Prosperity

One of the main causes of the prosperity of the great American Republic
is its natural resources.  It possesses coal, oil, silver, gold,
copper, and all the other mineral ores.  Nature seems, indeed, to have
provided almost everything that man needs.  The soil is rich; wheat and
every kind of fruit can be grown; but favorable as are these native
conditions they could not be turned to any great advantage without the
skill and industry of enterprising men.  Many countries in Africa and
Asia possess equal advantages, but they are not equally prosperous.
This leads me to the consideration of another reason for America's
growth.  The men who have migrated to the United States have not been
rich people.  They went there to make a living.  They were prepared to
work, their purpose was to improve their condition, and they were
willing to undertake any manual or mental labor to accomplish their
object.  They were hardy and strong and could bear a heavy strain.
Their children inherited their good qualities, and so an American is
generally more hard working and enterprising than most of the people in
Europe and elsewhere.

Another reason for America's success is the great freedom which each
citizen enjoys.  Every man considers himself the equal of every other,
and a young man who is ambitious will not rest until he reaches the top
of his profession or trade.  Thousands of Americans who were once very
poor, have become millionaires or multi-millionaires.  Many of them had
no college education, they taught themselves, and some of them have
become both literary and scholarly.  A college or university education
does not necessarily make a man learned; it only gives him the
opportunity to learn.  It is said that some college men have proven
themselves to be quite ignorant, or rather that they do not know so
much as those who have been self-taught.  I do not in any way wish to
disparage a college education; no doubt men who have been trained in a
university start in life with better prospects and with a greater
chance of success, but those men who have not had such advantages have
doubtless done much to make their country great and prosperous, and
they ought to be recognized as great men.

The general desire of the American people to travel abroad is one of
their good traits.  People who never leave their homes cannot know
much.  A person may become well-informed by reading, but his practical
knowledge cannot be compared with that of a person who has travelled.
We Chinese are great sinners in this regard.  A Chinese maxim says, "It
is dangerous to ride on horseback or to go on a voyage":  hence until
very recently we had a horror of going abroad.  A person who remains
all his life in his own town is generally narrow-minded,
self-opinioned, and selfish.  The American people are free from these
faults.  It is not only the rich and the well-to-do who visit foreign
countries, but tradesmen and workmen when they have saved a little
money also often cross the Atlantic.  Some years ago a Senator in
Washington told me that he crossed the Atlantic Ocean every summer and
spent several months in Europe, and that the next trip would be his
twenty-eighth voyage.  I found, however, that he had never gone beyond
Europe.  I ventured to suggest that he should extend his next annual
journey a little farther and visit Japan, China, and other places in
the Far East which I felt sure he would find both interesting and
instructive.  I have travelled through many countries in Europe and
South America, and wherever I have gone and at whatever hotel I have
put up, I have always found some Americans, and on many occasions I
have met friends and acquaintances whom I had known in Washington or
New York.  But it is not only the men who go abroad; in many cases
ladies also travel by themselves.  On several occasions lady friends
from Washington, Philadelphia, and New York have visited me in Peking.
This is one of the Americans' strong points.  Is it not wiser and much
more useful to disburse a few hundred dollars or so in travelling and
gaining knowledge, coming in contact with other peoples and enlarging
the mind, than to spend large sums of money in gaudy dresses, precious
stones, trinkets, and other luxuries?

In a large country like America where a considerable portion of the
land still remains practically uncultivated or undeveloped, hardy,
industrious, and patient workmen are a necessity.  But the almost
unchecked influx of immigrants who are not desirable citizens cannot
but harm the country.  In these days of international trade it is right
that ingress and egress from one country to another should be
unhampered, but persons who have committed crimes at home, or who are
ignorant and illiterate, cannot become desirable citizens anywhere.
They should be barred out of the United States of America.  It is well
known that foreigners take part in the municipal and federal affairs of
the country as soon as they become citizens.  Now if such persons
really worked for the good of their adopted country, there could be no
objection to this, but it is no secret that many have no such motives.
That being so, it is a question whether steps should not be taken to
limit their freedom.  On the other hand, as many farms suffer from lack
of workmen, people from whatever country who are industrious, patient,
and persevering ought to be admitted as laborers.  They would be a
great boon to the nation.  The fear of competition by cheap labor is
causeless; regulations might be drawn up for the control of these
foreign laborers, and on their arrival they could be drafted to those
places where their services might be most urgently needed.  So long as
honest and steady workmen are excluded for no reason other than that
they are Asiatics, while white men are indiscriminately admitted, I
fear that the prosperity of the country cannot be considered permanent,
for agriculture is the backbone of stable wealth.  Yet at present it is
the country's wealth which is one of the important factors of America's
greatness.  In the United States there are thousands of individuals
whose fortunes are counted by seven or eight figures in gold dollars.
And much of this money has been used to build railways, or to develop
manufactories and other useful industries.  The country has grown great
through useful work, and not on account of the army and navy.  In 1881
America's army numbered only 26,622 men, and her navy consisted of only
24 iron-clads, 2 torpedo-boats, and 25 tugs, but in 1910 the peace
strength of her army was 96,628 and the navy boasted 33 battleships and
120 armored cruisers of different sizes.

Within the last few years it has been the policy of many nations to
increase the army and to build as many Dreadnaughts and
super-dreadnaughts as possible.  Many statesmen have been infected by
this Dreadnaught fever.  Their policy seems to be based on the idea
that the safety of a nation depends on the number of its battleships.
Even peaceful and moderate men are carried away by this hobby, and
support it.  It is forgotten that great changes have taken place during
the last twenty or thirty years; that a nation can now be attacked by
means quite beyond the reach of Dreadnaughts.  The enormous sums spent
on these frightful monsters, if applied to more worthy objects, would
have a greater effect in preserving the nations' heritages than
anything these monstrosities can do.

The nation which has a large army and a strong navy may be called
powerful, but it cannot be considered great without other good
requisites.  I consider a nation as great when she is peacefully,
justly, and humanely governed, and when she possesses a large number of
benevolent and good men who have a voice in the administration.  The
greater the number of good men that a nation possesses the greater she
becomes.  America is known to have a large number of such men and
women, men and women who devote their time and money to preaching peace
among the nations.  Mr. Andrew Carnegie is worth a hundred
Dreadnaughts.  He and others like him are the chief factors in
safeguarding the interests and welfare of America.  The territory of
the United States is separated from Europe and other countries by vast
oceans; so that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a foe to
successfully attack any portion of that country.  But who wishes to
attack her?  She has scarcely an enemy.  No country is invaded by
another without cause, and as the United States is in friendly
relations with all the Powers, there is no reason to fear foreign
invasion.  Even should a foreign power successfully attack her and
usurp a portion of her territories, a supposition which is most
improbable, would the enemy be able to hold what he seized?  History
shows that no conquered country has ever been successfully and
permanently kept without the people's consent, and there is not the
least chance that the Americans will ever consent to the rule of a
foreign government.

It is to be hoped that the United States will not follow the example of
other nations and unduly increase her armaments, but that she will take
the lead in the universal peace movement and show the world that a
great power can exist and maintain her position without force of arms.
I am aware that general disarmament is not popular among statesmen,
that it has been denounced by an eminent authority as a "will-o'-the
wisp", that arbitration has been styled a "Jack-o'-lantern", but this
is not the first time a good and workable scheme has been branded with
opprobrious names.  The abolition of slavery was at one time considered
to be an insane man's dream; now all people believe in it.  Will the
twentieth century witness the collapse of our present civilization?

Why are the world's armaments constantly increasing?  To my mind it is
due to two causes, one of which is mistrust.  One nation begins to
build Dreadnaughts, another does the same through fear and mistrust.
The second cause is that it is the fashion of some nations to follow
the example of others that they may preserve their position as great
naval powers.  But it is unnecessary for the United States to show such
mistrust or to follow such fashion.  She should rather, as becomes a
great and powerful nation, take an independent course of her own.  If
she sets the example other nations in due time will follow her.  The
peace of the world will be more surely guarded, and America will win
the approbation, the respect, and the gratitude of all peace-loving
people.
It would seem reasonable to expect that in yielding so fully to the
wishes of the United States in this second negotiation the Chinese
Government would not be called upon to make any further concessions in
the interests or at the demand of the labor unions on the Pacific
coast, but in this China was disappointed.  Within a period of less
than ten years an urgent application was made by the American Secretary
of State for a new treaty amended so as to enable the Congress of the
United States to still further restrict the privileges of Chinese
laborers who had come to the United States.  And when the Chinese
Government hesitated to consent to the withdrawal of rights which the
United States granted to the subjects of other Governments, Congress
passed the Scott Act of 1888 prohibiting any Chinese person from
entering the United States except Chinese officials, teachers,
students, merchants or travellers for pleasure or curiosity and
forbidding also Chinese laborers in the United States, after having
left, from returning thereto.  This, in the words of Hon. J. W. Foster,
ex-Secretary of State and a distinguished international lawyer, "was a
deliberate violation of the Treaty of 1880 and was so declared by the
Supreme Court of the United States."  In order to save the Executive of
the United States from embarrassment, the Chinese Government, contrary
to its own sense of justice, and of international comity, for a third
time yielded to the wishes of the United States, and concluded the
amended treaty of 1894 which gave Congress additional power of
legislation respecting Chinese laborers.  By Article I of this treaty
it was agreed that for a term of ten years the coming of Chinese
laborers to the United States should be absolutely prohibited.  Article
III distinctly provided that "the provisions of this convention shall
not affect the right at present enjoyed of Chinese subjects, being
officials, teachers, students, merchants, or travellers for curiosity
or pleasure, but not laborers, of coming to the United States and
residing therein." Thus it is clear that the prohibition affects only
laborers, and not the other classes of Chinese.  For a few years after
the signing of this convention this was the view adopted and acted upon
by the immigration officials, but afterward they changed their
attitude, and the foregoing Article has since been interpreted to mean
that only the above-mentioned five classes can be admitted into the
United States, and that all the other classes of Chinese, however
respectable and honorable, must be refused admission.  Will my readers
believe that a Chinese banker, physician, lawyer, broker, commercial
agent, scholar or professor could all be barred out of the United
States of America under the provisions of this convention?  In the face
of the plain language of the text it seems too absurd and unreasonable
to be contemplated, and yet it is a fact.

This convention was proclaimed in December, 1894.  According to its
provisions, it was to remain in force only for a period of ten years,
but that if six months before the end of that period neither Power
should give notice of denunciation it should be extended for a similar
period.  Such notice was, however, given by China to the United States
and accordingly the convention expired in December, 1904, and is now no
longer in force.  No serious attempt has since been made by the United
States Government to negotiate a new treaty regarding Chinese laborers,
so the customs and immigration officials continue to prohibit Chinese
laborers from coming to America by virtue of the law passed by
Congress.  It will be seen that by the treaty of 1868, known as the
"Burlingame Treaty", the United States Government formally agreed that
Chinese subjects, visiting or residing in the United States, should
enjoy the same privileges and immunities as were enjoyed by the
citizens or subjects of the most favored nation; that being so, and as
the convention of 1894 has expired, according to the legal opinion of
Mr. John W. Foster, and other eminent lawyers, the continuation of the
exclusion of Chinese laborers and the restrictions placed upon Chinese
merchants and others seeking admission to the United States are not
only without international authority but in violation of treaty
stipulations.

The enforcement of the exclusion laws against Chinese in the Hawaiian
and Philippine Islands is still more inexcusable.  The complaint in
America against the immigration of Chinese laborers was that such
immigration was detrimental to white labor, but in those Islands there
has been no such complaint; on the contrary the enforcement of the law
against the Chinese in Hawaii has been, and is, contrary to the
unanimous wish of the local Government and the people.  Free
intercourse and immigration between those Islands and China have been
maintained for centuries.  What is most objectionable and unfair is
that the Chinese should be singled out for discrimination, while all
other Asiatics such as Japanese, Siamese, and Malays are allowed to
enter America and her colonies without restraint.  It is my belief that
the gross injustice that has been inflicted upon the Chinese people by
the harsh working of the exclusion law is not known to the large
majority of the American people, for I am sure they would not allow the
continuation of such hardships to be suffered by those who are their
sincere friends.  China does not wish special treatment, she only asks
that her people shall be treated in the same way as the citizens or
subjects of other countries.  Will the great American nation still
refuse to consent to this?

To solve the problem of immigration in a manner that would be
satisfactory to all parties is not an easy task, as so many conflicting
interests are involved.  But it is not impossible.  If persons
interested in this question be really desirous of seeing it settled and
are willing to listen to reasonable proposals, I believe that a way may
be found for its solution.  There is good reason for my optimistic
opinion.  Even the Labor Unions, unless I am mistaken, would welcome an
amicable settlement of this complicated question.  In 1902, while at
Washington, I was agreeably surprised to receive a deputation of the
leaders of the Central Labor Union of Binghamton, New York, inviting me
to pay a visit there and to deliver an address.  As I did not wish to
disappoint them I accepted their invitation.  During my short stay
there, I was very cordially and warmly received, and most kindly
treated not only by the local authorities and inhabitants, but by the
members of the Labor Union and the working men also.  I found that the
Union leaders and the working men were most reasonable, their platform
being, as far as I could learn, to have no cheap labor competition but
not necessarily discrimination against any race.  If the United States
Government would appoint a commission composed of members representing
the Labor Unions, manufacturers and merchants, to treat with a similar
commission nominated by the Chinese Government, the whole question in
all its bearings could be discussed, and I feel certain that after free
and candid exchange of views, the joint Commissioners would be able to
arrive at a scheme which would put at rest once for all the conflicting
claims, and settle the matter satisfactorily to both China and the
United States.
"""

wu_docs = wu_raw.split(". ")


# In[ ]: