148apps.com BestAppEver: “Stanza has redefined how everyone thinks about reading on a mobile device.”
2008 Best Free App

Heathen Slaves and Christian Rulers by Andrew, Elizabeth Wheeler, Bushnell, Katharine Caroline - CHAPTER 18.

(download Open eBook Format)

Heathen Slaves and Christian Rulers

CHAPTER 18.

PER­ILS AND REME­DIES.

It is a mat­ter of no small im­por­tance that the Chris­tian pub­lic of Amer­ica should re­al­ize that in the Ori­en­tal slav­ery of its Pa­cif­ic Coast it faces a flood. One can gaze with in­dif­fer­ence up­on a lit­tle stream that trick­les through a wall, so long as it is thought to be mere­ly a nat­ural spring of wa­ter; but when one is in­formed that this is the trick­ling of wa­ter through a dike which dams out the rag­ing sea, the sen­sa­tions are changed to a re­al­iz­ing sense of im­mi­nent per­il. If some are dis­posed to crit­icise this book for lead­ing its read­ers in­to past his­to­ry and far dis­tant coun­tries, to tell them har­row­ing tales, let them know it is in­tend­ed to take them for a view be­hind the dike,--that they may un­der­stand the source of the trick­ling stream of broth­el slaves that, al­most un­ob­served, flows steadi­ly in­to our fair land, and know that the stream is the pre­cur­sor of a flood. No mere wall of im­mi­gra­tion re­stric­tions will ev­er get con­trol of the flow so long as men are per­mit­ted to hold slaves af­ter they have once been land­ed. And for the fur­ther rea­son, that so soon as Chi­na and Japan have drilled a lit­tle longer with the fire-​arms fur­nished them by West­ern na­tions, they will force a free en­trance to Amer­ica. The yel­low flood is sure to come, and we must make ready for it. We must re­al­ize what may hap­pen to Amer­ican wom­en if al­mond-​eyed cit­izens, bent on ex­ploit­ing wom­en for gain, ob­tain the bal­lot in ad­vance of ed­ucat­ed Amer­ican wom­en. We must re­al­ize how im­pos­si­ble it is to throt­tle this mon­ster, Ori­en­tal Broth­el-​Slav­ery, un­less we take it in its in­fan­cy. For these rea­sons, we wish to sound the cry long and loud: “At once to arms! Not a mo­ment to be lost! We can­not build a dam in the midst of the rag­ing sea. The new dam must be fin­ished be­fore the old one bursts.”

And be­side the per­il aris­ing di­rect­ly from the flood of Ori­en­tals who are ac­cus­tomed to deal­ing with wom­en as chat­tels, there will be the per­il from a de­based Amer­ican man­hood. Men can­not live in the midst of such slav­ery as this, tol­er­ate it, de­fend it, make gain through it, pa­tron­ize it, with­out los­ing all re­spect for wom­an and re­gard for her rights.

And then, the slave busi­ness is fast be­com­ing a vest­ed in­ter­est of large di­men­sions to Amer­ican men as well as to Chi­nese. There are ful­ly as many (prob­ably more) Japanese slaves as Chi­nese in the Unit­ed States, and at the mod­er­ate reck­on­ing that they are worth three thou­sand dol­lars each, that rep­re­sents six mil­lion dol­lars in cap­ital; and at the present time the Japanese traf­fic is more threat­en­ing to the Unit­ed States than the Chi­nese, with which alone this book deals.[A]

[Foot­note A: When we un­der­took the task of writ­ing this book we in­tend­ed to in­clude in it al­so a rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the Japanese slave-​trade, but have been obliged to de­sist for want of space.]

In these lat­ter days, when ev­ery­thing in the busi­ness line tends to take on the form of trusts and com­bines, bent on de­feat­ing all law and ex­ploit­ing the com­mon peo­ple for gain, it casts a shad­ow of gloom over one's spir­its to think of cap­ital­ists en­ter­ing so large­ly up­on the ac­tive cul­ture and de­vel­op­ment of vice for pe­cu­niary prof­it. This can no longer be looked up­on as an evil due to the frailty of hu­man na­ture and the strength of the sex ap­petite; it is rather the ex­pres­sion of a greed for gold, and should be ac­tive­ly com­bat­ed as such. The own­ers of prop­er­ty, es­pe­cial­ly those who have a monopoly in the mat­ter of hous­ing vice be­cause of mu­nic­ipal mea­sures for its seg­re­ga­tion, are most po­tent of­fend­ers against de­cen­cy, and should be pun­ished as such, in­stead of their be­ing ad­mit­ted, as too of­ten they are, not on­ly to good so­ci­ety, but to mem­ber­ship on the church roll.

No in­di­vid­ual can af­ford to be in­dif­fer­ent and ig­no­rant as to the ex­is­tence of so­cial vice in the com­mu­ni­ty. The on­ly es­cape from moral blight and con­fu­sion is by ac­tive con­flict with the forces of evil. The wrong train­ing of youths who grow up in the pres­ence of tol­er­at­ed evils, can­not be over­come in a sin­gle gen­er­ation, nor in a sin­gle cen­tu­ry. There is a con­fu­sion of the moral sense in the pres­ence of evil to which one has be­come ac­cus­tomed, that is tru­ly ter­ri­ble.

When it was first learned in Eng­land that such an of­fi­cial had been ap­point­ed at Sin­ga­pore and Hong Kong as the in­spec­tor of broth­els, the mat­ter could scarce­ly gain cre­dence. Mr. Ben­jamin Scott, Cham­ber­lain of the City of Lon­don, in his valu­able book, “A State In­iq­ui­ty,” in men­tion­ing this ex­claims: “Her Majesty's In­spec­tor of Broth­els! Cu­rios­ity is aroused to in­quire what were the at­tributes, du­ties, rank and sta­tus of this of­fi­cial. From the ev­idence tak­en by the Com­mis­sion [at Hong Kong], we gath­er that he kept a reg­is­ter of 'Queen's Wom­en,' and saw that their names were du­ly in­scribed on the door-​posts of the Gov­ern­ment es­tab­lish­ments, as lawyers' names are in­scribed on nests of Cham­bers in the Tem­ple, and those of mer­chants and traders are writ­ten on of­fices in the City. He comptrolled the re­ceipt of the fees paid by the wom­en in­to the Colo­nial Trea­sury.... But, what was the fash­ion of his uni­form? Did he at­tend the re­cep­tions of His Ex­cel­len­cy and the Port Ad­mi­ral? Was he al­lowed prece­dence of chap­lains, or how oth­er­wise? and was he ex­pect­ed to dine with the Bish­op? Was he dec­orat­ed on the abo­li­tion of his of­fice, and al­lowed a good ser­vice pen­sion? or is he still in the ser­vice of 'our re­li­gious and gra­cious Queen?'” That of­fi­cer still re­mains in the ser­vice of the Gov­ern­ment, both at Sin­ga­pore and at Hong Kong. By the ruse of de­nom­inat­ing all the tasks con­nect­ed with the Gov­ern­ment man­age­ment of im­moral hous­es at Sin­ga­pore “pro­tec­tion,” the Chief In­spec­tor of broth­els in this place holds a more hon­ored place in the com­mu­ni­ty than at Hong Kong. As to Mr. Scott's iron­ical ques­tions in re­gard to that of­fi­cer's rank, we can­not an­swer, nor whether he is in­vit­ed to the Gov­er­nor's re­cep­tions; but Mr. Scott would have been as­tound­ed, in­deed, had he, like our­selves, first met the Chief In­spec­tor of broth­els at a re­cep­tion giv­en to min­is­ters of the Gospel and mis­sion­ar­ies; had he, like our­selves, been in­tro­duced to the of­fi­cial by a min­is­ter of the Gospel than whom none stands high­er in British In­dia, and that in terms of eu­lo­gy of the In­spec­tor's ac­tiv­ity in Chris­tian work. How can we ex­plain such a state of af­fairs? Just as we would ex­plain the re­li­gious­ness of ear­ly days of Amer­ica and Eng­land as­so­ci­at­ed with the mon­strous cru­el­ty of the slave traf­fic. There is of­ten in con­nec­tion with great hu­man wrong great moral con­fu­sion, and with­out judg­ing the in­di­vid­uals liv­ing un­der such con­di­tions, we can say em­phat­ical­ly, those con­di­tions are most un­de­sir­able, and at­tend­ed by moral per­il, es­pe­cial­ly to the young. It is a tru­ly lamentable thing when pro­longed fa­mil­iar­ity with vi­cious con­di­tions leads to such lack of dis­cern­ment as to a man's true char­ac­ter, even among the best por­tion of a com­mu­ni­ty. We do not wish such a state of things as this in Amer­ica.

Cal­ifor­nia does not lack in ex­cel­lent laws (as they read, in the Statute Book), for the sup­pres­sion of pros­ti­tu­tion. There are laws against procur­ing; against trad­ing in Ori­en­tal wom­en for evil pur­pos­es; against buy­ing or sell­ing a fe­male, with or with­out her con­sent, for pros­ti­tu­tion; against a hus­band forc­ing or in­flu­enc­ing a wife to lead an evil life; against a hus­band even con­sent­ing to his wife prac­tic­ing pros­ti­tu­tion; against keep­ing a house of ill-​fame; and against know­ing­ly rent­ing a house for a place of pros­ti­tu­tion. But all these laws, al­most the world over, as well as in Cal­ifor­nia, are weak at one point, name­ly, that they pro­vide for im­pris­on­ment _or_ fine, where­as they should pro­vide for im­pris­on­ment _and_ fine. This is not be­cause the penal­ty would then be heav­ier, of ne­ces­si­ty, but in or­der that the law may not be pros­ti­tut­ed in­to li­cense. The al­ter­na­tive of a fine in­stead of im­pris­on­ment de­feats the ob­ject the pub­lic-​spir­it­ed cit­izens have in de­mand­ing a law for the dis­cour­age­ment of vice, and places be­fore the po­lice of­fi­cials a temp­ta­tion to cor­rup­tion. A mild sen­tence, which in­vari­ably puts the pro­cur­er or broth­el-​keep­er in prison, is worth more than a heavy sen­tence by way of fine, which can be met by fur­ther op­pres­sion of his slaves. Be­sides, the heav­ier the sen­tence threat­ened, if there be an al­ter­na­tive fine, the more po­tent im­ple­ment it fur­nish­es for black­mail in the hands of cor­rupt po­lice of­fi­cials. Penal­ties by means of fines in­vari­ably tend to de­gen­er­ate in­to a month­ly squeeze to the po­lice, in pay­ment for tol­er­ation, and thus tend to make the po­lice of­fi­cial a de­fend­er of so­cial vice, rather than an ex­ter­mi­na­tor.

It has al­ways been con­sid­ered, among ex­pe­ri­enced work­ers, a most dif­fi­cult thing to at­tack pros­ti­tu­tion it­self by means of penal­ties, for the rea­son that the pun­ish­ment is in­vari­ably vis­it­ed with great­est sever­ity up­on the head of the fe­male part­ner in shame, who is of­ten the mere vic­tim, while the male part­ner goes free. But sure­ly those men who make a busi­ness of cul­ti­vat­ing vice and vi­cious prac­tices,--who use ev­ery sort of de­vice to cor­rupt the youth and de­vel­op the trade in wom­en, can be reached by just and whole­some laws. We can­not make men moral by act of par­lia­ment, but we can re­strict their depre­da­tions.

It has long been our feel­ing that ev­ery form and kind of spu­ri­ous mar­riage, such as bigamy, polygamy, il­le­gal di­vorce and re­mar­riage, se­duc­tion, adul­tery, and bas­tardy, be­sides con­sti­tut­ing some­times cause for civ­il ac­tion, might with good re­sults be lift­ed in­to of­fens­es against the State. Na­tion­al de­vel­op­ment de­pends not up­on the in­di­vid­ual but up­on the _fam­ily unit_, and that fam­ily unit is non-​ex­is­tent out­side the monog­amous re­la­tion, or, at least, is so frail as to eas­ily crum­ble. Noth­ing could be more vi­cious in moral ed­uca­tion to the youth than the av­er­age suit for civ­il dam­ages, in which the whole de­ci­sion of the case is made to de­pend up­on whether some young girl can or can­not be ru­ined in rep­uta­tion by lawyers of the de­fense and by their client, con­cern­ing whom there is not a ques­tion as to their lack of a de­cent rep­uta­tion. When the State ris­es to de­fend it­self against coun­ter­feit mar­riage, just as it de­fends it­self against coun­ter­feit coin, then the whole hori­zon of the life of a prof­li­gate wom­an will not be brought be­fore the pub­lic gaze ev­ery time she comes in­to court, but will be kept in de­served ob­scu­ri­ty, and the wom­an will be tried for a _sin­gle_ of­fense, just as the man is tried, and not for all the of­fens­es and in­dis­cre­tions of a life-​time. The penal­ty for such wrong do­ing may not be placed at even so high a fig­ure in the Statute Book as it now stands, while ac­count­ed a civ­il in­jury, but the dig­ni­ty of the tri­al would give se­ri­ous lessons in virtue to the youth. No na­tion can long ex­ist that does not in­ces­sant­ly dis­cour­age the prac­tice of ev­ery sort of of­fense against the sanc­ti­ty of the mar­riage re­la­tion.

But af­ter all, there will be no suc­cess in at­tempt­ing to cope with Ori­en­tal pros­ti­tu­tion by means of laws against pros­ti­tu­tion and kin­dred vices, for the rea­son that the evil is a far graver one than this. In­no­cent chil­dren are reared for vice, and at a cer­tain age thrust in­to the life through no choice of theirs; and not in­fre­quent­ly per­fect­ly re­spectable wom­en of ma­ture years are kid­naped for the vile ser­vice. The ef­fect up­on the moral char­ac­ter of a man who re­sorts to a _slave_ class of vic­tims to his evil propen­si­ties, must be to make that man a men­ace to so­ci­ety wher­ev­er he goes, through deeds of vi­olence which he is will­ing to com­mit, and ac­cus­tomed to com­mit, of the worst imag­in­able sort.

And an at­tack up­on the slave _traf­fic_ alone will nev­er prove ad­equate. The his­to­ry of our coun­try's deal­ing with ne­gro slav­ery is in­struc­tive on this point. There were laws in abun­dance for the sup­pres­sion of the _traf­fic_ be­tween Africa and Amer­ica; it was for­bid­den to bring slaves in­to the coun­try, and de­vices were in­vent­ed look­ing to an even­tu­al lib­er­ation of all the slaves in cer­tain re­gions; but what did all these amount to, so long as slav­ery could ex­ist? There had to be one sweep­ing, gen­er­al eman­ci­pa­tion of slaves wher­ev­er they were found, un­der what­ev­er cir­cum­stances, and when the state of slav­ery was abol­ished, the trade in slaves died a nat­ural death. The words of Mr. Fran­cis con­cern­ing con­di­tions at Hong Kong bear di­rect­ly on this point: “Un­til the sys­tem of pros­ti­tu­tion which pre­vails in this Colony ... is de­clared to be _slav­ery_, and treat­ed and pun­ished as such in Hong Kong, no stop will ev­er be put to the kid­nap­ing of wom­en and the buy­ing and sell­ing of fe­male chil­dren in Hong Kong. This buy­ing and sell­ing and kid­nap­ing is on­ly an ef­fect, of which the ex­ist­ing sys­tem of Chi­nese pros­ti­tu­tion is the cause.”

In 1880, Mr. Berry, a mem­ber of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives from Cal­ifor­nia, made use, in a de­bate in the House, of the ar­gu­ment that “if the British au­thor­ities had not been able to pre­vent slav­ery from be­ing prac­ticed in Hong Kong, there would be great dan­ger that, if an un­lim­it­ed im­mi­gra­tion of Chi­nese were al­lowed, it would be fol­lowed by the preva­lence of slav­ery in this coun­try.”

It is per­fect­ly true that im­mi­gra­tion of Chi­nese, even though it has been great­ly re­strict­ed, has been fol­lowed by the in­tro­duc­tion of slav­ery in­to the Unit­ed States, yet the premis­es laid down in this ar­gu­ment, may not pass un­chal­lenged, for the fol­low­ing rea­sons: There was nev­er any se­ri­ous at­tempt to put down slav­ery at Hong Kong, ex­cept­ing in the ef­forts of Sir John Smale and per­haps one or two oth­ers, whose ef­forts were op­posed by oth­ers, and in large part de­feat­ed. The records go to show that there was at once a growth of healthy moral sen­ti­ment cre­at­ed among the Chi­nese, through Sir John Smale's en­deav­or, that promised much good for the fu­ture had his course of ac­tion been con­tin­ued. This of­fi­cial plant­ed his feet square­ly up­on the doc­trine that all buy­ing and sell­ing of hu­man be­ings was slav­ery, and that a hu­man be­ing can­not, in law, “be­come a slave, even by his own con­sent.” And more­over this of­fi­cial, with Gov­er­nor Hen­nessey's en­cour­age­ment, pros­ecut­ed his cas­es with­out any ten­der con­sid­er­ation as to the de­mands of Eu­ro­pean lib­ertines, who would be left with scant op­por­tu­ni­ties to be self-​in­dul­gent un­less slaves were placed at their dis­pos­al. The truth is, from the for­eign stand­point, the plea for broth­el slav­ery was based up­on the “ne­ces­si­ty” of vice, and from the Chi­nese stand­point the plea for slav­ery was based up­on so-​called Chi­nese “cus­tom.” The Gov­ern­ment was im­pressed that it must have con­sid­er­ation for the de­mands of lib­ertines, and con­sid­er­ation for Chi­nese “cus­tom.” Nei­ther of these ar­gu­ments has any worth when ap­plied to the slave con­di­tions of Cal­ifor­nia, and there­fore the most se­ri­ous, baf­fling ob­sta­cles to a re­moval of the evil are out of the way. Both pre­texts, we main­tain, were false. There is no ne­ces­si­ty for fur­nish­ing vice to lib­ertines; there was no law­ful Chi­nese cus­tom to be op­posed in op­pos­ing broth­el slav­ery. But even if these were claimed to be suf­fi­cient ar­gu­ments across the wa­ter, they have no force in Cal­ifor­nia. There are wom­en, alas! will­ing to make a trade of their virtue for _their own gain_, with­out forc­ing Chi­nese wom­en to make a trade of their virtue for _the gain of mas­ters_. As to Chi­nese cus­tom: Amer­ica is not set­ting forth in­duce­ments for the Chi­nese to come and live in our midst, as did Sir Charles El­liott when he promised the Chi­nese the priv­ilege of prac­tic­ing their own so­cial and re­li­gious rites and cus­toms, “pend­ing Her Majesty's plea­sure.” If Chi­nese or any oth­er class of for­eign­ers come to re­side in the Unit­ed States, it is with the un­der­stand­ing that they must con­form to the laws of the coun­try, what­ev­er mod­ifi­ca­tion or rad­ical al­ter­ation it obliges them to make in their na­tive cus­toms, and if they will not do this they must take the con­se­quences.

No class of peo­ple, tak­en as a whole, are pos­sessed of a greater moral sense or can be reached more read­ily by moral sua­sion, than the Chi­nese. We be­lieve that if a prop­er con­di­tion of pub­lic moral sen­ti­ment were main­tained, by the en­force­ment of the laws of the Unit­ed States in Chi­nese com­mu­ni­ties, no class of peo­ple would be more de­light­ed than the re­spectable Chi­nese them­selves, who are now left in a state of ter­ror for their own lives from the high­binders, and who of­ten dare not bring over their law­ful wives from Chi­na, to live in the midst of this reign of ter­ror, at the mer­cy of slave-​traders and wom­en-​steal­ers. Then Chi­nese crim­inals would seek safer shel­ter else­where, and re­spectable Chi­nese fam­ily life would take the place, in our Chi­na­towns, of a com­bi­na­tion of crim­inal men and slave wom­en. And Chi­nese men of weak char­ac­ter, sep­arat­ed far from home in­flu­ences, would not be met on ev­ery hand by temp­ta­tions of the most po­tent sort. Such is the re­al worth of the sort of Chi­nese char­ac­ter that one meets in oth­er parts of that coun­try from those vi­ti­at­ed by fa­mil­iar con­tact with for­eign prof­li­gates, that the pres­ence of such could not but be a ben­efit to us, and would af­ford peace­able, thrifty, use­ful Chi­nese set­tle­ments in our midst, of which we would feel just­ly proud.

In or­der to see that the en­trance of Chi­nese to our coun­try from Chi­na is not made a cov­er for this dread­ful slave trade, there is an ur­gent need of coöper­ation be­tween res­cue work­ers of the Cal­ifor­nia coast and res­cue work­ers in all the open ports of Chi­na. Chi­nese men are con­stant­ly re­turn­ing to Chi­na to “mar­ry,” in du­ly pre­scribed form, and then re­turn with their wives and reën­ter the Unit­ed States, mere­ly to put the wom­en in­to the broth­els. Any man who is will­ing to run the risk of de­tec­tion can thus get a trip home to Chi­na to see his law­ful wife and fam­ily, and make it a prof­itable busi­ness trip be­sides,--with all ex­pens­es more than paid by the im­por­ta­tion, and sale of a slave. Chi­nese wom­en are con­stant­ly re­turn­ing to Chi­na to bring “daugh­ters” to put in the slave pens. No wom­an (even law­ful­ly mar­ried to a Chi­na­man), should be al­lowed to take a tick­et at Hong Kong or any of the open ports of Chi­na for the Unit­ed States, whose case has not been thor­ough­ly in­ves­ti­gat­ed by days of ac­quain­tance with a wom­an in­spec­tor in a house of de­ten­tion, if nec­es­sary, on the oth­er side. And no Chi­nese wom­an should be al­lowed to en­ter on this side of the wa­ter, un­til she has passed the sec­ond time un­der such surveil­lance in a house of de­ten­tion. And such res­cue work­ers should have the Gov­ern­ment au­thor­ity sig­ni­fied by a po­lice­man's star.

The evil to be com­bat­ed should be met with the right rem­edy. “Fitch­es are not threshed with a thresh­er, nei­ther is a cart wheel turned about up­on the cum­min; but the fitch­es are beat­en out with a staff, and the cum­min with a rod.” Much of the fail­ure to con­trol broth­el slav­ery has grown out of the ap­pli­ca­tion of the wrong rem­edy, not out of a dif­fi­cul­ty in con­trol­ling the Chi­nese. These cas­es of trad­ing in hu­man flesh have gen­er­al­ly been treat­ed in the courts as though com­ing un­der the laws against or­di­nary pros­ti­tu­tion. To il­lus­trate:

With­in the past month, three Chi­nese girls were cap­tured by a res­cue work­er. They were cooped up, with a man who had charge of them, in a tiny clos­et scarce­ly suf­fi­cient to hold the four, which had been en­tered by a pan­el door which was se­cure­ly nailed up and bags of rice piled against it. The res­cuer pulled away the bags, pried open the door of the se­cret re­cep­ta­cle with her hatch­et, and drew out the girls, drip­ping with per­spi­ra­tion and pant­ing for breath, in con­se­quence of the two hours' con­fine­ment, while the broth­el was be­ing searched for them. They were con­veyed to the mis­sion home, and were very hap­py, and ex­pressed their ea­ger wish to re­main. A Chi­nese wom­an came to call at the mis­sion home, in the ab­sence of the su­per­in­ten­dent, and, un­for­tu­nate­ly, was al­lowed to get ac­cess to an ac­quain­tance of these girls, and she con­veyed to them a promise that if they would come back, in a very lit­tle while they would all be giv­en their lib­er­ty. Af­ter that the girls said they wished to go, and for the fol­low­ing rea­sons: They could not dwell in safe­ty among their Chi­nese peo­ple, if in debt to a broth­el-​keep­er, for he would be al­ways on their track, and if he could not cap­ture them and they would not re­turn, he would cer­tain­ly se­cure their death at the hands of high-​binders. The case came up in court. The girls told there all the de­tails of their be­ing re­cent­ly smug­gled in­to this coun­try; that they were bought by their present own­er for $3,030 each; that they were flogged when their earn­ings for their own­er fell be­low $300 a month, and oth­er sim­ilar de­tails,--_but_ they al­so de­clared their wish to go back to the broth­el and to their own­er. To be sure, they had ex­pressed else­where a con­trary wish, and the wish to re­turn had been be­got­ten in their hearts by the threats and in­duce­ments con­veyed to them by the wom­an who came to the home. The judge was one who could not be bought nor bribed, and who sin­cere­ly wished the good of the girls, but they said they chose a life of pros­ti­tu­tion, and to that life they were re­turned.

We do not pre­tend to un­der­stand as well as that judge the laws that were avail­able, on which he ren­dered his de­ci­sion, but this we do say: If Cal­ifor­nia has not a law that will not per­mit the in­tro­duc­tion of slav­ery in­to the state, even though Chi­nese wom­en _con­sent_ to slav­ery, then it needs such a law at once. _Slav­ery is too formidable an evil for free Amer­icans to al­low its ex­is­tence on the con­sent of en­slaved Chi­nese wom­en._ Age of con­sent leg­is­la­tion, as ap­plied to the ques­tion of so­cial vice, is one thing, and con­sent as ap­plied to the ques­tion of slav­ery, quite an­oth­er thing. Sir John Smale, in the Supreme Court of Hong Kong, quot­ing from Sir R. Phillimore on In­ter­na­tion­al law (vol. I, p. 316), de­clared that it was not pos­si­ble for a hu­man be­ing legal­ly to “be­come a slave _even by his own con­sent_.” Had the mat­ter of con­sent or non-​con­sent of slaves been con­sult­ed as to ne­gro slav­ery, we have no rea­son for be­liev­ing that the ne­gro would ev­er have had his free­dom. Though pros­ti­tu­tion is en­tan­gled with the con­di­tions of servi­tude, un­der which Chi­nese wom­en and girls groan in Cal­ifor­nia, yet on­ly about half the slaves are as yet pros­ti­tutes, and slav­ery looms up so large against the west­ern sky, as com­pared with the mere con­sent or wish of a crea­ture brought up from baby­hood in fa­mil­iar­ity with vice, that to con­sult the op­tion of such an one in de­ter­min­ing the ex­is­tence or non-​ex­is­tence of _slav­ery_ in Amer­ica, is a thing that ought not to be tol­er­at­ed for a mo­ment.

We have shown how ev­ery Chi­nese girl who has es­caped from her servi­tude to the city of refuge,--the mis­sion home,--is re­ceived and wel­comed. How the res­cued and res­cuer run the race for dear life, and the pur­suers are obliged to turn back at the door. But what a state of things in this coun­try which we call free! Should not the en­tire coun­try be one great city of refuge? Do we not pre­tend that it is such to all who are op­pressed? Why should not the pur­suer be turned back at the Gold­en Gate, rather than at the door of an ex­cep­tion­al home in San Fran­cis­co? We are fond of say­ing that un­der the stars and stripes slav­ery can­not ex­ist. We must make it good, or ac­knowl­edge, in dust and ash­es of re­pen­tance, that we are hyp­ocrites. Idle words will not do in place of deeds; we must make good our pro­fes­sion at any cost. Ev­ery­one of these Chi­nese wom­en should be re­moved from the broth­els, wher­ev­er these ex­ist, con­sent or no con­sent, placed in hous­es of de­ten­tion, in­struct­ed as to the con­di­tion of lib­er­ty of the per­son in which she _must_ live, and then, if she _prefers_ a slave's life, he de­port­ed to Chi­na,--a land in which slav­ery is per­mit­ted. Ev­ery Chi­nese man who at­tempts to in­ter­fere with this rad­ical treat­ment of the sit­ua­tion, should be im­pris­oned or driv­en from the coun­try. These “Watch-​dogs,” who are per­fect­ly known to the po­lice, both by name and by face, should be put be­hind bars and in stripes, for a long time to come. This is not pros­ti­tu­tion, _mere­ly_,--Oh, how ten­der­ly men are in­clined to deal with the male har­lot! but for once the lib­er­tine has not a shad­ow of a shade of de­fense,--the pa­trons of _slaves_ are some­thing worse than for­ni­ca­tors; they are guilty of as many of­fens­es of crim­inal out­rage as they are guilty of vis­its to the slave-​pens stocked with Chi­nese girls, and they de­serve a prison sen­tence for ev­ery such vis­it.

Girls are afraid to come out of Chi­nese broth­els un­til they have earned their free­dom. This is be­cause pow­er­ful Chi­nese so­ci­eties have been formed that will ei­ther kid­nap such a girl or kill her. So she de­clares in court that she con­sents freely to be re­turned to the broth­el, and an ex­traor­di­nary mis­con­struc­tion of the doc­trine of the “lib­er­ty of the per­son,” leaves the judge with noth­ing to do but to de­liv­er the girl over to com­pul­so­ry vol­un­tari­ness. Again, Chi­nese young men do not wish to mar­ry lib­er­at­ed Chi­nese girls, but they go, rather, to the broth­el and buy a wife; and for much the same rea­son. If a man mar­ries the lib­er­at­ed slave of a broth­el keep­er, the high-​binders will teach the les­son that he has stolen an­oth­er man's prop­er­ty, by watch­ing their chance and as­sas­si­nat­ing him. Why are not these so­ci­eties bro­ken up, root and branch? Can­not? Non­sense; the of­fi­cers of the law have not made the at­tempt with any de­gree of earnest­ness as yet.

For years, the “Pro­tec­tors” at Sin­ga­pore and at Hong Kong have sum­moned the slaves in­to their of­fices and in­formed them that they were free, and asked them if they freely con­sent­ed to go­ing in­to a life of shame, be­fore putting them there? But to what pur­pose? Let the Po­lice Mag­is­trate, H.E. Wode­house, re­ply, as he did con­cern­ing a case of sui­cide: “When reg­is­ter­ing her name she said she had no pock­et-​moth­er, that her par­ents were both dead, and that she be­came a pros­ti­tute of her own free will. The in­spec­tor said that that was the de­scrip­tion of them­selves that near­ly all pros­ti­tutes gave, and that it was very rarely that it was true.” Re­mem­ber that, read­er, when the columns of your morn­ing pa­per in­form you that all the girls of Chi­na­town have been in­ter­ro­gat­ed, and that they all said they were there of their own free will? It is “very rarely that it is true.” Re­fer­ring to this case, which we de­scribe on page 118, the Mar­quess of Ripon wrote to Hong Kong that the broth­el-​keep­er who at­tempt­ed to ex­tort mon­ey from the young man be­fore de­liv­er­ing up his cap­tive to him for mar­riage, should have been pros­ecut­ed, and adds: “A sin­gle suc­cess­ful pros­ecu­tion in a case of this kind would, in all prob­abil­ity, do more to show that the in­mates of broth­els are free to leave such places when they wish, than could ev­er be ef­fect­ed by the present sys­tem, un­der which ef­forts are in­deed made to ex­plain their po­si­tions to the in­mates of broth­els.” This is a very clear state­ment of ex­act­ly what is need­ed in Cal­ifor­nia. The pub­lic should refuse to be sat­is­fied with vis­its of the po­lice of­fi­cials to the girls, to as­cer­tain the girls' state of mind as to a sense of lib­er­ty, and de­mand to know the of­fi­cial's state of mind,--whether he is ready to _prove_ the free­dom of the slave by hound­ing the slave deal­ers out of the com­mu­ni­ty.

There was re­cent­ly a war of se­cret so­ci­eties in Oak­land's Chi­na­town. One of the “tongs” quar­reled with an­oth­er, and three or four Chi­nese men were shot on the streets of Oak­land,--one fa­tal­ly, named Lee Bock Dong, in his own house. Lee Bock Dong had a slave girl who saw the shoot­ing, so she was tak­en in­to cus­tody by po­lice of­fi­cers. But the Chi­nese got her out of jail by means of the usu­al writ of habeas cor­pus, and she was sent to Sacra­men­to to an­oth­er per­son, who had dis­put­ed her own­er­ship with Lee Bock Dong. It seems, Lee Bock Dong had been hold­ing the slave girl for a debt owed to him by her re­al own­er in Sacra­men­to, of $2,000. The Oak­land _En­quir­er, of_ Feb. 20th, 1907, in­formed its read­ers a few days af­ter the af­fray as fol­lows: “This girl's pos­ses­sion was one of the points in dis­pute be­tween the two tongs, and it was this that was set­tled at yes­ter­day's con­fer­ence.” It is in­ter­est­ing to note that oth­er news­pa­pers gave the in­for­ma­tion that po­lice of­fi­cials at­tend­ed the con­fer­ence of these tongs, to help set­tle the dis­pute. The re­port con­tin­ues: “Lee Bock Dong's wid­ow de­mands the re­turn of the girl as se­cu­ri­ty for the mon­ey, or the pay­ment of the $2,000. This the Bing Gongs (one of the tongs) fi­nal­ly agreed to, and it was for them to de­ter­mine the course they would pur­sue. The po­lice say that this step is on­ly pre­lim­inary to a set­tle­ment of the whole af­fair ... that peace will be de­clared, the com­plaint against the al­leged mur­der­ers with­drawn, and the case dis­missed ... it is now ex­pect­ed that with­in a few days the ex­tra po­lice force, which has been main­tained in Chi­na­town ev­er since the night of the shoot­ing af­fray, will be with­drawn and peace reign once more.” This ar­ti­cle is head­ed: “War­ring Tongs Hold a Con­fer­ence, and it is Agreed Chi­nese Maid­en is to be Re­turned, or Equiv­alent in Cash.” The _En­quir­er_ of March 9th re­port­ed that the “Chi­nese tong men have been dis­missed.”

“Equiv­alent in cash” for a Chi­nese maid­en! Can it be pos­si­ble that this is the Unit­ed States of Amer­ica, and the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry! One ac­tu­al mur­der, and two mur­der­ous as­saults on the pub­lic streets, all dis­missed by an un­der­stand­ing en­tered in­to with the po­lice that they could now with­draw their ex­tra force, since the Chi­nese girl had been passed over as se­cu­ri­ty for a debt, un­til the “equiv­alent in cash” is paid! Have we spent hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars, and shed the blood of thou­sands of young men, and wid­owed and or­phaned tens of of thou­sands be­sides, in a civ­il war to put down African slav­ery, in­tro­duced from the At­lantic Coast, mere­ly to turn about and wel­come Chi­nese slav­ery from the Pa­cif­ic Coast?

"Be­hold this is a peo­ple robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison hous­es: they are for a prey, and none de­liv­ereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Re­store.

“Who among you will give ear to this? Who will hear­ken and hear for the time to come?”

***END OF THE PROJECT GUTEN­BERG EBOOK HEA­THEN SLAVES AND CHRIS­TIAN RULERS***

******* This file should be named 12818-8.txt or 12818-8.zip *******

This and all as­so­ci­at­ed files of var­ious for­mats will be found in: http://www.guten­berg.net/1/2/8/1/12818

Up­dat­ed edi­tions will re­place the pre­vi­ous one--the old edi­tions will be re­named.

Cre­at­ing the works from pub­lic do­main print edi­tions means that no one owns a Unit­ed States copy­right in these works, so the Foun­da­tion (and you!) can copy and dis­tribute it in the Unit­ed States with­out per­mis­sion and with­out pay­ing copy­right roy­al­ties. Spe­cial rules, set forth in the Gen­er­al Terms of Use part of this li­cense, ap­ply to copy­ing and dis­tribut­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works to pro­tect the PROJECT GUTEN­BERG-​tm con­cept and trade­mark. Project Guten­berg is a reg­is­tered trade­mark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, un­less you re­ceive spe­cif­ic per­mis­sion. If you do not charge any­thing for copies of this eBook, com­ply­ing with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for near­ly any pur­pose such as cre­ation of deriva­tive works, re­ports, per­for­mances and re­search. They may be mod­ified and print­ed and giv­en away--you may do prac­ti­cal­ly ANY­THING with pub­lic do­main eBooks. Re­dis­tri­bu­tion is sub­ject to the trade­mark li­cense, es­pe­cial­ly com­mer­cial re­dis­tri­bu­tion.

*** START: FULL LI­CENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTEN­BERG LI­CENSE PLEASE READ THIS BE­FORE YOU DIS­TRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To pro­tect the Project Guten­berg-​tm mis­sion of pro­mot­ing the free dis­tri­bu­tion of elec­tron­ic works, by us­ing or dis­tribut­ing this work (or any oth­er work as­so­ci­at­ed in any way with the phrase “Project Guten­berg”), you agree to com­ply with all the terms of the Full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense (avail­able with this file or on­line at http://guten­berg.net/li­cense).

Sec­tion 1. Gen­er­al Terms of Use and Re­dis­tribut­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works

1.A. By read­ing or us­ing any part of this Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work, you in­di­cate that you have read, un­der­stand, agree to and ac­cept all the terms of this li­cense and in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty (trade­mark/copy­right) agree­ment. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agree­ment, you must cease us­ing and re­turn or de­stroy all copies of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works in your pos­ses­sion. If you paid a fee for ob­tain­ing a copy of or ac­cess to a Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agree­ment, you may ob­tain a re­fund from the per­son or en­ti­ty to whom you paid the fee as set forth in para­graph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Guten­berg” is a reg­is­tered trade­mark. It may on­ly be used on or as­so­ci­at­ed in any way with an elec­tron­ic work by peo­ple who agree to be bound by the terms of this agree­ment. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works even with­out com­ply­ing with the full terms of this agree­ment. See para­graph 1.C be­low. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works if you fol­low the terms of this agree­ment and help pre­serve free fu­ture ac­cess to Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works. See para­graph 1.E be­low.

1.C. The Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion (“the Foun­da­tion” or PGLAF), owns a com­pi­la­tion copy­right in the col­lec­tion of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works. Near­ly all the in­di­vid­ual works in the col­lec­tion are in the pub­lic do­main in the Unit­ed States. If an in­di­vid­ual work is in the pub­lic do­main in the Unit­ed States and you are lo­cat­ed in the Unit­ed States, we do not claim a right to pre­vent you from copy­ing, dis­tribut­ing, per­form­ing, dis­play­ing or cre­at­ing deriva­tive works based on the work as long as all ref­er­ences to Project Guten­berg are re­moved. Of course, we hope that you will sup­port the Project Guten­berg-​tm mis­sion of pro­mot­ing free ac­cess to elec­tron­ic works by freely shar­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm works in com­pli­ance with the terms of this agree­ment for keep­ing the Project Guten­berg-​tm name as­so­ci­at­ed with the work. You can eas­ily com­ply with the terms of this agree­ment by keep­ing this work in the same for­mat with its at­tached full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense when you share it with­out charge with oth­ers.

1.D. The copy­right laws of the place where you are lo­cat­ed al­so gov­ern what you can do with this work. Copy­right laws in most coun­tries are in a con­stant state of change. If you are out­side the Unit­ed States, check the laws of your coun­try in ad­di­tion to the terms of this agree­ment be­fore down­load­ing, copy­ing, dis­play­ing, per­form­ing, dis­tribut­ing or cre­at­ing deriva­tive works based on this work or any oth­er Project Guten­berg-​tm work. The Foun­da­tion makes no rep­re­sen­ta­tions con­cern­ing the copy­right sta­tus of any work in any coun­try out­side the Unit­ed States.

1.E. Un­less you have re­moved all ref­er­ences to Project Guten­berg:

1.E.1. The fol­low­ing sen­tence, with ac­tive links to, or oth­er im­me­di­ate ac­cess to, the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense must ap­pear promi­nent­ly when­ev­er any copy of a Project Guten­berg-​tm work (any work on which the phrase “Project Guten­berg” ap­pears, or with which the phrase “Project Guten­berg” is as­so­ci­at­ed) is ac­cessed, dis­played, per­formed, viewed, copied or dis­tribut­ed:

This eBook is for the use of any­one any­where at no cost and with al­most no re­stric­tions what­so­ev­er. You may copy it, give it away or re-​use it un­der the terms of the Project Guten­berg Li­cense in­clud­ed with this eBook or on­line at www.guten­berg.net

1.E.2. If an in­di­vid­ual Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work is de­rived from the pub­lic do­main (does not con­tain a no­tice in­di­cat­ing that it is post­ed with per­mis­sion of the copy­right hold­er), the work can be copied and dis­tribut­ed to any­one in the Unit­ed States with­out pay­ing any fees or charges. If you are re­dis­tribut­ing or pro­vid­ing ac­cess to a work with the phrase “Project Guten­berg” as­so­ci­at­ed with or ap­pear­ing on the work, you must com­ply ei­ther with the re­quire­ments of para­graphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or ob­tain per­mis­sion for the use of the work and the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark as set forth in para­graphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an in­di­vid­ual Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work is post­ed with the per­mis­sion of the copy­right hold­er, your use and dis­tri­bu­tion must com­ply with both para­graphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any ad­di­tion­al terms im­posed by the copy­right hold­er. Ad­di­tion­al terms will be linked to the Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense for all works post­ed with the per­mis­sion of the copy­right hold­er found at the be­gin­ning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not un­link or de­tach or re­move the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense terms from this work, or any files con­tain­ing a part of this work or any oth­er work as­so­ci­at­ed with Project Guten­berg-​tm.

1.E.5. Do not copy, dis­play, per­form, dis­tribute or re­dis­tribute this elec­tron­ic work, or any part of this elec­tron­ic work, with­out promi­nent­ly dis­play­ing the sen­tence set forth in para­graph 1.E.1 with ac­tive links or im­me­di­ate ac­cess to the full terms of the Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense.

1.E.6. You may con­vert to and dis­tribute this work in any bi­na­ry, com­pressed, marked up, non­pro­pri­etary or pro­pri­etary form, in­clud­ing any word pro­cess­ing or hy­per­text form. How­ev­er, if you pro­vide ac­cess to or dis­tribute copies of a Project Guten­berg-​tm work in a for­mat oth­er than “Plain Vanil­la ASCII” or oth­er for­mat used in the of­fi­cial ver­sion post­ed on the of­fi­cial Project Guten­berg-​tm web site (www.guten­berg.net), you must, at no ad­di­tion­al cost, fee or ex­pense to the us­er, pro­vide a copy, a means of ex­port­ing a copy, or a means of ob­tain­ing a copy up­on re­quest, of the work in its orig­inal “Plain Vanil­la ASCII” or oth­er form. Any al­ter­nate for­mat must in­clude the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense as spec­ified in para­graph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for ac­cess to, view­ing, dis­play­ing, per­form­ing, copy­ing or dis­tribut­ing any Project Guten­berg-​tm works un­less you com­ply with para­graph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a rea­son­able fee for copies of or pro­vid­ing ac­cess to or dis­tribut­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works pro­vid­ed that

- You pay a roy­al­ty fee of 20% of the gross prof­its you de­rive from the use of Project Guten­berg-​tm works cal­cu­lat­ed us­ing the method you al­ready use to cal­cu­late your ap­pli­ca­ble tax­es. The fee is owed to the own­er of the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark, but he has agreed to do­nate roy­al­ties un­der this para­graph to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion. Roy­al­ty pay­ments must be paid with­in 60 days fol­low­ing each date on which you pre­pare (or are legal­ly re­quired to pre­pare) your pe­ri­od­ic tax re­turns. Roy­al­ty pay­ments should be clear­ly marked as such and sent to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion at the ad­dress spec­ified in Sec­tion 4, “In­for­ma­tion about do­na­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion.”

- You pro­vide a full re­fund of any mon­ey paid by a us­er who no­ti­fies you in writ­ing (or by e-​mail) with­in 30 days of re­ceipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense. You must re­quire such a us­er to re­turn or de­stroy all copies of the works pos­sessed in a phys­ical medi­um and dis­con­tin­ue all use of and all ac­cess to oth­er copies of Project Guten­berg-​tm works.

- You pro­vide, in ac­cor­dance with para­graph 1.F.3, a full re­fund of any mon­ey paid for a work or a re­place­ment copy, if a de­fect in the elec­tron­ic work is dis­cov­ered and re­port­ed to you with­in 90 days of re­ceipt of the work.

- You com­ply with all oth­er terms of this agree­ment for free dis­tri­bu­tion of Project Guten­berg-​tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or dis­tribute a Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work or group of works on dif­fer­ent terms than are set forth in this agree­ment, you must ob­tain per­mis­sion in writ­ing from both the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion and Michael Hart, the own­er of the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark. Con­tact the Foun­da­tion as set forth in Sec­tion 3 be­low.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Guten­berg vol­un­teers and em­ploy­ees ex­pend con­sid­er­able ef­fort to iden­ti­fy, do copy­right re­search on, tran­scribe and proof­read pub­lic do­main works in cre­at­ing the Project Guten­berg-​tm col­lec­tion. De­spite these ef­forts, Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works, and the medi­um on which they may be stored, may con­tain “De­fects,” such as, but not lim­it­ed to, in­com­plete, in­ac­cu­rate or cor­rupt da­ta, tran­scrip­tion er­rors, a copy­right or oth­er in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty in­fringe­ment, a de­fec­tive or dam­aged disk or oth­er medi­um, a com­put­er virus, or com­put­er codes that dam­age or can­not be read by your equip­ment.

1.F.2. LIM­IT­ED WAR­RAN­TY, DIS­CLAIMER OF DAM­AGES - Ex­cept for the “Right of Re­place­ment or Re­fund” de­scribed in para­graph 1.F.3, the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion, the own­er of the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark, and any oth­er par­ty dis­tribut­ing a Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work un­der this agree­ment, dis­claim all li­abil­ity to you for dam­ages, costs and ex­pens­es, in­clud­ing le­gal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REME­DIES FOR NEG­LI­GENCE, STRICT LI­ABIL­ITY, BREACH OF WAR­RAN­TY OR BREACH OF CON­TRACT EX­CEPT THOSE PRO­VID­ED IN PARA­GRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUN­DA­TION, THE TRADE­MARK OWN­ER, AND ANY DIS­TRIB­UTOR UN­DER THIS AGREE­MENT WILL NOT BE LI­ABLE TO YOU FOR AC­TU­AL, DI­RECT, IN­DI­RECT, CON­SE­QUEN­TIAL, PUNI­TIVE OR IN­CI­DEN­TAL DAM­AGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NO­TICE OF THE POS­SI­BIL­ITY OF SUCH DAM­AGE.

1.F.3. LIM­IT­ED RIGHT OF RE­PLACE­MENT OR RE­FUND - If you dis­cov­er a de­fect in this elec­tron­ic work with­in 90 days of re­ceiv­ing it, you can re­ceive a re­fund of the mon­ey (if any) you paid for it by send­ing a writ­ten ex­pla­na­tion to the per­son you re­ceived the work from. If you re­ceived the work on a phys­ical medi­um, you must re­turn the medi­um with your writ­ten ex­pla­na­tion. The per­son or en­ti­ty that pro­vid­ed you with the de­fec­tive work may elect to pro­vide a re­place­ment copy in lieu of a re­fund. If you re­ceived the work elec­tron­ical­ly, the per­son or en­ti­ty pro­vid­ing it to you may choose to give you a sec­ond op­por­tu­ni­ty to re­ceive the work elec­tron­ical­ly in lieu of a re­fund. If the sec­ond copy is al­so de­fec­tive, you may de­mand a re­fund in writ­ing with­out fur­ther op­por­tu­ni­ties to fix the prob­lem.

1.F.4. Ex­cept for the lim­it­ed right of re­place­ment or re­fund set forth in para­graph 1.F.3, this work is pro­vid­ed to you 'AS-​IS', WITH NO OTH­ER WAR­RANTIES OF ANY KIND, EX­PRESS OR IM­PLIED, IN­CLUD­ING BUT NOT LIM­IT­ED TO WAR­RANTIES OF MER­CHAN­TIBIL­ITY OR FIT­NESS FOR ANY PUR­POSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not al­low dis­claimers of cer­tain im­plied war­ranties or the ex­clu­sion or lim­ita­tion of cer­tain types of dam­ages. If any dis­claimer or lim­ita­tion set forth in this agree­ment vi­olates the law of the state ap­pli­ca­ble to this agree­ment, the agree­ment shall be in­ter­pret­ed to make the max­imum dis­claimer or lim­ita­tion per­mit­ted by the ap­pli­ca­ble state law. The in­va­lid­ity or un­en­force­abil­ity of any pro­vi­sion of this agree­ment shall not void the re­main­ing pro­vi­sions.

1.F.6. IN­DEM­NI­TY - You agree to in­dem­ni­fy and hold the Foun­da­tion, the trade­mark own­er, any agent or em­ploy­ee of the Foun­da­tion, any­one pro­vid­ing copies of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works in ac­cor­dance with this agree­ment, and any vol­un­teers as­so­ci­at­ed with the pro­duc­tion, pro­mo­tion and dis­tri­bu­tion of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works, harm­less from all li­abil­ity, costs and ex­pens­es, in­clud­ing le­gal fees, that arise di­rect­ly or in­di­rect­ly from any of the fol­low­ing which you do or cause to oc­cur: (a) dis­tri­bu­tion of this or any Project Guten­berg-​tm work, (b) al­ter­ation, mod­ifi­ca­tion, or ad­di­tions or dele­tions to any Project Guten­berg-​tm work, and (c) any De­fect you cause.

Sec­tion 2. In­for­ma­tion about the Mis­sion of Project Guten­berg-​tm

Project Guten­berg-​tm is syn­ony­mous with the free dis­tri­bu­tion of elec­tron­ic works in for­mats read­able by the widest va­ri­ety of com­put­ers in­clud­ing ob­so­lete, old, mid­dle-​aged and new com­put­ers. It ex­ists be­cause of the ef­forts of hun­dreds of vol­un­teers and do­na­tions from peo­ple in all walks of life.

Vol­un­teers and fi­nan­cial sup­port to pro­vide vol­un­teers with the as­sis­tance they need, is crit­ical to reach­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm's goals and en­sur­ing that the Project Guten­berg-​tm col­lec­tion will re­main freely avail­able for gen­er­ations to come. In 2001, the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion was cre­at­ed to pro­vide a se­cure and per­ma­nent fu­ture for Project Guten­berg-​tm and fu­ture gen­er­ations. To learn more about the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion and how your ef­forts and do­na­tions can help, see Sec­tions 3 and 4 and the Foun­da­tion web page at http://www.pglaf.org.

Sec­tion 3. In­for­ma­tion about the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion

The Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion is a non prof­it 501(c)(3) ed­uca­tion­al cor­po­ra­tion or­ga­nized un­der the laws of the state of Mis­sis­sip­pi and grant­ed tax ex­empt sta­tus by the In­ter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice. The Foun­da­tion's EIN or fed­er­al tax iden­ti­fi­ca­tion num­ber is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) let­ter is post­ed at http://pglaf.org/fundrais­ing. Con­tri­bu­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion are tax de­ductible to the full ex­tent per­mit­ted by U.S. fed­er­al laws and your state's laws.

The Foun­da­tion's prin­ci­pal of­fice is lo­cat­ed at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fair­banks, AK, 99712., but its vol­un­teers and em­ploy­ees are scat­tered through­out nu­mer­ous lo­ca­tions. Its busi­ness of­fice is lo­cat­ed at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email busi­ness@pglaf.org. Email con­tact links and up to date con­tact in­for­ma­tion can be found at the Foun­da­tion's web site and of­fi­cial page at http://pglaf.org

For ad­di­tion­al con­tact in­for­ma­tion: Dr. Gre­go­ry B. New­by Chief Ex­ec­utive and Di­rec­tor gb­new­by@pglaf.org

Sec­tion 4. In­for­ma­tion about Do­na­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion

Project Guten­berg-​tm de­pends up­on and can­not sur­vive with­out wide spread pub­lic sup­port and do­na­tions to car­ry out its mis­sion of in­creas­ing the num­ber of pub­lic do­main and li­censed works that can be freely dis­tribut­ed in ma­chine read­able form ac­ces­si­ble by the widest ar­ray of equip­ment in­clud­ing out­dat­ed equip­ment. Many small do­na­tions ($1 to $5,000) are par­tic­ular­ly im­por­tant to main­tain­ing tax ex­empt sta­tus with the IRS.

The Foun­da­tion is com­mit­ted to com­ply­ing with the laws reg­ulat­ing char­ities and char­ita­ble do­na­tions in all 50 states of the Unit­ed States. Com­pli­ance re­quire­ments are not uni­form and it takes a con­sid­er­able ef­fort, much pa­per­work and many fees to meet and keep up with these re­quire­ments. We do not so­lic­it do­na­tions in lo­ca­tions where we have not re­ceived writ­ten con­fir­ma­tion of com­pli­ance. To SEND DO­NA­TIONS or de­ter­mine the sta­tus of com­pli­ance for any par­tic­ular state vis­it http://pglaf.org

While we can­not and do not so­lic­it con­tri­bu­tions from states where we have not met the so­lic­ita­tion re­quire­ments, we know of no pro­hi­bi­tion against ac­cept­ing un­so­licit­ed do­na­tions from donors in such states who ap­proach us with of­fers to do­nate.

In­ter­na­tion­al do­na­tions are grate­ful­ly ac­cept­ed, but we can­not make any state­ments con­cern­ing tax treat­ment of do­na­tions re­ceived from out­side the Unit­ed States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Guten­berg Web pages for cur­rent do­na­tion meth­ods and ad­dress­es. Do­na­tions are ac­cept­ed in a num­ber of oth­er ways in­clud­ing in­clud­ing checks, on­line pay­ments and cred­it card do­na­tions. To do­nate, please vis­it: http://pglaf.org/do­nate

Sec­tion 5. Gen­er­al In­for­ma­tion About Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works.

Pro­fes­sor Michael S. Hart is the orig­ina­tor of the Project Guten­berg-​tm con­cept of a li­brary of elec­tron­ic works that could be freely shared with any­one. For thir­ty years, he pro­duced and dis­tribut­ed Project Guten­berg-​tm eBooks with on­ly a loose net­work of vol­un­teer sup­port.

Project Guten­berg-​tm eBooks are of­ten cre­at­ed from sev­er­al print­ed edi­tions, all of which are con­firmed as Pub­lic Do­main in the U.S. un­less a copy­right no­tice is in­clud­ed. Thus, we do not nec­es­sar­ily keep eBooks in com­pli­ance with any par­tic­ular pa­per edi­tion.

Most peo­ple start at our Web site which has the main PG search fa­cil­ity:

http://www.guten­berg.net

This Web site in­cludes in­for­ma­tion about Project Guten­berg-​tm, in­clud­ing how to make do­na­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion, how to help pro­duce our new eBooks, and how to sub­scribe to our email newslet­ter to hear about new eBooks.