THE CHINESE QUESTION.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 182, 3 August 1871, Page 6

THE CHINESE QUESTION.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,— ln the " Otago Witness," of the loth inst., I noticed a communication headed Chinese Question, but considering its tone, it would be more proper to have called it an eulogy on the Chinese. The writer is evidently employed by the Chinese to advocate their cause, and no doubt is well paid by them ; but, however, his production may please his employers, it will have the contrary effect on those most directly affected by the question, viz., the European mining population. As one of tho latter, au Englishman, and one who thinks he has more claim to a British possession as a part of his birthright, I emphatically protest against any further introduction of Chinese into this colony to rob me of my inheritance. One of the principal benefits claimed by the advocates of Chinese immigration to have been conferred on the colony through their introduction, i.e., the working of old ground, is, in fact, the greatest injury to us. I speak from sixteen years' digging experience in the colonies, and what happened in Australia is applicable here. We would make a little money on one diggings, a rush would break out ; if our claim was poor, we would leave it partly worked out. and go to the rush, and try to gut a better one. Those who were fortunate enough to get a good claim, when it was worked out could go prospecting, or to another rush ; but the unfortunate oues whose money was done must fall back on the old gr.iund they bad left, and try, by steady perseverance, to make another start, a'ld pay off any little debts they uii^ it owe; but beaold their disappointment when they find the ground they had left swarming with Chinese scavengers, and then have to depend on some old mate who has been more fortunate than themselves for the loan of a pound, or on the storekeeper for a loaf; and in the event of not meeting friends this way, their alteriiathe was to make their way overland to one of the other colonies, and either beg or steal from the stations, hence the sticking up and bushranging. Now, Sir, the introduction of Chinese into this colony is a greater evil to us than it was in Australia, as although the grouud is generally poor, many of us were determined to settle down and make ourselves a home. The idea that we would not work so poor ground as the Chinese is simply absurd, and unfortunately the storekeepers' books will show that with many of us our ground is so poor that it will m>fc produce suffkieut gold r o pay them, fiie admission of Cniuese into this colony had at the time very nearly the effect of precipitating a recurrence of the troubles that occurred at Ballarafc in 185 i through the maladministration of the Victorian Government, and I think our rulers would be wise to take that lesson to heart, for they may depend upon it the mining population of the pre v ent day are fully as determined to maintain their rights as they were then and it behoves the Government to prevent a rupture with us by the removal of the causes, the chief of which is Chinese immigration.

In conclusion, I ask this question, Which is the more favourable class for settlement? If the answer is the Chinese, then our only choice is instead of paying it to the storekeeper, kaep sufficient gold to pay our passage elsewhere, for it' the Chinese are allowed to overrun this country, with the exception of a few large claims, it will be worked out in a couple of years, and we shall have then as a necessity to leave it ' or starve. By inserting these few remarks in your journal, you will oblige yours, &c, E. V. Wfoitecombe, July 27.