No slaves, or persons under bonds, have been allowed in the United States

since the abolition of slavery by President Lincoln. The moment a slave,
or anyone in bonds, steps on the shores of the United States he is free,

and no one, not even his former master, can deprive him of his liberty.
America also affords an asylum for oppressed people and for

political offenders; people who have been persecuted in their own land,
on account of their religion, or for political offenses, find a safe refuge

in this country. Every year large numbers of Jews, and other foreigners,
emigrate to America for the sake of enjoying religious freedom.

Perfect religious liberty is guaranteed to everyone in the United States.
There is equal religious liberty in England, but the King is compelled

to belong to a particular section of the Christian Church,
whereas in the United States no restriction is placed

on the religious belief of the President; thus one President was a Baptist,
another a Unitarian, and a third a Congregationalist; and, if elected,

a Jew, a Mohammedan, or a Confucianist could become the President.
Several Jews have held high Federal offices; they have even been

Cabinet Ministers. Article VI of the Constitution of the United States says:
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification

to any office or public trust under the United States."
So ingrained in the minds of the American people is this principle

of liberty and freedom of action that I do not believe they would resign it
for any considerationwhatever">whatsoever. Once an English Duke was asked

whether he would accept the throne of China on the sole condition
that he must reside in the Palace of Peking, and act as the Chinese Emperors

have always been accustomed to act. He replied that such an exalted position
of power and responsibility would be very great and tempting,

but that he would on no account accept such an honor on such terms,
as it would practically make him a prisoner. Though a subject

under a monarchial form of government, he would not forfeit
his right of freedom of action; and much less would a democratic American

give up his birthright for any price. I knew an eminent and learned
Judge of the Supreme Court in Washington, who used to say

that he would never bend his knees to any human being,
and that to the Almighty God alone would he ever do homage.

He no doubt acted up to his principles, but I much doubt if all Americans
observe so lofty an ideal. A young lover in proposing to his sweetheart

would not mind kneeling down to support his prayer.
I have seen penitent husbands bending their knees to ask the forgiveness

of their offended wives. This, however, can be explained by the fact
that the act of kneeling is not, in such cases, a sign of inferiority,

but the act of one equal asking a favor from another;
still it is the bending of the knee which was so solemnly abjured

by the learned Judge.
The dislike of distinction of classes which arises from

the principle of equality is apparentwherever you go in the States.
The railroad cars are not marked first, second, or third,

as they are in Europe. It is true that there are Pullman cars,
and palace cars, with superior and superb accommodation,

and for which the occupant has to pay an extra fare;
but the outside of the car simply bears the name "Pullman"

without indicating its class, and anyone who is willing to pay the fare
may share its luxuries. I should mention that in some of the Southern states

negroes are compelled to ride on separate cars. On one occasion,
arriving at the railroad station in one of those states,

I noticed there were two waiting-rooms, one labelled "For the White",
and the other "For the Colored". The railway porter took my portmanteau

to the room for the white, but my conscience soon whispered
I had come to the wrong place, as neither of the two rooms was intended

for people of my complexion. The street-cars are more democratic;
there is no division of classes; all people, high or low,

sit in the same car without distinction of race, color or sex.
It is a common thing to see a workman, dressed in shabby clothes full of dirt,

sitting next to a millionaire or a fashionable lady gorgeously clothed.
Cabinet officers and their wives do not think it beneath their dignity

to sit beside a laborer, or a coolie, as he is called in China.
Foreign Ministers and Ambassadors coming to Washington soon learn to follow

these local customs. In a European country they ride in coronated carriages,
with two liverymen; but in Washington they usually go about on foot,

or travel by the street-cars. I frequently saw the late Lord Pauncefote,
the celebrated British Ambassador to Washington, ride to the State Department

in the street-car. My adoption of this democratic way of travelling
during the time I was in America was the cause of a complaint

being made against me at Peking. The complainants were certain
Chinese high officials who had had occasion to visit the States;

one of them had had a foreign education, and ought to have known better
than to have joined in the accusation that my unpretentious manner of living

was not becoming the dignity of a representative of China.
They forgot that when in Rome you must do as the Romans do,

and that to ride in a sumptuouscarriage, with uniformed footmen,
is in America not only an unnecessary expense, but a habit which,

among such a democratic people as the Americans, would detract from,
rather than add to, one's dignity. An envoy residing in a foreign country

should be in touch with the people among whom he is sojourning.
If he put on unnecessary airs, there will be a coldness and lack of cordiality

between him and the community; his sphere of usefulness will be curtailed,
and his knowledge of the people and their country limited.

Of course, in a European Capital, where every diplomat drives in a carriage,
I should follow the example of my colleagues. But even in England,

I frequently met high statesmen, such, for example, as Lord Salisbury,
walking in the streets. This unrestrained liberty and equality

is remarkablyconspicuous in the United States; for instance,
at the White House official receptions or balls in Washington,

I have seen ladies in ordinary dress, while on one occasion
a woman appeared in the dress of a man. This was Doctor Mary Walker.

In a democratic country, such as the United States, one would
naturally suppose that the people enjoyed a greater degree of freedom

than is possible in monarchial countries. But, so far from this being so,
in some respects, they appear to be in a worse position.

On my return journey from South America, some years ago,
our steamer had to stay for four hours outside of New York harbor.

We had first to wait for the doctor to come on board to make
his inspection of all the passengers, then the Customs officials appeared

and examined the luggage and boxes of all the passengers,
and then, last but not the least, we had to wait for the immigration officers.

All this necessarily took time, and it was not until all these inspections
were completed that the steamer was allowed to enter the harbor,

and to tie up alongside the dock. And this occurred in the land
of freedom and liberty! I spoke to some of my American fellow passengers

about the convenience" target="_blank" title="n.不方便；打扰">inconvenience and delay, and though they all murmured
they quietly submitted. Customs and sanitaryinspection

should be so conducted as to cause as little delay as possible.
I have visited many countries in Europe, in South America, and in Asia,

but I have never known of a ship having to stay outside
the harbor of the port of her destination for so long a time.

Take another case; some months since, I wished, in compliance with the request
of a lady in America, to send her a chow-dog. A mutual friend was willing

to take it to her, but, upon making inquiries at the American Consulate
as to the Customs regulations, he was informed that it would be impossible

for him to undertake the commission, as the Customs officers at San Francisco,
besides imposing a heavy duty on the dog, would keep the ship in quarantine

because the dog was on board. I could scarcely believe this,
but inquiries confirmed the truth of my friend's statement.

Customs and immigration laws and sanitary regulations must, of course,
be observed, but they should be enforced in such a way as not to work hardship

on the people. Officers entrusted with the performance of such duties,
while faithfully and conscientiously performing their work,

should yet exercise their power with discretion and tact.
They are the servants of the people, and ought to look after

their interests and convenience as well as after the interests of the State.
I would be the last one to encourage smuggling, but would

the national interests really suffer if the Custom House officers
were to be a little more ready to accept a traveller's word,

and if they were less ready to suspecteveryone of making false declarations
when entering the country? Smuggling must be repressed,

but at the same time is it not true that the more imports enter the country
the better it is for the State and for the people?