Private Correspondence 7th December 1908

This is a message from an employee to Gibbs, Bright & Co. Under the heading ‘Chinese Stowaways’ it is revealed that the company believes the Sydney Chinese Merchants and the Commonwealth are to blame for or are complicit in the stowaways and smuggling. From the perspective of the company, it is the shipping companies being blamed for the stowaway and smuggling problem when there are other parties who are responsible for this issue. Their participation in this story is to try and protect their reputation and keep from being scapegoated.

The Sydney Chinese merchants were politically engaged in Australia, wanted to protect Chinese people in Australia, and seem to have been more interested in eliminating opium than smuggling it in.[1] Then why is this employee blaming merchants? Was it their preconceived negative notions of the character of the Chinese? Did they simply want to shift the blame? The answer is not in this source.

Regarding the Commonwealth they point to “the high and prohibitive duties…on Chinese and Opium.”[2] The Chinese element of this might be in reference to the Immigration Restriction Act of 1908, one of several Bills on immigration restriction in the preceding decade.[3] Perhaps unsurprisingly for a business, they see the Commonwealth’s economic policies, the “duties levied,” as being key factors in this ongoing problem.[4]

Private Correspondence 18th January 1908

This message from earlier in the year gives more insight into the company’s feelings and views on the character of the Chinese. The company believes that shipping companies in general are being scapegoated and that their company specifically is being singled out. They unsurprisingly minimise the problem of smuggling, arguing that the Custom House Officers are receiving bad information from “clever Chinese” trying to turn a profit by telling stories.[5] This is not a general statement about paid informants but specifically the Chinese because of their "character."[6] The company believes almost every party except themselves is as at fault: the Chinese, the Commonwealth, and the Customs Office.

The other party they claim is fighting this problem is the Anti-Opium League in Hong Kong. There was not only an Anti-Opium League in Hong Kong but also anti-opium groups in Australia, in particular there was an Anti-Opium League in Sydney which is not referenced. The major difference between the two organisations was their foundation and leadership, the Anti-Opium League in Sydney was founded and run by the Sydney Chinese merchants while the Anti-Opium League in Hong Kong was founded and run by protestant missionaries.[7] 

The later blame that Gibbs, Bright & Co. place on the Sydney Chinese merchants and their negative view of the Chinese character does suggest racist rationale behind their failure to credit the Anti-Opium League in Sydney. Of course, this lack of recognition could also be a result of incomplete records.

Private Correspondence 8th December 1908

This final message is also chronologically the last, sent to the secretary of the London office of Gibbs, Bright & Co. once again on the matter of Chinese stowaways. It presents further details on why the Government might be so quick to come down on the company, as the new Labour Ministry was focused on “White Labour and Anti-Chinese legislation.”[8] 

More interestingly we are presented with conflict over a particular account of smuggling, wherein Customs claims that thirty Chinese people were smuggled in aboard the Empire following twenty on the Eastern, both Gibbs, Bright & Co. ships, while the company claims the thirty on the Empire are fabricated.[9] They go so far as to suggest that if these numbers are true there must be a conspiracy and collaboration between the Chinese and Customs, because how else would so many people have managed to get through?

Newspaper articles from the time reveal how the company could argue against there being thirty, only one person was found but the Department of External Affairs stood by their unnamed source which claimed there were thirty and the others must have gotten away.[10]

In the case of another of their ships which did have stowaways it is argued that it was the moral character of the Chinese crew that allowed this to happen, but why keep on the Chinese crew if they were complicit? Why not dismiss them instead? The reasons are once again prejudiced cannot trust any Chinese person, and so after removing the ringleaders they should “keep the rest as ‘devils we know’.”[11] It is also acknowledged that they would have to pay white crews more, thus revealing that Chinese crews were paid less.

The company then worries about the introduction of the Navigation Bill, which would further increase the penalties to steamships found to have stowaways. They had reason to be concerned, as only a few days later Prime Minister Andrew Fisher cited the Empire case as reason to pass a bill “to make shipowners liable for stowaways.”[12] However, as in the first document the company argues that “excessive protection” only encourages these activities.[13] They do not offer any explanation as to why this might be.