Exhibit E: Vaccination
This letter to the editor that featured in the July 23 edition of Evening News highlights the debate surrounding vaccination that emerged because of the smallpox outbreak. Despite the panic that stemmed from the epidemic, and as indicated by the letter to the editor, there was a significant degree of distrust towards vaccines. There was a suspicion that vaccines could transmit other diseases, such as leprosy or syphilis. Furthermore, as touched on in the letter to the editor, there was a rumour circulating that “impure and diseased lymph” - sourced from infected patients - was being used in vaccines. Finally, many believed that compulsory vaccinations were an infringement on one’s civil liberties. Subsequently, both pro- and anti-vaccination meetings became popular. All agreed, however, that the Chinese should be subject to compulsory vaccination - which they ultimately were.¹
Regardless, the government enforced compulsory vaccination of all its staff and all institutional inmates. They also encouraged all those that resided in close proximity to a smallpox case to receive a vaccination. Over 61,000 volunteered.²
Meanwhile, the New South Wales cabinet held an inquiry, asking sixteen of Sydney’s leading doctors for their professional opinions on vaccinations. Only one of these doctors openly opposed vaccination.³ Despite this, compulsory vaccination was never introduced. Dozens of letters such as the one featured were published, and perhaps this dissuaded any moves towards legislation. Or perhaps there was a belief that the epidemic would soon subside.
Whatever the reason, it is pertinent to note that the letter writer felt compelled to conclude with an attack on the “cunning, dirty, and highly sober and industrious” Chinaman. As with all the discourse surrounding the smallpox outbreak, be it about quarantining procedures, immigration restriction bills, or vaccinations, the demonisation of the Chinese was a ubiquitous and central factor. Just before the final death from smallpox in February 1882, the Sydney Morning Herald - which had traditionally been more supportive of the Chinese populace - reflected in an editorial: “considerable doubt exists whether the disease [was] brought here by the Chinese … the Government must be held to have blundered a good deal at first.”⁴
Unfortunately, the damage had already been dealt. The Influx of Chinese Restriction Act 1881 was in effect, On Chong and Co estimated their losses to be at £2000 due to quarantine, whilst countless other Chinese had been subject to humiliation and abuse, both institutional and popular.⁵ It is also worth noting that the Sydney Morning Herald was largely alone in its more sympathetic approach to Sydney's Chinese. In fact, the Sydney press - and indeed that of Australia more generally - was almost unanimous in its negative portrayal of Chinese immigrants, be it implicitly or explicitly. And as this exhibition has demonstrated, much of the rhetoric utilised in opposition to the Chinese was ubiquitous across publications. Even in the exhibited letter – one arguing against compulsory vaccination – the Chinese are attacked as “dirty” harbingers of disease and as “industrious” sources of cheap labour.
As historians Yarwood and Knowling argue, the smallpox outbreak had “acted as a trigger, releasing emotions and engaging prejudices that were present” throughout Sydney.⁶ Thus, the smallpox outbreak, and the numerous demonstrations and expressions of anti-Chinese attitudes that followed, were just the latest crucial development in a constantly escalating continuum and nation-building myth that vilified Australia's Chinese. Yet these events had also resulted in serious anti-Chinese legislature; a precursor to the White Australia Policy. The proceedings of the 1881 Sydney smallpox outbreak thereby served as both a reflection of Australia’s past and as a prelude to its anti-Chinese future.
--------------