How the Trump administration plans to erect a border wall in 2020

As of mid-2019, the Trump administration has only managed to replace 60 miles of existing border fencing. Trump is suddenly demanding to build 500 miles of new fencing between now and the November 2020 election.

On August 27, 2019, Nick Miroff and Josh Dawsey wrote for the Washington Post:

"President Trump is so eager to complete hundreds of miles of border fence ahead of the 2020 presidential election that he has directed aides to fast-track billions of dollars’ worth of construction contracts, aggressively seize private land and disregard environmental rules, according to current and former officials involved with the project.

He also has told worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly, those officials said."

U.S. Customs and Border Protection gave these construction orders to Army Corps engineers on a conference call in August. The story continued:

"Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper is expected to approve a White House request to divert $3.6 billion in Pentagon funds to the barrier project in coming weeks, money that Trump sought after lawmakers refused to allocate $5 billion. The funds will be pulled from Defense Department projects in 26 states, according to administration officials who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the matter."

And:

"The companies building the fencing and access roads have been taking heavy earth-moving equipment into environmentally sensitive border areas adjacent to U.S. national parks and wildlife preserves, but the administration has waived procedural safeguards and impact studies, citing national security concerns.

* * *

CBP has suggested no longer writing risk-assessment memos “related to the fact that we don’t have real estate rights and how this will impact construction,” the official said."

Furthermore, Trump insists that the fence be painted black (so that it is "hot to the touch, more slippery and therefore tougher to climb"), and "administration officials have stopped trying to talk him out of the demands," even though internal cost analysis says that it will be approximately $100 million to paint or coat 175 miles of fence — a hit to the construction budget that must reduce the total length of fence by about five miles. His other design demand is the removal of existing "the smooth metal plates that are used to thwart climbers" who reach the top of the fence because, even though these are functional, he finds them ugly; he wants the top part of the fence to be shaved to spikes instead. This, too, "is likely to reduce the overall length of the barrier by two to three miles, according to the administration’s cost assessments."

MTrump has also asked the Army Corps to award a contract to Fisher Industries, whose CEO has donated to Sen. Kevin Cramer, a Republican representing North Dakota.

That last part, Greg Sargent wrote in an opinion for the Washington Post the next day, reveals that Trump is "trying to hook up a politically connected crony while also perverting the governing process to stick to a political timetable — all to give his crowds something to chant about at his reelection rallies." Even Sen. Cramer, as Sargent pointed out, admits that Trump wants to award the contract to Fisher because the CEO has appeared on Fox News defending Trump's vision of the border wall.

Urging subordinates to break laws in order to raise the odds of your reelection is . . . what’s the word for it? . . . oh yeah: an #ImpeachableOffense. And offering to pardon those who get caught was one of Dick Nixon’s specific impeachable offenses. https://t.co/YuQvHLPUuM

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) August 28, 2019

Trump employs language used by White supremacists in rant against immigration, CNN, October 6, 2023

Hurt me 15 degrees less: On cruelty, fear, justice, order, and challenging the conservative white evangelical worldview

Yes, indeed, for white evangelicals in the US today, the catchphrase the cruelty is the point (as distilled by Adam Serwer in the Atlantic) is indeed the case, John Stoehr wrote in August 2019. They act this way simply because when they hurt "people deserving cruelty," it "feels good" to them, and they put effort into coming up with other rationalizations for their actions. (On this point, Stoehr cites Richard Rorty's Achieving Our Country.) And they are not so much afraid of their victims (making words such as "homophobia" misnomers) as they are afraid that they will go to Hell if they are more tolerant of others who they are told are going to Hell (i.e. others who are deserving of cruelty). This system makes them unwilling to listen to anyone who does not also subscribe to their evangelical group and concept of divine reward and punishment. This leaves them unable "to reason their way out of fear" and "is not a moral compass at all."

Daniel Schultz replied affirmatively to Stoehr, quoting the Atlantic's recent interview with conservative evangelical Ben Howe, in which Howe said:

"Trump became their hero, because he hated the establishment, and he beat up on the media, and he was fighting back against all these forces. The more he fights, the more they feel justified, like, He’s our hero because we needed someone to do this for us.

Trump’s appeal is not judges. It’s not policies. It’s that he’s a shit-talker and a fighter and tells it like it is. That’s what they like. They love the meanest parts of him."

Conservative white evangelicals, Schultz claims, believe in "justice and order." "Order" means that "God has ordained certain ways of being and doing in the world...Daddies are leaders, then mommies, then kids," and many also believe in a "racial hierarchy." (For many, "their whiteness outweighs their Christianness.") In this belief system, "God tells you not just the way you should be, but the way you actually are, and if you accept that, you will be blessed." "Justice" means that those who "violate or subvert" this social order are "threats to innocents" and "inherently deserving punishment." Someone who challenges a significant part of this system is basically suggesting that the conservative evangelical should "rewire their entire sense of reality," and indeed, "nobody really wants to give up on their world view. But the result of this stiff-necked epistemology is a tremendously brittle faith, one unable to tolerate the challenge of multiple perspectives." Schultz adds that "the refusal to be challenged also becomes perverse — a wrong choice for no good reason — because the social domination it protects is easily conflated with being the instrument of God’s righteous punishment. Sadists always have to justify themselves."

/ begin digression

On the topic of justice within evangelical thinking, I also found:

1. Owen Amos wrote for the BBC on 5 January 2018 that many evangelicals, including those who identify as "Premillenialists," believe there will be a great war (the "Tribulation" or "End Times") that will result in one thousand years of peace. Christopher Rollston, a professor at George Washington University, says: "Anything that's supportive of the modern state of Israel, for them is a good thing," because they believe that the Bible foretold the existence of the State of Israel. David Brog, executive director of Christians United for Israel, says that "they believe they are powerless to change the date of End Times" so it cannot be true that their support of Israel is motivated by a desire to hasten the End Times.

2. "There is no framework for restorative justice within evangelical thinking," Tori Williams Douglass wrote on May 8, 2018. Instead: "Punishment is a central theme in evangelical theology. They sincerely believe punishment works, and the data shows they are favorable to the harshest forms of punishment which are socially acceptable in any given situation." They tend to believe in spanking children "to punish them for any infraction, no matter how minor"; in penalizing poor people, which they prefer to frame as "teaching personal responsibility, employing the use of bootstraps, and encouraging hard work"; and in harsh punishment for crime, including the death penalty ("White evangelical protestants also have the highest group support of the death penalty, which is disproportionately used against people of color"). As someone employed in a neuroscience research lab, she says: "We know that hitting children doesn’t work, and we know what does work instead. We know that poverty and imprisoning people are traumatic events."

/ end digression

Returning to Schultz, who continues insightfully:

"Faith deployed in service of social hierarchy is also easily conflated with authoritarian power structures, even those led by [cough cough] corrupt awful human beings. Conservative white evangelicals respond to Trump not as a perfect or even good person, but as an imperfect instrument of God’s work to maintain the sacred order of the world. The cruelty is indeed the point because the cruelty manifests the justice that maintains the proper order."

Since a counterargument from "reason," "values," or "identity" won't succeed in this situation, it's probably more effective

"to point out the failures. How do you get a conservative evangelical to stop thinking the entire Queer community is evil? Show them not just a 'good' gay, but how anti-gay ideology has failed to protect them. How do you get them to turn against Trump? Show them how Trump has failed to carry out his promises. Not easy with a rabid culture warrior like Mike Pence in the #2 role. But probably the best evidence for somebody like this would be the ICE raids in Mississippi last week. Here’s Trump the authoritarian carrying out his promise to keep them safe — and the result is a terrorized, deflated community. People notice that kind of thing, especially when their church is called on to assist the victims."

I must personally note that such a line of argument may be emotionally difficult for someone to make. A gay person (me, for example) may note that anti-gay ideology has all kinds of negative social effects, but for me also to note that the social hierarchy hasn't worked out the way you hoped it would may be seen to imply that the way you hoped it would had any moral validity in the first place. If the (mysterious) way you hoped it would turn out was based on the idea that it feels good to you to hurt me because who you believe I inherently deserve to be hurt, that is alarming to me, and the fact that your bullying behavior toward me did not turn out to your own advantage is something I don't feel the need to help you with. I am not sure what magical beanie 'thinking cap' I'd need to don to be willing to have that head-spinner conversation.

On the other hand, it may be easier to have such a conversation based on a shared identity. A white American (me, for example) may note that anti-immigrant ideology has all kinds of negative social effects that hurt everyone-which-yes-includes-white-people. e.g. "However good you might feel hurting those other people and whatever you thought you were trying to accomplish, could you take a look at whether you've helped yourself and helped me? No? You have helped neither of us? Then could you please stop?" That is potentially a more coherent conversation if I am at least provisionally seen as belonging to the in-group and can make a request that at least appears to be on my own behalf. But if I'm seen as belonging to the out-group and if indeed the cruelty is the point, the conversation is a no-go.

I suppose maybe this is an example of pointing out a way in which Trump has failed. "We" wanted a negotiator; "we" didn't get that.

We were promised the greatest negotiator in history.

Instead we got a guy who declared a national emergency when he couldn't get funding for his border wall, even though his own party controlled Congress, and now he might declare another to address a trade war he started https://t.co/bH9n1hem1t

— Robert Maguire (@RobertMaguire_) August 24, 2019

One right-wing organizer of Trump supporters, worrying about the "ugly, corrosive," violent "radicalization" of young men who "conclude there’s no space for them or their voice in the political process," commented anonymously to a writer: "the way to help these people is not to turn them 180 degrees, but to turn them 15 degrees.” This incrementalism may be the way the world really works. It may be the most effective strategy. But if we are observing the feelings of the hypothetical disaffected young men, we should also observe the feelings of their hypothetical shepherds who are put in a position of saying, "Could you please hurt me 15 degrees less?"

Sometimes trade-offs are made. New York City reversed its two-year-old ban on so-called "conversion therapy" (programs aiming to change sexual orientation) because it feared that it would lose a Supreme Court case over the matter which would cause permanent damage to LGBTQ rights. "The move is a gambit designed to neutralize a federal lawsuit filed against the city by a conservative Christian legal organization," the New York Times explained.

Loretta Ross wrote an August 2019 opinion in the New York Times about "call-out culture" which presents food for thought. (A "call-out" is a public criticism of someone's prejudice, often leading to a social media pile-on of thousands of negative comments. The prejudice in question is usually unexamined prior to the call-out, since, if the person already knew they were prejudiced and was being deliberately hurtful, there would be little point in "calling out" their behavior.) Ross acknowledges the importance of giving and receiving criticism. However, she suggests the reframe of a "call-in": "a call-out done with love." By this, she says, she doesn't mean that the critic should monitor their words for the purpose of "tone policing, protecting white fragility or covering up abuse." Rather, the critic should be attentive to whether their call-out will actually be effective. Complaints hurled as "personal therapy" are naturally ineffective. Complaints lodged by "self-appointed guardians of political purity" are also ineffective, she says, a point that may also be true, though it is a little harder to swallow. It gets at the difficult question, not only of how the critic knows that they're right (let's assume for the moment that the critic is indeed in the right), but how the critic knows what is a baseline level of righteousness that they can reasonably demand from others and what is an exacting level of purity that they'll never realistically achieve and that is counterproductive to request. In other words, to illustrate: What is the 15-degree turn in the preferred direction that the critic must demand, and what is the 180-degree turn that would be beautiful to see but which, unfortunately, if requested directly, will only result in a hostile 15-degree turn in the opposite direction. The general concept of negotiation and compromise is clear. It is just that it is difficult in any given situation, when we are dealing with words, feelings, and values (not numbers), to assess what's an appropriate level of "tough love" to dish out and which of our own words, feelings, and values we're prepared to compromise away.

---

A post-2020 election update: Monica Hesse's November 5 column for the Washington Post.

“Let’s make liberals cry again!” Donald Trump Jr., the saddest adult son, encouraged crowds at an election-eve rally in Wisconsin. His father, meanwhile, went on to a different Midwestern rally to fondly reminisce about the time in 2016 when liberal women wept at the announcement of his victory: “At the end of the evening when they’re all crying, and I remember they were crying,” he asked Grand Rapids, Mich. “Remember?”

A day later, as votes were counted, "25-year-old Republican Madison Cawthorn won a North Carolina district and, in his first public act as a future U.S. congressman, tweeted: 'Cry more, lib.'"

To point out that this is juvenile and mean and weird doesn’t get at the half of it. “Make liberals cry again” is the more synergistic, ball-cap-friendly version of “Own the libs.” A version of “Make America Great Again” that does away with the gauzy nostalgia and goes right for the bad sportsmanship. It is the version one uses when one wants to drop the pretense that this is about America at all and just acknowledge that it’s about reveling in someone else’s pain and perceived humiliation.

“Cry” is the most deliberate word in the phrase. It could have been subbed out for “pay.” Make liberals pay again. That phrase would imply that liberals had done something bad, requiring retribution. It could have been subbed out for “lose,” which would be a little gratuitous but still within the technical vocabulary of competition.

“Make them cry” turns the phrase specifically into a narrative of power.

For these Republicans, Hesse writes, the "game" isn't about any set of policies, and that allows the spirit of Trumpism to go on indefinitely. "When the goal is not victory but humiliation, there is no way to tell when the game is over." After all, "liberals can always be made to cry more, and longer. Long after Trump’s followers have forgotten why this was the goal, or what they gave up in order to achieve it, they can still make a liberal cry, again and again and again — a medicine for an ailment they will never cure."

---

In a November 7 New York Times article, reporter Ellen Barry quoted a Trump supporter as saying: “I’m just tired of all the arguing that people are doing. I wish sometimes Trump would just say — he doesn’t even have to mean it [emphasis mine] — that he would be the president for everybody. Just say those words.”

The cry against 'cancel culture' is an antipathy of being criticized

The way conservatives use "cancel culture," they refer to others' ability and right to criticize them.

"...once you start pulling on the thread of conservative bad faith you inevitably notice that it makes its way through the entire national sweater." — A.R. Moxon, "One Must Imagine Charlie Brown Happy," The Reframe, Feb 18, 2024

"...a four-letter word...has, in some ways, come to stand in the place of traditional partisan orientations: care. Do you care or don't you?
* * *
Care is deeply political. ... To stand on the right side of history is to care. To be committed to social justice is to care. Self-care is imperative..."
— Hil Malatino (Trans Care, University of Minnesota Press, 2020)

The chief eunuch in 'The Boy Fortune Hunters in China' (1909)

The Boy Fortune Hunters is a series by L. Frank Baum, the author of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, writing under the pseudonym Floyd Akers. The fourth volume, The Boy Fortune Hunters in China, was published in 1909 by the Reilly and Britton Co.

In this story, set in 1908, three American boys — Sam Steele of Chelsea, Mass., age 18, the narrator; Archie Ackley, "about my age"; and Joseph Herring, "a little younger" and "rich" — sail across the Pacific to China and conspire to steal a royal treasure from the palace of a dead prince, out from under the nose of the ever-loyal chief eunuch. They travel with two South Sea Islanders, Nux and Bryonia, who had been rescued at sea by Sam's uncle. The uncle then renamed them after the medicines he used to save their lives. They were subsequently "devoted" to this man, and they learned English from him. "Indeed, I had come to regard both Nux and Bry," Sam says, "as my own personal followers, and well had they proven their claim to this title. They were nearly as dark as Africans, but very intelligent and faithful in every emergency." Nux and Bry follow Sam, Archie, and Joe everywhere, but they do not direct the action and they do not seem to be considered full members of the adventure club.

Skipping the first thirteen chapters, I will focus on the action involving the Chief Eunuch Wi-to.

Chapter XIV introduces the Chief Eunuch. After traveling for weeks in northwestern China, emerging from "a dark and gloomy teak forest" on the backs of elephants and arriving in Kwang-Kai-Nong, the adventurers receive a dinner invitation from "the noble governor [Mai Lo] and the great Wi-to." Wi-to is the "Chief Eunuch and the Supreme Ruler of the palace of Price Kai," second in power only to the governor. He speaks serviceable English and is friendly to the adventurers. When they first meet, he "gave us a whimsical look and raised a pair of bright, intelligent eyes to meet our own."

Sam says: "My notion of eunuchs had been that they were fierce creatures of powerful build, usually Ethiopians, and greatly to e feared. I had heard tales of their absolute power in the palaces of the nobles, and that even the mighty Empress Tsi An had failed to curb the influence of her palace eunuchs. So it pleased me to find Wi-to more agreeable in manner and speech than the imperturbable governor..." Sam informs the eunuch that their party intends "to escort the remains of your master [the late Prince Kai, who had taught the eunuch English] and our beloved friend to his old home."

"I did not know whether it was proper to address the Chief Eunuch as 'your Highness' or not; but perhaps the compliment pleased him, for he smiled, then screwed up his face into a semblance of grief, then smiled again."

'We are deeply grieved and inconsolable,' said he, cheerfully.

It turns out that "the shrewd eunuch" was eager to learn that one of the adventurers, Sam, had been acquainted with Prince Kai.

Wi-to oddly claims that English, which for him is a second language, "is an excellent language to converse in, and easier than our own...for it is much more simple."

In Chapter XV, there is a funeral procession to the capital, Kai-Nong. Wi-to's elephant brings up the rear behind the adventurers' elephants. They arrive at the palace walls and enter the gardens.

"Sixty gorgeously appareled men, armed with scimitars and broad axes, formed a circle around the elephant that bore the casket and prepared to guard it. They were stalwart, erect fellows, of proud bearing but evil and ferocious countenances, and each wore a yellow turban coiled upon his head, with a golden clasp, in effigy of the Sacred Ape, fastening the folds just above the forehead.

These were the eunuchs, the palace guards, or servants and attendants of the harem.

* * *

We all dismounted here, and the mahouts led away the elephants. Some of the eunuchs bore the casket of the Prince up the broad steps of the terrace, while Wi-to bowed low, first to the Governor and then to us, and welcomed us to the Royal House of Kai."

In Chapter XVI, "The Governor Shows His Teeth," left alone with Mai Lo and Wi-to, Sam says, "we seemed quite alone with these two natives, one of whom we knew distrusted and hated us." Wi-to "looked at us shrewdly and with an expression more grave and reserved than he had yet shown us," and leaves. "We were much annoyed at this discourteous treatment" at mid-afternoon, as they felt that Wi-to owed them lunch.

The palace entrance is flanked by two bronze statues "of the Sacred Ape, its grinning jaws filled with ivory teeth and its eyes set with immense rubies." One of the adventure boys, Archie, says: "Looks as if they had allowed us to come this far so that they might murder us." Sam replies: "We've got to win the good will of the eunuch or we're done for." Mai Lo returns and tells them he is not bound to honor the late Prince Kai's hospitality toward them; they must immediately leave for Shanghai or they will be killed. The boys object. Mai Lo blows a whistle, and Sam"motioned to Nux and Bry. Instantly my blacks had pounced upon the governor and drawn him behind us, holding him secure, while from a dozen nooks about the hall sprang eunuchs with drawn scimitars, who ran swiftly toward us."

Sam stops this onslaught by yelling "Stop!" even though the assailants "knew no English" and, moreover, do not answer to him. His comrade Archie, armed with a revolver, addresses the governor Mai Lo as "you yellow monkey" and demands that he call off his army "or I'll put a bullet through your head!" Sam shows Prince Kai's ring to the eunuchs "and said sternly: 'Wi-to!'" which for some reason causes them to bow low and summon Wi-to, who also kneels at the sight of Prince Kai's ring.

In Chapter XVII, "Wi-to Proves Faithful," the boy adventurers show Wi-to a letter written by Prince Kai, documenting that Prince Kai had given his ring to the boys and not to the governor Mai Lo. Sam presents his theory that Mai Lo is an opportunist who has returned to the city only to steal Prince Kai's treasure, and not to commit suicide according to what he says would be Shinto tradition. Wi-to, surprised and agitated, says: "You must be right." But, he asks, "you think I will side with you against the powerful governor?...I can destroy you foreigners with a word, and sweep you from my path. Then I can make an alliance with Mai Lo and together we could rob the ancestral halls and escape to some other country to enjoy the wealth." He adds that he is "of lowly birth, and as a child my parents sold me to the House of Kai to become a eunuch. My consent was not asked. Why should I be faithful to my masters?" Joe, one of the boy adventurers, says: "It's your nature," and adds, "A eunuch is of no use in the world outside of his own province. Here you have power. In Europe you would be despised and insulted." Wi-to agrees that they are right — he has been loyal for these reasons in the past. He adds that, if he stays, he is likely to remain in his current position and "be the real master here," so he doesn't need to steal anything from the palace.

Wi-to says he'll protect the boys from Mai Lo as long as they remain in the palace. "With that he clapped his hands together and two eunuchs stepped forward from behind a screen, so silently that their appearance startled me." One of the eunuchs, called Tun, will be their personal servant. Unlike the majority of the palace eunuchs, he speaks a little English. Wi-to says "he is a Manchu and will be faithful."

In Chapter XVIII, the boys became aware of an increasing number of palace eunuchs who are "invariably respectful and even humble, but they were an ill-looking crew, and we were never at ease in their presence." Wi-to then shows them the Sacred Apes who are actual beasts in a cage, one of whom is considered King Ape because he ate an imperial ancestor and thus is considered to contain the man's spirit.

In Chapter XIX, Wi-to explains that there is a harem and that the Prince's sister will soon be presented to the Emperor. Sam says that this sounds "almost as horrible as the story of the King Ape." Wi-to supposes that American women belong to American men and the men must not care about their property very much given that they allow the women so much freedom.

In Chapter XX, Sam continues to remind Wi-to that Mai Lo might try to steal the treasure. In private, Sam explains to Joe: "I want him to get suspicious of Mai Lo, and watch that old fox so carefully that he won't get a chance to steal anything until we get through. Besides, it will relieve us of any suspicions...he's crafty enough to believe that we wouldn't talk about robbing the Ancestral Halls if we had any idea of doing it ourselves."

In Chapter XXI, the boys risk their lives to have a casual conversation with three pretty girls. Sam, in his narrative voice, insists (though no one asked him) that when he falls in love someday, "it will be with an American girl, and it won't matter much whether she is beautiful or not, so long as I love her." He only chatted with the Chinese girls insofar as "every well regulated young fellow is fond of chatting with nice girls," and the Chinese girls offered "a pleasant change" from their dangerous adventures.

In Chapter XXII, they trespass into a vault and discover the jewels. One of the boys takes a handful of pearls.

In Chapter XXIII, Sam says, "Often we passed the magnificently attired household eunuchs, singly or in groups; but we had now become familiar sights to these creatures, and they merely touched their yellow turbans respectfully and passed on." The boys become aware that Mai Lo has discovered their trespass.

In Chapter XXIV, Wi-to is drunken and uncharacteristically babbling. "His face was haggard and worn, his eyes puffy and bloodshot and his person untidy." The boys find a cabinet with jewel-encrusted weapons but are not prepared to steal anything yet.

In Chapter XXV, a newly sober Wi-to personally slays a eunuch who shirked his work while Wi-to had been drunk: "it taught us how little human life was valued in this strange land." Mai Lo surprises the boys while they are chatting illicitly with the girls. Archie offers to shoot Mai Lo, but Sam tells him to stand down. Meanwhile, Sam wonders why Bry, who had been standing guard outside the pavilion, "was still silent. What could have become of our faithful black?" It then occurs to Sam that Mai Lo had simply approached from another direction. Mai Lo orders the boys to leave immediately for Shanghai or die. They refuse, so he whistles and a dozen eunuchs armed with scimitars run out. "Three revolvers cracked and three of the eunuchs fell," and the boys take their opportunity to run away, whereupon they are joined by "a rescue party, consisting of Nux and Bry at the head of a band of eunuchs led by Wi-to himself." Wi-to says, however, that he cannot protect the boys any longer now that they have violated the harem.

In Chapter XXVI, Sam begins by bemoaning that Wi-to's "oriental education and surroundings had saturated his otherwise liberal mind with the conventions and prejudices of his people; and he had a supreme contempt for women and could not tolerate such an unwarranted act as we had committed; in other words, making the acquaintance of three pretty and interesting girls who were inmates of harems." The eunuch apparently feels torn, "in one breath condemning us to horrible tortures and in the next trying to figure out a way to save us." The boys "could not bring ourselves to realize that we had merited punishment." The boys realize it's their last opportunity to steal treasure before they are kicked out of the palace.

In Chapter XXVII, they realize they must find a way to escape with their lives and their treasure.

In Chapter XXVIII, Mai Lo meets his death at the hands of the Sacred Ape.

In Chapter XXIX, they take possession of Mai Lo's severed head and debate how they will convince everyone else of their story that Mai Lo committed suicide by confronting the escaped ape.

In Chapter XXX, Wi-to agrees to endorse the boys' story about Mai Lo's death, as he is mainly glad that his enemy is dead. The boys escape with their treasure. "The eunuchs carried down our heavy cases and loaded them upon the elephants, and while the bearers must have thought them tremendously heavy they dared not complain, and the Chief Eunuch's suspicions were in no way aroused. Wi-to seemed really grieved to lose his guests, and we thanked him cordially..." Sam muses, "I have often wondered if...the treasure we abstracted...[was] ever missed."