Page images
PDF
EPUB

First. The assured possession of the property that was originally contracted for or, in lieu thereof, the granting of another house lot.

Second. The punishment of the ringleaders in the riots which occurred 2 years ago. Third. Redress to Mr. Reid for injuries inflicted on him by the rioters.

I will take up these questions in the reverse order.

Redress to Mr. Reid.

You are no doubt aware that the Tsung-li yamên ordered a minute examination to be made of the circumstances which occurred at Chi-nan-fu, and in a communication to me of April 16, 1888, denied all official liability and wound up by saying "there can be no need of making it (the riot) the subject of an inquiry or further discussion." But this declaration need not prevent Mr. Reid from presenting his claim specifically. I have not hitherto presented his claims in minute particulars, though I have made a general demand for redress for him, because I hoped that some general and final settlement would be arrived at in Chi-nan-fu, wherein all the matters involved in this controversy would be peacefully and justly arranged. But, leaving out of Mr. Reid's claim for compensation some items to which I have verbally called his attention, and which are properly claims of the mission, and not of himself personally, I will now, if Mr. Reid so desires, present his claim, in substance as he has prepared it, to the Tsung-li, yamên.

The punishment of the ringleaders in the riot.

I have no objection to again calling the attention of the Tsung-li yamên to this subject, and demanding a further examination of the occurrence, and that the persons found guilty be punished.

Possession of the house lot originally contracted for or the granting of another lot in exchange.

The demand is made of me that I now insist that the mission shall have possession of the house lot originally contracted for or the granting of another lot in exchange. I'invite your serious consideration of the question, whether, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case, I ought now to take up this matter anew, the same as if nothing whatever had been accomplished in the 2 years that have elapsed. It is known to you that the objection of the local authorities to sealing the deed to the original lot was based on alleged geomantic influences asserted by the gentry and others.

To meet this objection, you promptly offered to submit to an exchange of this lot for another. The authorities took a month to consider the question of exchange. In your first communication to me, which is not dated, but was received in December, 1887, and is signed by Gilbert Reid, Paul D. Bergen, and Robert Coltman, jr., you say: "The very last day the magistrate and two special deputies sent their cards, saying that the money would be returned to us and nothing more would be said about the property. This was the result of the month's opportunity to effect an exchange." In that communication you demand three things, the second whereof is: "That we obtain possession of the present property, or a satisfactory exchange." In presenting this case to the yamên I followed your suggestions, that you would be content to receive another lot in exchange.

My first communication to the yamên contained this language:

"Third. That if it shall be held by Your Highness and Your Excellencies that it is more desirable to make an exchange of property and to give to the missionaries another tract in lieu of the one that they have bought, that a suitable and satisfactory tract of land be tendered to them. They desire, above all things, peace and harmony."

From that day to this, in every communication that I have sent to the yamên, and they have been numerous, I have always presented the case as being one in which locality was not material, the main object being that you should be insured peaceful possession of sufficient property to enable you to carry on satisfactorily your charitable and religious work. If I erred in this view of the case, you yourselves are to blame for the error. The action of Mr. Reid at the time that Dr. Coltman proposed to buy the country property seemed to me to be conclusive.

November 13, 1888, Mr. Reid sent to me a communication addressed to me as minister of the United States, wherein he says: "As the matters pertaining to our property difficulties have not, as yet, gained success, and other complications have unexpectedly arisen from counteraction of my mission, I have deemed it best to retire from the case, and accordingly my colleague, Robert Coltman, M. D., has been

appointed by the station to take my place in the general oversight; therefore, if you have any communication to transmit on the property case, please regard Dr. Coltman as the authorized agent."

The first communication of Dr. Coltman bearing on this subject was dated January 5, 1889. He says: "A new step having been taken by me in the purchase of property, desire to inform you of the result." He goes on to state that, "believing it impossible to make an exchange of the property wherein Mr. Reid was mobbed for property in any of the suburbs," and for other reasons, he obtained permission from the Shan-Tung mission to purchase a site for residence and hospital within a limit of 3 lis from any suburb gate. He recites that he purchased such a site on the north side of the great road to Chi-Ho. Dr. Coltman then recites the difficulties and delays that he has encountered, and requests my assistance in having the deeds to the country property sealed. I therefore took up this new case and made urgent appeals to the yamên that the purchase should be ratified and peaceful possession of the new tract secured. I repeat, that if I erred in believing that the possession of this new tract was to be in lieu of the original demand, you yourselves are responsible for the misconception.

Mr. Reid himself took exactly the same view. He objected to the action of the mission because it was an abandonment of the original claim; and when Dr. Coltman secured the authority of the Chefoo conference to purchase land within 3 lis of the suburb gate, Mr. Reid resigned his position as manager of the affair and directed me to correspond with Dr. Coltman. The impression made upon my mind by the whole correspondence that I had with the mission was that the important thing to do was to secure sufficient and suitable property for the mission, and that whether such property was in the city or in one suburb or another, or in the open country, was entirely immaterial. In view of the quotations that I have made, particularly from the letter of Dr. Coltman, wherein he states the impossibility of securing the original lot and his consequent determination to buy other property, how could I arrive at any other conclusion?

The yamên has unquestionably ordered the local authorities to ratify the new purchase in the belief that the ratification was a settlement of the whole land case. After 2 years' strenuous endeavor the result has been reached that your mission is in peaceable possession of 7 English acres of valuable land within 3 lis of Chi-nan-fu. Yet we are now told that nothing whatever has been accomplished, and that we are confronted by the same condition of things which existed 2 years ago.

After having represented to the Chinese Government for 2 years continuously that all that my countrymen wanted was a site on which they might satisfactorily prosecute their charitable and religious work, and after having secured a site which they selected, I can not, consistently with fair dealing, now claim they are entitled to and must have the original tract over which the trouble originally arose. The acceptance of the country tract must, in my opinion, be taken as a waiver of the right to claim the original lot.

If the mission absolutely requires other property in the city or the suburbs, the acquisition thereof must be treated as a new question.

Since the above communication was written Rev. Gilbert Reid, without, however, having seen it or having any knowlege of its contents, has demanded of me that his personal claim be presented to the Government of China, and I have replied to him that it will be presented as soon as it can be translated.

I am, etc.,

Mr. Blaine to Mr. Denby.

CHARLES DENBY.

No. 476.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, December 12, 1889.

SIR: I have received your No. 988 of the 31st October regarding your representation at the foreign office of the claim for injuries suffered by Louis McCaslin by the closing of a bridge of boats at Ningpo, April 29, 1888.

The Department would be glad to be furnished at your convenience with a copy of the correspondence on this subject with the yamên. The consul at Ningpo, Mr. Pettus, will be instructed to make a report of his proceedings to the Department.

I am, etc.,

JAMES G. BLAINE.

No. 1018.]

Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Peking, December 30, 1889. (Received February 18, 1890.) SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I have received from Consul Crowell, at Amoy, a dispatch relating to the issuing by him of a travel certificate to one Chun Arfat, a Chinaman who claims to be a naturalized citizen of the United States. In this case the taotai indorsed on the certificate these words: "Chun Arfat, whose native country is Tong An district, was born in a foreign country and has changed his style of dress. His passport being issued to him, he can only have protection in traveling, but is not allowed in the inland to purchase real estate, build house, establish firm, transit goods, or evade duty. Should he transgress, he would be arrested and investigated." Mr. Crowell objected to this interpellation and reported the whole matter to me. I have sent to Mr. Crowell a communication of which a copy is herewith inclosed.

As Chun Arfat has never applied to this legation for a passport, I find no difficulty in holding that he is not entitled to a travel certifi cate. But I bring the matter to your attention for reasons that will hereinafter appear.

I call attention to dispatch No. 379 of January 19, 1885, Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Young, on the subject of travel certificates. The Honorable Secretary, in my opinion, correctly states the rules that should govern the issue of travel certificates. He directs that such certificates should be limited to a particular journey and time, and should thenceforth have no validity. But Mr. Smithers, in dispatch No. 22 of May 15, 1885, he then being in charge of this legation, recommended that such certificates be issued for a year. Mr. Bayard, in his dispatch No. 448 of July 15, 1885, to Mr. Smithers, approves of this recommendation, with the suggestion that the matter be called to my attention that I might "report whether it (the system) proves entirely satisfactory or needs changing in any particular." By virtue of these instructions, a circular and blank forms for travel certificates were sent to the consuls September 26, 1885. Until the matter of Chun Arfat came before me, I have had no occasion to examine into the subject. Under our passport system I doubt the propriety of allowing the consuls to issue travel certificates to run 1 year. I think they should be confined to particular trips. It will sometimes, of course, happen that a traveler desires to make a journey into the interior and, without great inconvenience, can not wait until his application for a passport has been sent to this legation and the passport has been issued, sealed by the yamên, and returned to him. In such cases travel certificates are proper. Different questions might arise when the travel certificate was demanded by a merchant resident in China who desired its protection to enable him to do business in the interior, more especially if such merchant were a Chinaman, either native to China or to one of the British or other foreign possessions. I advise no distinction whatever between native and naturalized citizens, but I recommend that hereafter travel certificates be issued for the proposed trip, and not for a year. There would generally be no hardship in requiring an American merchant residing in China to take out a passport before making a trip into the interior. Difficulty and bad feeling existing locally would then be avoided. The local authorities would ordinarily have no cognizance of the matter at all,

and the holder of the passport would look to the Imperial Government for his protection. In all respects, except as to the term of 1 year, during which travel certificates run, the existing rules are good. The inclosed copy of my dispatch to Mr. Crowell will sufficiently indicate what my action will be when the case of Chun Arfat comes properly before me.

[blocks in formation]

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 116 of the 22d ultimo, relating to the travel certificate issued by you to Chun Arfat and the restrictive conditions indorsed thereon by the taotai.

Consuls can not issue passports: but they may, under section 138 of the Consular Regulations of 1888, issue travel certificates in those countries where the deposit of a passport, during the temporary sojourn of a traveler, is required by local law. That section concludes with this language: "Certificates in the nature of passports, and to be used as such, are wholly unauthorized." In China this legation and the consuls are controlled on this subject by special instructions issued by the Secretary of State January 19, 1885, afterwards confirmed by Secretary Bayard, and communicated to the consuls by a circular from this legation September 26, 1885. A form of travel certificate in Chinese and English accompanied this circular.

The language of Secretary Frelinghuysen is this: "The true solution would seem to be to provide for the issuance by the consuls of limited certificates, but only on a presentation of a passport previously issued by the legation, or upon filing a duly attested application for a passport, with evidence of citizenship, accompanied by the legal fee."

As passports of travelers are not retained by the local authorities in China, it would seem that the only case in which the consuls have authority to issue a travel certificate is when a native or naturalized citizen applies for a passport, executes all the necessary papers, and represents that there is some necessity for the issuing of a travel certificate before the passport can be issued.

Mr. Frelinghuysen instructed this legation that such certificate should be temporary and local, and should be limited to the particular journey to be undertaken and to a particular time, and after the journey was accomplished, or the time had expired, they should have no validity. But Mr. Bayard, on the representation of Mr. Smithers, then in charge of the legation, consented that such certificates should run during 1 year, subject to any modification that might thereafter be suggested by me. I should agree with you on a proper case made that the taotais have no authority, except in rare cases such as you have cited, to attach special and restrictive conditions to a travel certificate.

Such certificates derive their validity from the joint issuance by the consul, and the local Chinese authority, but the initiation in issuing them belongs to the consul, and the Chinese can not refuse to countersign them.

From what has been said it may readily be concluded that I would willingly bring this subject to the attention of the Tsung-li yamên and demand proper instructions to the taotai at Amoy if your statement of the case showed that Chun Arfat was in a position to demand a travel certificate. No passport has ever been issued to this gentleman, and he has never made any application for one. Until he makes proper application for a passport, I can not take up the question, because," under the rules cited above, you have no authority to issue a travel certificate to him. The certificate issued should be canceled.

If Chun Arfat makes application to this legation for a passport, and if it be necessary for him to make a trip into the interior before the passport can reach him, and the taotai persists in the alleged right to introduce conditions into his act of countersigning, let the facts be reported to me, and I will take immediate action.

In my opinion, it would be wise for Chun Arfat not to go into the interior until he has received a passport or a travel certificate properly countersigned. Your travel certificate not sealed by the local authorities constitutes no protection, and Chun Arfat had better delay his trip until the matter is arranged.

I am, etc.,

CHARLES DENBY.

No. 1032.]

Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Peking, January 14, 1890. (Received March 17.) SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith copies of my correspondence with the yamên touching the case of Rev. Gilbert Reid, to wit: A copy of my communication of November 23, a copy of the communication of the yamên to me of December 1, and a copy of their communication to me of January 10, 1890.

In presenting the claim of Mr. Reid, I explained to the yamên that I did not present it sooner, because I hoped that between the missionaries and the local authorities a just and peaceful settlement could be arrived at without the necessity of bringing the matter to the attention of the prince and Their Excellencies. I then presented a statement of the facts as prepared by Mr. Reid and as nearly as possible in his own language. In this connection I refer to my dispatch No. 529 of December 20, 1887 (Foreign Relations, 1888, folio 238), and to my dispatch No. 621 of April 13, 1888 (Foreign Relations, 1888, folios 292, 293, 294, and 295). Many other communications on this subject passed between the yamên and the legation, but they were not deemed of sufficient importance to send copies, being usually, on my side, requests for prompt action and on the side of the yamên promises that the land matter should be arranged.

In my dispatch No. 1005 of November 19 I informed you that the discussion had resulted in the acquisition by the missionaries of 7 acres of valuable land close to the city, and that the missionaries, nevertheless, insisted on being put in possession of the original small city lot which they claimed to have bought. In the dispatch of the yamên to me of December 1 it simply repeats its statements to be found in its communication at folio 294, Foreign Relations, 1888. It reiterates that Rev. Gilbert Reid forced his way into the inner courtyard of the house in question, and the women and girls pushed him and he fell. It states that it will again communicate with the authorities in Shan-Tung and will report to me their statement.

The dispatch of the yamên to me of January 10, 1890 (the third inclosure herein), sets forth the report of the authorities at Chi-nan-fu containing the following statements in substance: That the money paid by the missionaries for the town lot is in the treasury, subject to their disposal, and awaiting the return of the deeds which were received by Mr. Reid, when the whole matter will be terminated. It shows that the land selected by Dr. Coltman has been deeded to him and the deeds sealed. They ask that I instruct Mr. Reid to surrender the deed to the city property and take back his money, so that the matter may be settled and peace and quiet may prevail.

On this report the yamên remarked: "The local authorities have already assisted them (the missionaries) in the matter, and thus the missionaries have accomplished their purpose of carrying on their charitable work. In the matter of all the former pieces of property leased, these should, as a matter of course, be considered as ended, and thus clear up all the accumulated papers in regard to them." I substantially take the same view of the land transaction. But in this last communication the claim of Mr. Reid for damages is not distinctly disposed of. I shall demand a positive answer.

I have, etc.,

CHARLES DENBY.

« PreviousContinue »