of attaining the ends of justice and for the express purpose of bringing the evidence of both sides before the court. That purpose was distinctly defeated by the indirect and misleading language of the taotai in reply to the consul's question as to the necessity for the presence of the foreign witnesses at the joint investigation, and by no other means. this view of the case, it is not doubted that the Imperial Government will, upon a proper presentation of the facts by this Government, perceive the propriety of reopening the case in order that its own original purpose in directing a joint investigation may not appear to have been avoided by the equivocal course of the taotai of Ningpo. You may communicate this dispatch by reading to the yamên, and, if desired, you will leave a copy with them, fortifying the representations herein by such oral recital of your previously advanced arguments as may seem proper. SIR: In further reply to your dispatch No. 510 of March 24, 1890, relating to the claim of Louis McCaslin for injuries received by the wrongful closing of a bridge of boats at Ningpo, April 29, 1888, I have the honor to state that I have sent to the foreign office a communication, of which a copy is herewith inclosed. YOUR HIGHNESS AND YOUR EXCELLENCIES: I have the honor to inform Your Highness and Your Excellencies that I have received instructions from my Government, to again bring to your attention the necessity of having a joint investigation in the McCaslin case, being a claim against the Government of China for injuries suffered by Louis McCaslin at Ningpo, April 29, 1888. As to the most satisfactory mode of communicating the views of my Government, I have the honor to send you a translation of the material part of the dispatch I have received. "I have to inform you that the Department has received from Mr. Pettus, United States consul at Ningpo, a dispatch bearing date the 12th of February, in which he transmits copies of his correspondence with yourself and the taotai and a report of the evidence in the case. "The purpose of the new investigation of the matter by Mr. Pettus and the taoti was to take the evidence of the native and the foreign witnesses jointly. Each side had previously examined its own witnesses separately, and for this reason each refused to accept the testimony taken by the other. "It thus became necessary, in order to secure a common ground for discussion, to have all the testimony taken jointly by the representatives of the United States and China. This point is made clear by the correspondence in the case and by your instructions to Mr. Pettus. The only explanation of his omission to produce his witnesses is found in the response of the taotai to his inquiry whether the foreign witnesses should be called. 'If,' said Mr. Pettus in his letter to the taotai of April 15, 1889, you also wish that the foreign witnesses be called in again and their evidence retaken, I can have them summoned for the date decided upon.' "In his letter of the 1st of May, 1889, the taoti, replying to Mr. Pettus's inquiry, said: 'I beg to state you must suit yourself about the foreign witnesses.' "From this Mr. Pettus inferred, and seems to have had good grounds to infer, that the presence and reëxamination of the foreign winesses would not be required. "The natural construction of the taotai's language would be that, if Mr. Pettus desired to reexamine his witnesses for the purpose of eliciting new evidence, he would be at liberty to do so, but that, if he preferred, he might let the claimant's case rest on the evidence already taken. When, however, the taotai had examined the native witnesses, he closed the case, refusing to consider the evidence of the foreign witnesses previously taken, and rendered a decision against the claimant. The first and only object of the reexamination of the case was thus completely defeated by a misunderstanding, for which the taotai was certainly largely responsible, and of which he took advantage. "It can not be said that there has been any joint investigation of the case in the sense in which that term was understood by yourself and the imperial authorities when Mr. Pettus and the taotai were respectively instructed to proceed to the reexamination of the matter. "The Imperial Government should not permit a fair and just consideration of the case to be prevented by such a misunderstanding between the consul and the taotai, or permit an adverse judgment of so doubtful a character to stand. You are instructed to communicate these views to the Imperial Government." I made substantially the same argument to Your Highness and Your Excellencies on divers occasions. My Government puts the facts and the law in a very strong light, and I trust that Your Highness will now see the propriety of setting aside the judgment complained of, and that justice may be done. I avail, etc., CHARLES DENBY. No. 523.] Mr. Blaine to Mr. Denby. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Nos. 1058 and 1061 of February 26 and March 6, respectively, in which you suggest that a circular, a draft of which accompanies your No. 1058, be sent to the consuls of the United States in China, relative to the issuance of passports and travel certificates under the peculiar conditions existing in that Empire. Your opinion that travel certificates, when issued by consuls to parties who have applied for passports, but who are anxious to depart on a journey into the interior before their application can be acted upon by your legation, should be limited to be good only for such journey was fully set forth in your No. 1018 of December 30, 1889, and has already received the approval of the Department in its instruction No. 498 of February 20, 1890. In cases, therefore, where travel certificates are required by the local authorities they may be issued by United States consuls in China to two classes of persons: (1) Those who possess American passports; and, (2) Those who have actually and regularly applied for such passports. No objection is now perceived to the continuance of the present practice of issuing to those who come within the first of these categories travel certificates good for 1 year: and great hardships might, as pointed out in Mr. Smithers's No. 22 of May 15, 1885, be imposed upon them, especially when engaged as missionaries at a distance from any consulate, by the adoption of any other rule. But with regard to the second class, where of necessity the validity of the travel certificate is conditioned upon the subsequent issuance of the passport, it is eminently proper that the efficacy of the certificate should be narrowly restricted. It is therefore deemed advisable that the certificate issued to such parties should be expressed to be good only for the particular journey, and not longer than 1 year. It is apparent from your No. 1061 that you misapprehend the nature of the returns required by the regulations relative to passports issued by the representatives of the United States abroad. Those regulations do not contemplate the retention by such officers, or the transmission to this Department, of the certificate of naturalization which should accompany the passport application of a naturalized citizen. That application, if properly filled out, shows the date of naturalization and the court which granted it, and is a sufficient record of these facts for the purposes of this Department. It is intended that the application should be compared with the naturalization certificate by the officer issuing the passport, and that if he finds that they correspond he should certify this fact upon the applica tion and return the naturalization certificate, with the passport, to the applicant. The passport clerk of this Department, in cases of this class, writes the word "correct" and his initials across that part of the application which contains the statements above alluded to. In accordance with these views, a circular, a copy of which is herewith inclosed, has been sent to the consuls of the United States in China. I am, etc., JAMES G. BLAINE. [Inclosure 1 in No. 523.] Circular to the consular officers of the United States in China. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 1, 1890. GENTLEMEN: The attention of the Department having been called to certain irregnlarities in the preparation of passport applications and the issuance of travel certificates by consuls of the United States in China, it is deemed advisable to give the following instructions supplementary to article x of the Consular Regulations: (1) Consuls have no authority to issue passports. (2) Applications for passports must be forwarded to the legation in duplicate, and must correspond in all respects with the forms now furnished by the Department, a sample set of which is here with inclosed. (3) In cases where no notary or other officer authorized to administer oaths is accessible to the applicant for a passport, such applicant should transmit with his application a certificate, a form for which is herewith inclosed. Two persons should sign with him as witnesses. (4) In all cases in which application is made to the legation for a passport, the full Christian name and surname of the applicant, in both the English and the Chinese languages, must be forwarded to the legation. (5) When application for a passport is made by a naturalized citizen of the United States, or by one who claims citizenship through the naturalization of his or her parent or husband, the proper naturalization certificate should be transmitted, with the application, to the legation. It will be returned with the passport. (6) Consuls may issue travel certificates to persons about to make a journey into the interior of China only when such certificates are required by the local authorities, and only to parties who possess, or who have made formal application for, passports as citizens of the United States. To those who possess passports travel certificates may be issued, as is understood now to be the practice, to be good for 1 year from their date. To one who has merely applied for a passport a travel certificate should be issued only when he desires to start on his journey before his passport can be received from the legation, and must be expressed to be good only for the particular journey for which it is sought; but its validity for such journey shall not be of greater duration than 1 year. If the application for a passport in such a case is refused upon the ground that the applicant is not a citizen of the United States, it becomes the duty of the consul who issued the certificate to notify the person to whom it was issued and the proper Chinese authorities that it is no longer valid. Forms for these certificates are herewith inclosed, and, in order that there may be uniformity in the Chinese counterpart thereof, the consul-general of the United States at Shanghai has been instructed to prepare and transmit to you the necessary Chinese text. I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant, WILLIAM F. WHARTON, Form of certificate to be attached to a passport application when a notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths is not accessible to the applicant. and affirm that the matters stated in my apare true; and I do hereby consent that this and treated as if I had personally executed I, the undersigned, do hereby certify plication for a passport of datestatement shall, in all respects, be held such application before a consul of the United States. Witness: No. Form of travel certificate to be issued to the possessor of a passport. consul of the United States of America at an application from travel in the province of having received a citizen of the United States, for a passport to have, under the provisions of the Tien-Tsin treaty, issued this pass, and have to request that the Chinese authorities, civil and military, on examining it, will allow Mr. safely and freely to pass, and, in case of need, to give him all lawful aid and protection. Given under my hand and the impression of the seal of the consulate of the United States at this day of, 189 . Good for 1 year. [SEAL.] Consul. No. Form of travel certificate to be issued to an applicant for a passport. consul of the United States of America at having received an application from -, a citizen of the United States, for a passport to travel from to- [and return], have, under the provisions of the Tien-Tsin treaty, issued this pass, and have to request that the Chinese authorities, civil and military, on examining it, will allow Mr. by way of - safely and freely to pass, and, in case of need, to give him all lawful aid and protection. Given under my hand and the impression of the seal of the consulate of the United States at this day of 189 Good only for one journey, and not longer than 1 year. [SEAL.] Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine. Consul. No. 1114.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, May 10, 1890. (Received June 20.) SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of a note from the foreign office, received at this legation yesterday. As you will see, the discussion of the limitation of the duration of transit passes has been directly induced by the presentation of a transit pass issued 12 years since at Tien-Tsin, the pass proving good by the insistence of Her Britannic Majesty's consul (Bullock) at that port. He claimed, correctly, that Tien-Tsin was not included among those ports where transit passes were issued with any fixed limit for expiration. The native authorities are now urgent in their desires and measures to place a limit of time on such passes at this port, and such other ports not already included, with a view of preventing any recurrence of irregularities. I also inclose a copy of a note from His Excellency the German minister, which will explain an excellent suggestion to his colleagues and to the foreign office that these limitations be determined and arrived at by the Chinese authorities with the consuls, not confining such deliberations to the customs taotais and commissioners to the exclusion of the consuls. I have, etc., CHARLES DENBY. No. 4.] [Inclosure No. 1 in No. 1114.-Translation.] MAY 10, 1890. YOUR EXCELLENCY: With reference to the transit memoranda in triplicate issued for the exportation of native produce, the inspector-general of customs proposed, in the eleventh year of T'ung Chih (1873) a limit of time within which they should be delivered for cancellation. This limit was for the province in which the pass was issued, 50 days; for adjoining provinces, 100 days; for distant provinces, 200 days. To exceed the limit constituted a violation of the customs regulations, entailing confiscation of all the goods. In the eleventh moon of that year (1873), and again in the eleventh moon of the second Kuang-hsü (January, 1877), this yamên communicated these proposals for the information of the representatives of the various countries resident at Peking, from whom, one after the other, replies were received agreeing that they should be adopted At various subsequent dates, viz, in the eighth moon of the third Kuang-hsü (1877) first and second moons fifth Kuang hsii (1879), ninth moon seventh Kuang-hsii (1881), the yamên received dispatches from the southern superintendent of trade and the governor-general of the Liang-Kuang, stating that they were in receipt of reports from Ching-Kiang, Wuhu, Pakhoi Kiung-Chow, and Canton, stating that the customs taotais, together with the consuls, the commissioners of customs, and the inspectorgeneral of customs, had decided upon limits which would govern transit passes for native goods. At Ching-Kiang and Wuhu the limit was put at half a year; at Pakhoi, 6 months; at Kiung-Chow, 3 months; and at Canton, for the province of Canton itself, 3 months, and for going beyond the province 6 months. Penalties for exceeding the allotted time were to be exacted in accordance with the regulations. This system of limits once in operation was found satisfactory to the mercantile community generally, and, though long in operation, no irregularities were discovered. We have now, however, received from the northern superintendent of trade a dispatch stating that on the twelfth day second intercalary moon of the sixteenth Kuang-hsii (April 1, 1890) a boatman, Chang Yu-te, having as cargo 116 packages of wool, arrived at the Hung Ch'iao (Red Bridge) subordinate customs station and tendered for examination a pass in triplicate, Tien-Tsin, No. 178, originally issued to the English firm of (Wilson & Co.) Hsin T'ai Hsing, authorizing the purchase of native goods at Tulu Hsien (a village south west of Tien-Tsin). Investigation showed that it had been issued on the twelfth day of the fifth moon of the fourth Kuang-hsü (June, 1878); that it was 12 years old. Fraud having been suspected, the customs taotai submitted the man to an oral examination. While conducting the examination, however, he received a note from Consul Bullock requesting that the man be released. No limits for the expiration of these passes having ever been established at Tien-Tsin, the customs taotai yielded to the request and discharged the boatman. He wrote at once to the consul, however, urging that deliberations be entered into with a view to the establishment of definite limits for transit passes at Tien-Tsin in accordance with the procedure at other ports, which limits, once agreed upon, would prevent the recurrence of such irregularities hereafter. The superintendent of trade, having received this report, requests that this case be definitely decided, and that the yamên communicate the matter to all the representatives of the foreign countries resident at Peking. We have replied to the superintendent of trade to transmit orders to the said customs taotai to come to some satisfactory arrangement of the present case with the consul, and we have also written |
