Page images

[Inclosure 3 in No. 1123.]

Mr. Denby to the Tsung-li-yamên.

Peking, July 26, 1890.

No. 7.]

YOUR HIGHNESS and Your EXCELLENCIES: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of June 16, 1890. I seize the earliest opportunity after my return to Peking to reply to the same.

You set out in detail the dates of the treaties and make some observations on their origin. You proceed to comment on the act of Congress of October, 1888, relating to the exclusion of the Chinese laborers, which act you severely criticise. You further state that I sent no reply to your communication of the 15th day of the eighth moon of the fourteenth year of Kuang-hsü (September 20, 1887). I beg leave to say that I acknowledged the receipt of your communication. I forwarded it to my Government. I have received no advices from my Government touching the three suggestions made. You further state that you have addressed, through your minister at Washington, the present Secretary of State and his predecessor on this subject and are without a reply. You cite various documents and Presidential messages. You then make some comments on the alleged injustice of the act of Congress of which you complain, and you request that I take up this discussion with you, and that I clearly indicate to you what article in the treaty it is that Congress "relies on in enacting the new law of 1888." You proceed to detail the alleged hardships to which Chinese subjects will be subjected by the operation of the new statute, and you severely criticise the said statute. You request me, in conclusion, to write the Secretary of State to secure the repeal of the said law.

In reply to this communication, I have to say that I have sent to the Department of State a translation of your communication.

I think that under the circumstances detailed by you it is best for me to await the instructions of my Government before taking up the discussion of the matters stated. I must therefore beg of you to await a more specific reply to your communication until I shall have received the instruction of the Honorable Secretary of State. I avail, etc.,


[Inclosure 4 in No. 1123.]

Mr. Denby to the Tsung-li-yamên.

No. 8.]

YOUR HIGHNESS AND YOUR EXCELLENCIES: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the communication of Your Highness and Your Excellencies of June 17, 1890.

Peking, July 26, 1890.

I seize the earliest opportunity after my return to Peking to reply to it. You therein state that the United States "have repeatedly enacted laws in violation of treaty, and all having for their object the maltreatment and injury of Chinese subjects." Under the treaty of 1880 it is competent for the Government of China to bring the attention of the Government of the United States or that of the minister to China to the consideration of any legislative measure which may be found to work hardships upon the subjects of China.

As I understand this provision, it is applicable to laws that have been enacted by Congress and have received the sanction of the Executive, or been passed over his veto in accordance with the Constitution, and that have become valid and are in force. A complaint made in the general addressed to newly proposed laws which are not in force would require much time for discussion, and such time might be uselessly expended. You state that you have been informed by your minister at Washington that the Lower House of Congress has had under discussion recently the enacting of a vexatious law requiring the enumeration of the Chinese in the United States. You have probably been informed by your minister before this time that the said bill failed in the Senate, was laid on the tables, and will in all human probability not become a law. It is unnecessary to waste any time in the discussion of this


You refer, also, to the ordinance lately passed by the city of San Francisco. That city passed an ordinance by which the residence of Chinese subjects was restricted to certain designated localities. If this ordinance be antagonistic to the treaties, as Your Highness and Your Excellencies claim, then it will be set aside by the courts and held to be naught and void. Under our system of government it is not competent

for any State or city to enact laws contrary to the provisions of existing treaties. I have not learned that the Chinese consul or the Chinese residents of San Francisco are much alarmed at the passage of the ordinance in question. Until the courts shall have decided that the said ordinance is legal and binding, and some action that is prejudicial to the Chinese has been had thereunder, it would seem to be unnecessary to discuss its provisions.

I have sent to the Secretary of State a translation of your communication, and I am sure that it will secure the attention that its importance warrants.

I avail, etc.,


Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.

No. 1125.]


Peking, July 26, 1890. (Received September 22.) SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I have communicated to the Presbyterian mission at Chi-nan-fu the substance of your dispatch No. 512 of April 9, 1890, in a letter of which a copy is herewith inclosed. As soon as I learn from the superintendent of the mission what the present condition of things is, and what are his wishes, I will again bring the subject to the attention of the foreign office.

I would be very much gratified if I could secure for the mission the original lot for which they contracted or another suitable lot in exchange therefor.

I have, etc.,

[Inclosure in No. 1125.]

Mr. Denby to Mr. Reid.


Peking, July 25, 1890.

SIR: Upon my return to Peking after a long absence, I find a dispatch from the Department of date April 12, which contains this language:

"Popular prejudice at Chi-nan-fu appears to render it impracticable for Mr. Reid to pursue further his claim upon his contract for the original suburban lot, but the claim that another house lot in another part of the suburbs should be procured in lieu of the original lot ought not to be lightly foregone if there seems to be any chance of its being successfully maintained without friction or unpleasant complications. Your own suggestion, however, that the missionaries surrender the deed of the original lot, recover the purchase money, and undertake to secure another such lot as a movement entirely new and independent of the original contract, is deemed preferable, as being in all probability the least open to objection by the local authorities; and provided, of course, the missionaries can be induced to accept that solution of the difficulty before any attempt is made to obtain an exchange at the hands of the yamên; and provided, further, that assurance can be obtained before surrender of the old lot that no impediment will be thrown in the way of the acquisition of a new one of equivalent value."

I have heard rumors touching the condition of things at Chi-nan-fu, but have nothing definite. You will see that the Department instructions are contingent upon the mission's acceptance of the plan proposed. Should the mission decline to accept the new lot and still insist on the possession of the first lot, then I am directed to bring the views of the mission and yours (mine) on this subject into harmony, in order that you (I) may proceed to a just termination of the existing differences between the mission and the authorities. Before taking any action here I desire to know the mission's views as to the course to be adopted, and to receive such information as to the present condition of things as may facilitate a favorable solution. Backed up, as I am, by my Government, I shall not hesitate to present to the yamên in the strongest manner the claims of the mission to a just settlement of the troubles pending.

I have, etc.,


[ocr errors]

Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.

No. 1125 bis.]


Peking, July 26, 1890. (Received September 22.) SIR: I have the honor to inform you that in the matter of Louis McCaslin I have sent to the yamên the communication of which a copy is herewith inclosed.

I have also sent to the yamên a translation of your dispatch No. 517 of April 18, 1890. The matter is so lucidly and completely presented by this dispatch and by No. 510 of March 24, 1890, that I was unable to add anything substantial to them. I will, however, seek the earliest moment to have an oral interview with the yamên, and will then carry out your instructions contained in the last clause of your dispatch No. 517. At present, owing to the great rains, of which you have been advised by my dispatch No. 1124 of the 25th instant, the streets of Peking are not passable. It is necessary for me, also, to go to the hills for a few days, if I can get there, which is doubtful, to see my family, whom I have not seen for 2 months, and who have just returned to China after an absence of 2 years.

I have, etc.,

[Inclosure in No. 1125 bis.]

Mr. Denby to the Tsung-li yamến.



18-. YOUR HIGHNESS AND YOUR EXCELLENCIES: I have the honor to inform Your Highness and Your Excellencies that I have received from my Government a dispatch relating to the McCaslin case at Ningpo. I was directed to deliver to Your Highness and Your Excellencies a translation of the said dispatch, which I now have the honor to do.

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 1049 of February 9 last, etc." (quoting Department's No. 517 entirely through).

In this connection, I have to refer Your Highness and Your Excellencies to my previous communications touching the McCaslin case. The subject has been therein so fully presented that I am unable to add anything substantial to the arguments in favor of setting aside the judgment of the taotai and granting a rehearing of the case. The matter, however, is so clearly and strongly presented by the Honorable Secretary of State that I deem it unnecessary to add any comments. I will have the honor to call in person upon Your Highness and Your Excellencies and present this and other questions for your consideration orally as soon as the streets of Peking are passable.

Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.

No. 1140.]


Peking, August 4, 1890. (Received September 22.) SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I have sent to the foreign office the communication of which a copy is inclosed.

The question arose, in the case of a French man-of-war which had engaged in surveying and sounding one of the closed ports, whether it was allowable for foreign officers to make such surveys. The foreign ministers, after a discussion, unanimously held that this was a treaty right. The question was presented to the yamên during my absence, and I had only to approve the conduct of my colleagues. While it is

FR 90-13

to be supposed that the great maritime countries of Europe might prohibit such surveys, still the case is, or ought to be, different with China. She has absolutely neglected hydrographic work, perhaps for the good reason that she had no scientific officers. She has stood by and seen the foreigner sound and make charts for all her coasts. There seems to be no good reason why she should now object to a completion of the work. It happens that we are the only nation that has a treaty which by just intendment may be held to include this subject.

The ninth article of the treaty of June 18, 1858, reads as follows:

Whenever national vessels of the United States of America, in cruising along the coast and among the ports opened for trade for the protection of the commerce of their country, or for the advancement of science, shall arrive at or near any of the ports of China, the commanders of said ships and the superior local authorities of government shall, if it be necessary, hold intercourse on terms of equality and courtesy in token of the friendly relations of their respective nations; and the said vessels shall enjoy all suitable facilities on the part of the Chinese Government in procuring provisions or other supplies and making necessary repairs.

The last clause of this article provides that our national vessels may pursue pirates, and, if captured, deliver them over for trial and punment."

There have been several examples of such work being done by American ships, notably that of the Wyoming in 1862 or 1863. Unless the ports shall have been sounded and surveyed, such pursuit in many cases would be impracticable. It seems to me very clear that in the interest of humanity and of commerce this right should be insisted on. I have, etc.,


[Inclosure in No. 1140.J

Mr. Denby to the Tsung-li yamên.

AUGUST 4, 1890.

YOUR HIGHNESS AND YOUR EXCELLENCIES: I have the honor to inform Your Highness and Your Excellencies that since my return to Peking I have learned that my colleagues have addressed Your Highness and Your Excellencies on the subject of permitting officers on board men-of-war to make surveys of the various ports of China.

I take this opportunity of saying that I cordially approve of the course of my colleagues. I have made four voyages on the coast of China and have just returned from one on which I traveled over 4,000 miles. Every few feet of this coast has been sounded, and accurate charts have been prepared by the officers attached to the ships of various nationalities. The value of such services to humanity and to trade and commerce can not be overestimated. These charts, together with the splendid system of light-houses and buoys organized by the inspector-general of the imperial maritime customs, have made the very dangerous coast of China easy and safe for navigation. But it will always happen that in stress of weather or on account of accidents ships will be compelled to take refuge in ports. The treaties provide that such refuge may be had. How can a ship enter a port safely which has never been surveyed or charted? The open sea, in such event, might be less dangerous than an unknown port. China has hitherto failed to do this necessary work herself. She should not, therefore, object to its being done by other nations. I call Your Highness's and your Excellencies' attention finally to the ninth article of the treaty of June 18, 1858, made between the United States and China, wherein it is distinctly provided that the vessels of the United States may visit any of the ports of China. The last clause provides that the national vessels of the United States may pursue and capture pirates. There have been several cases of the pursuit and capture of pirates by American ships. How can this work, which is thus distinctly specified, be done unless the various ports are properly sounded and surveyed in advance ? In the interest of humanity, as well as of commerce, Chinese and foreign, I hope that Your Highness and Your Excellencies will see your way clear to the approval of the right of foreign scientific officers to continue and complete the hydrography of all the ports of China.

Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.


Peking, August 11, 1890. (Received September 22.)

No. 1146.]

SIR: I have the honor to inform you that since I sent to you my dispatch No. 1125 of the 26th of July, relating to the Chi-nan-fu troubles, I have received a communication from the American mission at that place which furnished me the information I desired. This communication was sent in advance of the receipt of the one sent to the mission by me. I have accordingly addressed to the foreign office a communication, of which I inclose a copy.

It will be seen that I strongly urge a full and final settlement of these long-standing troubles.

I have, etc.,

[Inclosure in No. 1146.]

Mr. Denby to the Tsung-li yamên.





YOUR IMPERIAL HIGHNESS AND YOUR EXCELLENCIES: I am constrained by my high respect for the Government of China, as by the orders of my own Government, to bring to your attention again the troubles existing at Chi-nan-fu between the American missionaries located there and the local officials. It is known to Your Highness and Your Excellencies that the American missionaries several years ago bought and paid for a small lot in Chi-nan-fu to be used for a dispensary and other purposes connected with their charitable and philanthropic work. They did this with the firm belief that their conduct was authorized by the treaties and by the universal practice of religious toleration which exists in China, under which the Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries are permanently located in all or nearly all the nineteen provinces of this great Empire.

When they made the purchase of this city lot, they understood that no objection to its acquisition would be made by the local authorities or the people. The owner sold in good faith, and they bought in entire innocence of doing anything contrary to the wishes either of the local authorities or the people. But dreadful results have followed this simple act. Mr. Reid, when he went to take possession of the lot, was driven out by a mob and beaten and bruised and left insensible on the ground.

From that day to this, more than 2 years ago, no redress has been tendered to Mr. Reid, no apology has been made to him, no indemnity has been offered to him. His case has been simply ignored and passed over.

I am now informed of the horrible sequel to these events which has befallen the innocent landlord. The mission writes to me that "the landlord, though guilty of no crime, has been repeatedly imprisoned, beaten, and starved, and lately there was extorted from him $250, with a peremptory order that he speedily collect an additional $350. A few weeks ago he was taken out of prison in a weakened condition and after a day or two of further suffering died at his home, his death being largely due to his sufferings in the yamên."

This is horrible, and I am stirred with wonder that such things should happen under the mild and paternal Government of China. I can understand that sudden mobs will sometimes do violent acts in a country so densely populated as China, but I can not understand how local officials worthy of their places can lend themselves to such wanton cruelty and oppression.

I am aware that a valuable tract of land outside of the city walls has, with the consent of the local officials, passed over to the American mission. For this kindness I am truly grateful. But the missionaries represent that for the proper prosecntion of their work they require a small city lot, either in the city proper or in the suburbs. My Government has distinctly and specifically, on representation of the facts by myself and the mission, directed me to aid and assist the missionaries in all proper modes to secure peaceable possession of a lot in exchange for the lot already bought.

The American mission are entirely willing to arrange all their difficulties amicably with the local authorities. They distinctly agree to forego all claim to the original lot and to accept at the hands of the local authorities another suitable lot in a dif

« PreviousContinue »