to the northern and southern superintendents of trade to direct the inspector-general of customs to ascertain what ports have no established limits for duration of transit passes, and to order the customs taotais and the commissioners of customs at such places, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of each locality, to establish limits for duration of transit passes in accordance with regulations, making a distinction for time allowed in nearer and remoter places. Should a merchant have any real causes for delay, he may, before the expiration of the limited time, make application for an extension in accordance with the rules. This will be granted as a favor to him. We communicate this matter for Your Excellency's information, and we hope you will order the consuls at the various ports concerned to act in accordance with the spirit of this dispatch. Thus we hope frauds and irregularities will be avoided, and that mercantile affairs will more and more favorably progress with lapse of time. Confident of Your Excellency's cordial good will in the transaction of business with us, we are sure to receive as early as possible a reply from you. A necessary communication, etc. [Inclosure 2 in No. 1114.] The German minister to his colleagues. PEKING, May 9, 1890. Mr. von Brandt has the honor to present his compliments to his colleagues and to place the following proposals before them: In the yamên's note of the 9th instant on the subject of the fixation of the duration of the export transit passes, the yamên states that the taotais or commissioners of customs at those ports where such measures had not yet been introduced would be instructed to fix a time they thought adequate. In the same note it is, however, mentioned that at Ching-Kiang, Wuhu, Pakhoi, Kiung-Chow, and Canton similar measures had been introduced after an understanding had been arrived at between the Chinese authorities and the treaty powers. Would it not be well under the circumstances to tell the yamên that, while approving the principle of the measure proposed, the foreign representatives thought that if it were based, as in the former cases quoted by the yamên, upon a joint understanding between the Chinese authorities and the consuls, the interests of the customs, as well as of the mercantile community, would be best protected and future reclamations and difficulties avoided? If his colleagues should approve of this proposal, each legation might draft its answer in the same sense. Mr. von Brandt avails, etc. No. 530.] Mr. Blaine to Mr. Denby. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR Referring to your No. 1068 of the 18th of March last, I transmit a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury concurring in the view that the certificate of the taotai, properly viséed by the minister or consul of the United States, would be sufficient to authorize the collector of customs at the United States port where Mr. Howe, the Chinese subject whose case you present, arrives to permit his landing. I am, etc., JAMES G. BLAINE. [Inclosure in No. 530.] Mr. Batcheller to Mr. Blaine. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, May 14, 1890. (Received May 15.) SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th instant transmitting a copy of dispatch No. 1068, dated the 18th of March last, from the United States minister at Peking, relative to the application of Mr. Alvin F. Howe, a Chinese subject, for advice as to the mode by which he can gain access to the United States, The minister states that Mr. Howe is a Christian, a physician by profession, and also an employé of the Methodist mission at Peking; that he desires to complete his medical studies in the United States under the patronage of the Methodist Board of Missions; and that he speaks English very well, and is, in all respects, reputable. The question as suggested by the minister is whether the certificate of the Chinese Government, specified in section 6 of the act of July 5,1884 (23 Stat. at Large, p. 116), without which a Chinese person other than a laborer can not enter the United States, can be issued by a dependent authority or local officer such as a "taotai," who represents, it is understood, the Chinese Government as chief magistrate in the district where the applicant resides, and is in a position to certify the facts satisfactorily. It is understood that the minister is inclined to the view that such a certificate would be satisfactory, and would substantially conform to the requirements of law on the presumption that the local officer has full authority from the Chinese Government to take action in such matters. Upon this presumption, and in view of the difficulty and almost impracticability of obtaining such certificate from the principal Government of China, I concur with you in the opinion that the certificate of said local officer, or "taotai," properly viséed by the minister or other consular representative of the United States in China, would be sufficient in law to authorize the collector of customs at the port of arrival in the United States of Mr. Howe to permit him to land. Respectfully, etc., GEO. S. BATCHeller, Mr. Blaine to Mr. Denby. No. 542.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have received your No. 1113 of the 5th ultimo, relative to the claim of the American citizen Louis McCaslin against China for injuries caused by the wrongful closing of a bridge of boats at Ningpo, April 29, 1888. Your note in the case of the 5th ultimo is approved. I am, etc., No. 544.] JAMES G. BLAINE. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Denby. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 27, 1890. SIR: I have received your No. 1114 of the 10th ultimo, in relation to a note from the yamên of the previous day, on the subject of "the fixation of the duration of export transit passes." The suggestion in Mr. von Brandt's memorandum, of which you inclose a copy, that the period of validity of transit passes in the several districts and treaty ports of China be determined by mutual agreement between the authorities and the consular representatives of the treaty powers, appears to be proper and necessary. I am, etc., JAMES G. BLAINE. No. 1123.] Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, July 25, 1890. (Received September 22.) SIR: I have the honor to inclose a translation of a communication bearing date June 16, 1890, lately sent to me by the Tsung-li yamên; also a translation of another communication bearing date June 17, 1890; also copies of my replies to these two communications. The delay in forwarding these papers was caused by my absence from Peking. It will be seen that the first of these communications relates mainly to the act of October, 1888, being the Chinese exclusion act, and that it recites that substantially similar inquiries were made by the Chinese minister at Washington of yourself and of your predecessor. While it must be admitted that under the fourth article of the treaty of 1880 it is entirely competent for the yamên to address complaints to me touching any legislative act, nevertheless, under the circumstances, it seemed prudent for me not to take up the proposed discussion until I had presented the matter to you and received your instructions. I answered the yamên in that sense. The communication of June 17 is mostly directed against the lately proposed Chinese enumeration bill and the San Francisco ordinance which has for its purpose to confine Chinese residents to certain designated localities. I have replied to the yamên that my information was that the enumeration bill had been laid on the table in the Senate, and that the ordinance mentioned would be tested in the courts before any action would be had under it. It seemed to me unnecessary to discuss at this time the provisions of either measure. This conduct is in accordance with the treaty, which applies only to measures as effected." 66 I have, etc., CHARLES DENBY. [Inclosure 1 in No. 1123.-Translation.] The Tsung-li-yamén to Mr. Denby. JUNE 16, 1890. YOUR EXCELLENCY: Research reveals the fact that all the treaties entered into between China and the United States, beginning with that of the twenty-fourth Tao Kuang (1814, western style); then that of the eighth Hsien Teng (1858); that of the seventh Tieng Chit (1868), and that of the sixth Kuang-hsü (1880), four in all, originated on the part of the United States. Further, the proposed treaty, the draft whereof was jointly discussed by us in the year Kuang-hsii (1888), was also put forward by the Department of State under the last Administration, the original idea not coming from China. Notwithstanding this, His Excellency, the former President, set this treaty aside, and without premonition put in operation a new statute absolutely prohibiting the coming of Chinese laborers into the United States, a statute widely at variance with the Chinese-American treaty of the seventh Tung Chit (1868), and a violation of the treaty of the sixth Kuang-hsü, wherein China authorized the restriction by the United States of the immigration of Chinese laborers. The fifth article of the treaty entered into between China and the United States in the seventh year of Tung Chit (1868) speaks of the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects, respectively, from the one country to the other, for the purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents. The sixth article further says, "Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation."" Again, the treaty of Kuang-hsii (1880) between China and the United States says that whenever the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect, the interests of that country, or to endanger the good order of any locality within the territory thereof, the Government of China agrees that the Government of the United States may regulate, limit, or suspend such coming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation or suspension shall be reasonable. Under these circumstances, the ratification by His Excellency the former President, on the 26th day of the eighth moon last year (western style, the 1st of October), of the statute enacted by Congress prohibiting immigration of Chinese laborers is beyond belief. Further, this yamên had previously, viz, on the 15th day of the eighth moon of that year (September 19), sent a dispatch to Your Excellency submitting for your consider * ation three additional clauses to the new treaty. To this, however, Your Excellency has never replied. The Chinese minister to the United States also submitted these three clauses in a dispatch to the Department of State. He, too, received not a word in reply. The new treaty, however, was rejected and a new statute was enacted in place of it. This method of dealing does not seem to us to agree with the spirit which animates the treaties of our two countries, and fails to accord with the several decades of friendship between us. Since the enacting of this new law Chinese going to and from the United States have all met with interference. His Excellency Mr. Chang, former minister to the United States, first on the 25th day of the twelfth moon of the fourteenth Kuang-hsü (Jannary 26, 1889), later on the 26th of the first moon of the fifteenth Kuang hsü (February 22, 1889), wrote to the former Secretary of State on this subject. In reply to these dispatches he received an answer from the Honorable Secretary, in which he merely intimated that as the President was about to go out of office he certainly would not ratify any legislation enacted in violation of treaty. He did not reply to any of the other important matters submitted to him. After Mr. Blaine had entered on his duties as Secretary of State the former minister, Mr. Chang, on the 10th day of the sixth moon, fifteenth Kuang-hsii (July 7, 1889), wrote a dispatch making urgent inquiries for information and demanding that the law enacted by Congress the preceding year, prohibiting Chinese laborers from entering the United States, be repealed. These communications were exceedingly explicit in their statement of the case. In reply, however, the Department merely stated that haste would be made in a careful consideration of the subject. As to the manner in which this consideration has been conducted, no information has as yet been given. This yamên observes that the Chinese minister, in his three dispatches above referred to, has, in the main, substantiated his position by quotation from the successive treaties between the United States and China. Now, by reference to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1881, pp. 173, 185, and 198; and to the statutes of the United States, March 1843, 5th chapter, p. 624; and to the Foreign Relations of the United States of 1870, p. 332; and to the Congressional Record, 1888, 19th chapter, pp., 8451, 8452, 8453; and to the message of President Hayes, March 1, 1879, to the Forty-fifth Congress, vetoing a bill; and to the message to Congress of President Arthur, April 4, 18-2-by reference to these various documents kept on record by the United States Government, referring to statutes and matters with which Your Excellency is well acquainted, it may be easily ascertained why the Department of State persistently refused to give definite answers. Sincerely interested, as Your Excellency is, in the relation of our countries, you probably are aware that the law now in operation, contrary to treaty stipulations, interferes with Chinese subjects in their efforts to gain a livelihood, as well as violates the several treaties themselves. Last year at the opening of Congress His Excellency the President, in his message to that body, stated that the failure to ratify and exchange the new treaty negotiated between China and the United States, and the legislation of the last session of Congress consequent thereto, had left some questions open, to the deliberation of which it was now his duty to request Congress to approach with justice and equity, etc. This yamên has not heard from Your Excellency whether or not during these months any such deliberations have been entered into by the Congress of your country. His Excellency Mr. Tsui, our present minister, has frequently written to the Department on the subject, but receives no replies. We request, finally, that Your Excellency will clearly indicate to us what article of the treaty it is that your honorable Congress relied on in enacting the new law of last year. Should statutes be enacted without adherence to the treaties, then the Chinese residents in the United States must, in time to come, suffer varied and repeated hardships. This result, we fear, can not be avoided. The Chinese have gone to America because repeated treadies have authorized them to go and come at their pleasure, and to enjoy there the advantages of citizens of the most favored nation. For this reason the residents on the coasts of China have gone to the United States in large numbers to gain their subsistence. There they have accumulated considerable property. Now that suddenly their going to and fro is prohibited, to whose charge shall be given their homes and property in America? The new law enacted by Congress is totally at variance with the treaties, and we consider it a violation of the spirit which prompted your country in its repeated requests to China to execute treaties with it. It forms an entirely new episode in the relations of the two countries, and, though there was a disagreement with France in 1798, the instance is one which is seldom met with in the history of the United States with other countries. Your Excellency is thoroughly conversant with the treaties between China and the United States; we therefore request you at once to write to the Department of State to secure the repeal of the laws in violation thereof. We hope, also, to receive an answer in this important matter. A necessary communication, etc. [Inclosure 2 in No. 1123.-Translation.] The Tsung-li-yamên to Mr. Denby. JUNE 17, 1890. YOUR EXCELLENCY: It is customary to speak of the relations between China and the United States as characterized by continuous cordiality. The treaties which China has on various occasions entered into with the United States have all been animated with the intention to protect the interests of American citizens. The United States, however, because of discrimination against Chinese laborers, have repeatedly enacted laws in violation of treaty, and all having for their object the maltreatment and injury of Chinese subjects. We have lately received from His Excellency Mr. Tsui, minister to the United States, a communication, wherein he says that the Lower House of the United States Congress has had under discussion recently the enacting of a vexatious law requiring the enumeration of the Chinese in the United States, in California; moreover, a statute has been recently enacted driving out and expelling the Chinese from the larger cities. On reading this, very great was our indignation and grief. The second article of the supplementary treaty between China and the United States of the sixth Kuang-hsü (1880) says that Chinese merchants "and Chinese laborers who are now in the United States shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to citizens and subjects of the most favored nation." Article III says: "If Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, now either permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty." The vexatious law for the enumeration of the Chinese seems to be not only a contradiction of the "favored-nation" clause in the successive treaties between China and the United States, but a violation of the Constitution on which your Government is built. In the law for the driving out and expulsion of the Chinese and the limitation of their residence hereafter to a particular locality no inquiry has been made as to whether they had property or not. They are all alike to be forced into one narrow place and not allowed the usual privileges of residence. After 60 days those not driven out shall be ordered to prison. We do not know whether the Chinese now residing in the United States are all those who in former times went thither under the treaty which your Government entered into with China in order to authorize their going. Their strength, however, was availed of and their labor used. Afterwards, as soon as the railroad had pierced through to California, and when business flourished, the virtues of the Chinese were no longer remembered, and they were regarded as enemies. At first hostility arose, then there was burning of houses, then there was expulsion of Chinese; now they are to be forced to live in one locality and be allowed no residence elsewhere. It seems that they are to be gathered together to inflict further injuries on them. This is a contradiction of those words of the treaty which say they may "go and come of their own free will and accord," while the proposed imprisonment after 60 days is a nullification of that treaty clause which speaks of enjoying the advantages of the subjects of the "most favored nation." Should such acts as these originate with the citizens or subjects of another country, should they so insult and ill treat the Chinese laborers, the Government of your honored country would be in duty bound to "exert all its power to devise measures for their protection," and thus fulfill its treaty obligation. Now, however, contrary to all our expectations, these oppressions and these insults come from the United States, whose relations with us it is customary to designate as cordial. We are humbly of opinion that in the law of nations reciprocity is considered most important. Suppose that China should conduct herself towards American citizens in a similar manner, we ask whether the Congress of the United States would not reproach China with a violation of the treaty? And would Your Excellency sit still and make no inquiries of us? Change your point of observation. At this time China can not refrain from expressing her feelings, and it is just that she should do so. The whole truth is that this class of Chinese laborers, although living beyond the outer seas, are not the less the children of China, and she is unable to cast them from her breast. It is our duty, therefore, to communicate with Your Excellency and to express the hope that you will write to the Department of State to abrogate the laws requiring enumeration and forced restriction of residence. We hope for an early reply. We further wish that you would transmit to the Department of State a request to speedily reply to the dispatch of last year from His Excellency Mr. Tsui, the present minister, sent during the second intercalary month, and that of the former minister, Mr. Chang, and thus show some concern for the important matter of the good relations of our countries. A necessary communication, etc. |