frequently expressed, in my dispatches, the opinion that Mr. Reid, having been officially notified that the deed to the lot in question would not be sealed by the authorities and the trade was off, was a trespasser in forcibly going upon the lot to take possession thereof, and does not occupy a position that the law would view favorably. It can not, in general, be expected that any government will pay damages to a person who is injured while he is doing an act that he has been forbidden to do. Besides, such a claim for money compensation on the part of a mis sionary tends to give the Chinese an erroneous idea of his sacred calling. In my last communication to the yamên I have endeavored to procure an order that the local authorities shall at least make some sort of an apology. The Department will recognize, without any extended comment from me, the difficulty of the minister here, in view of the new crusade that has overtaken China, to hold the balance even between the alleged rights of our missionary citizens and the Chinese. The whole question requires in the treatment conciliation, prudence, and sometimes firmness. In view of the extensive correspondence that has reached you on this subject, and the whole case being before you, I solicit some instructions as to how it shall be treated by me. I have, etc. [Inclosure 1 in No. 1037.] CHARLES DENBY. Mr. Denby to the Tsung-li-yamên. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, YOUR HIGHNESS AND YOUR EXCELLENCIES: I have had the honor to receive Your Highness's and Your Excellencies' communications of the 1st of December, 1889, and 10th of January, 1890, having relation to the Chi-nan-fu property case, the contents of which I have duly perused. In your last communication, Your Highness and Your Excellencies made no reference to the claim presented by the Rev. Gilbert Reid, which I laid before you in my communication of the 23d of November last. I will thank Your Highness and Your Excellencies to be good enough to give me a definite answer as to whether it will be favorably entertained or not, so that I may be in a position to inform Mr. Reid. As to the original land question, I may say that I have already addressed my Government in reference to it, setting forth the circumstances. I beg to extend my thanks for the assistance that has been rendered by the local authorities at Chi-nan-fu in the matter of the land leased by Dr. Coltman. I have, etc., [Inclosure 2 in No. 1037.-Translation.] CHARLES DENBY. The Tsung-li-yamên to Mr. Denby. PEKING, January 18, 1890. YOUR EXCELLENCY: Upon the 14th instant we had the honor to receive a note from Your Excellency, wherein you stated that in reference to the claim presented by the Rev. Gilbert Reid, which Your Excellency laid before us in your communication of the 23d of November last, you would thank us to give you a definite answer as to whether it would be favorably considered or not, so that you may be in a position to inform Mr. Reid, etc. In reply, we would observe that it appears that the Rev. Gilbert Reid in the night forced his way in the courtyard of Lin Mêng Kwei, which in the beginning was not right and proper. At the time the women and the girls pushed him and he fell, but he was not assaulted. Furthermore, his first wish or desire was that he only wanted the local authorities to assist him in hunting for another house or property. After wards, on account of our having found a house, he thereupon wishes, or has the intention, to claim indemnity for injuries, and he does not evade borrowing or assuming a cause or reason for his false and trumped-up claim, which is an unbecoming act. Now, the matter of leasing houses and land has already been satisfactorily arranged, and, if the question of indemnity is again brought up, there is certainly fear that if the people hear of it they may not be quiet, and the land now settled may be taken up and lead to other complications. Besides, Mr. Reid, in carrying on his evangelical work there, will also find it difficult to command the respect of the people. We therefore hope that Your Excellency will clearly show to Mr. Reid the right way to pursue and that he must not again bring up a nonadvantageous request. Cards with compliments. [Inclosure 3 in No. 1037.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, YOUR HIGHNESS AND YOUR EXCELLENCIES: Upon the 18th instant I had the honor to receive from Your Highness and Your Excellencies a note in reply to my note of the 14th instant relating to the case of Rev. Gilbert Reid. You state that "at the time the women and the girls pushed him and he fell, but he was not assaulted." I am not willing to allow this statement to pass without my protest and contradiction. From all the evidence before me, I am sure that there was a mob, composed of persons in the neighborhood, who had nothing to do with the house or its occupants. I am satisfied that Mr. Reid was injured by the mob by being stricken by some missile and by being thrown down on the ground. There are some other observations in the communication of Your Highness and Your Excellencies which are worthy of serious attention. I will refer them to my Government for its instructions. In this case, it seems to me that, in any event, some reparation should be made to Mr. Reid in the way of expression of regret by the local authorities for the insult and injury that he has suffered and by a proclamation to the people announcing that such rude and violent conduct as the mob was guilty of is disapproved, and the people should be warned against making any further attacks or insults against the missionaries. Being desirous, above all things, that peace and harmony should prevail between my fellowcitizens and the people by whom they are surrounded, I hope that Your Highness and Your Excellencies will see your way to comply with these suggestions. I have, etc., Mr. Blaine to Mr. Denby. CHARLES DENBY. No. 495.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 1005 of November 19 last, in relation to the obtainment of land for the American Presbyterian mission near Chi-nan-fu. It appears that, owing to superstitious objections on the part of the people to the occupancy by the mission of the land first contracted for 2 years ago, another lot was secured and is now occupied for the purpose of the mission. This result was effected by representations to the Chinese authorities that the new piece of land would be taken in lieu of that originally sought, and the lot now held and occupied appears to have been granted upon that clear assurance. The members of the mission, in their correspondence with you, now refer to the original transaction as being in suspense, and, while retaining the land subsequently secured, solicit your immediate intervention to require the Chinese Government also to assure to them possession of the lot formerly desired. The correspondence which you transmit plainly discloses that the legation, and, through it, the Chinese Government, were led to under stand that, in view of the popular feeling against the occupancy for mission purposes of the land originally contracted for, another lot would be accepted in order to end the difficulty and avoid future trouble with the populace, which had been indulging in riotous demonstrations and in attacks upon the members and property of the mission. This feature of the case seems to have been lost sight of in the recent communication to the legation from Chi-nan-fu, and it is not supposed that the members of the mission, after having had the circumstances of the transaction recalled to their attention, will be disposed to insist upon a grant of the original lot. In this relation it is pertinent to observe that article 17 of the treaty with China of 1844, in guarantying to citizens of the United States "residing or sojourning at any of the ports open to foreign commerce" the right to obtain houses and places of business, to hire sites from the inhabitants on which "to construct houses and places of business, and also hospitals, churches, and cemeteries," says: "The local authorities of the two Governments shall select in concert the sites for the foregoing objects, having due regard to the feelings of the people in the location thereof." Article 12 of the treaty between the United States and China of 1858, referring to the same subject, provided that "the citizens of the United States shall not unreasonably insist on particular spots, but each party shall conduct with justice and moderation." It is not going far to say that where citizens of the United States are granted rights of residence outside of the places in which the treaties guaranty it, they are bound to the observance of the same general rules of conduct as at the open ports, just as this Government has insisted that the Government of China is in the same way bound to protect American citizens wherever, in the abatement of the restrictions formerly maintained, they are permitted to take up their residence. It is desirable for all concerned that in seeking establishments in the interior a spirit of patience and moderation should prevail. Our experience with the Chinese in this country has shown us how unfortunate may be the results of provoking local antagonisms, and the experience of foreigners in China, where their presence has not infrequently excited riotous opposition, amply enforces the wisdom of not seeking too suddenly to overcome obstacles created by popular feeling. I am, etc., JAMES G. BLAINE. No. 1045.] Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, February 4, 1890. (Received April 1.) SIR: On the 19th day of November, in dispatch 1005, I had the honor to send you a copy of a communication of the members of the Presbyterian mission at Chi-nan-fu to me and a copy of my reply thereto. I have now the honor to inclose a copy of another communication to me from the members of the said mission. I do not desire to present any further argument in support of my view that the granting and the sealing of the deeds to the country property should be taken as a settlement of the original land case. That the yamên so looks at the matter appears from their communications to me, inclosed in my dispatches to you, No. 1032 of January 14, and 1037 of January 26, 1890. FR 90-11 I am not, however, precluded by anything I have written to the yamên from still demanding that the original purchase shall be ratified. But I adhere to my opinion that such a demand would be unwise, would not be favorably entertained, and in the end would prove injurious to the interests of the missionaries at Chi-nan-fu, and its enforcement might lead to riot and disturbance; while, on the other hand, if the deed is surrendered by the missionaries and the money paid recovered back by them, there is nothing to prevent them, on a proper showing of the necessity of their having another lot in the city or the suburbs, from commencing an effort to secure such lot as a movement entirely independent of the contract for the original lot. It will be seen that the missionaries try to convict me of inconsistency. That issue I regard as immaterial. The question is whether, after the acquisition of the country tract, I should peremptorily demand of the Chinese Government the possession of the original lot or the purchase and tender to the mission by the local authorities of another lot. On the policy of this procedure the missionaries are silent. I have, etc., [Inclosure in No. 1045.] CHARLES DENBY. The missionaries to Mr. Denby. CHI-NAN-FU, CHINA, January 10, 1890. SIR: We, the undersigned, members of the American Presbyterian mission at Chinan-fu, beg to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of November 19, 1889. It is only within the last few days that we, as a body, have been able to meet together and consider the various points to which you request our attention and reply. Concerning the failure to sign our names to the letter sent you by us, and to which you refer as an irregularity, we would say in extenuation (as we understand Mr. Reid has already, explained) that certain members of the mission were necessarily called away before the document could be copied, and we had hoped that the statement of our representative, that the letter had been seen and agreed to by us, would be considered satisfactory. We exceedingly regret that our position in this important matter has apparently not hitherto been made clear, and we gladly avail ourselves of this opportunity to reply and thus review once more the facts, as we apprehend them, contained under the three points presented in your letter. Redress to Mr. Reid. It is a matter of great surprise to us that we now learn that the formal and personal claim of Mr. Reid, made out under date of April 17, 1888, had not been formally presented to the Chinese Government. We had already used every effort to secure a peaceful settlement, but after repeated failure he was led to write to you, "I dare not delay any longer in the presentation of this memorial. " After its presentation to the United States legation, however, there occurred a subsequent delay, until, under date of November 16 of the past year, Mr. Reid demanded its immediate presentation to the Chinese Government. Under date of July 8 you stated that in your previous dispatch to the Kungli yamên you had "demanded that in the settlement account should be taken of" Mr. Reid's "claim for damages and reparation made." Being led to suppose that his claim had been formally presented to the Chinese Government, Mr. Reid inquired of the matter from the Chinese officials, but was met with the reply that they knew nothing about it. Mr. Reid, under date of July 19, again wrote you asking if his claim, as formally and legally made out, had been presented to the Chinese Government, and the reply was that you had demanded "a full and entire settlement, covering the first purchase, the punishment of the rioters, and compensation to you. From this we supposed, until the receipt of your letter of November 19, that Mr. Reid's claim had been fully presented. The punishment of the ringleaders in the riot. It seems to us a matter of regret and augurs ill for the future security of foreigners in the interior of China that thus far, after a lapse of 2 years, no punishment has been visited upon the guilty parties. Our conviction as to the justice and expediency of their punishment remains unchanged-a conviction, we trust, which is not grounded on any desire for revenge, but on a sense of justice and a desire for security in the prosecution of our work. Possession of the house lot originally contracted for or the granting of another lot in exchange. In September, 1887, Rev. Gilbert Reid, in behalf of the mission, took a perpetual lease of a house in the east suburb of this city, and in November, 1858, Robert Coltman, M. D., purchased a tract of land in the open country west of the city. Now that we have secured, through your intervention and our own exertions, the settlement of the last case, you express the opinion that "the acceptance of the country tract must, in my opinion, be taken as a waiver of the right to claim the original lot," and the grounds for this view may be found in the words, "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 to blame for this misconception." We are entirely willing to acknowledge our responsibility for our own actions and statements; but, in view of the importance of the question, we respectfully call your attention to the following points: (1) The inference that the possession of the piece of property in the open country would be accepted in view of the original property in the suburb was drawn from two letters of Mr. Reid and Dr. Coltman, while every other communication addressed to you has implied, as we understand it, the contrary. The basis of such an inference was merely a fear or personal belief on the part of some of us that such might be the final result, but not that it was to be the inevitable, still less the desirable, result. (2) In the letter of Dr. Coltman, from which you particularly quote, it is further stated by him, "I am writing now as a private individual without consulting my colleagues." It seems, then, that the definite mind of the whole mission had not as yet been formally made known to you until the letter of February 1. (3) If Mr. Reid regarded the new scheme as "an abandonment of the original claim," and therefore "resigned bis position as manager of the affair," then his resumption of the position in June last indicated just as plainly the nonabandonment of the original claim. Indeed, he might have consistently resumed the position by the end of January, at which time the purpose of the mission was definitely announced. (4) That Dr. Coltman had "obtained permission from the Shan-Tung mission to purchase a site for residence and hospital within a limit of 3 li from any suburb gate," is true; but the mission, at its annual meeting in December, 1889, plainly indicated its intention by passing a resolution that the resolution of the previous year "was not intended to affect plans then on foot with reference to procuring property in the southeast suburb of Chi-nan-fu." Although Your Excellency has, of course, had no opportunity as yet of being informed of this action, we yet mention the fact in this connection to indicate the position of the Shan-Tung mission. (5) That you might know the real position of this mission, you asked, under date of January 22, "Will you please inform me whether the mission has abandoned its purpose to secure the identical property for which a contract had been made, or in exchange therefor other property in the city," and, under date of February 1, a reply was sent, "The sentiment of this mission is opposed to the abandonment of the suggestions which we at the first made to the legation and which you embodied in your dispatch to the foreign office." Also, "to consent, as we have already done, to an exchange of the property in the suburb to another in the suburb seems to us to be yielding all that should reasonably be expected of us." (6) The inference that you received from two letters in a space of only 2 months was prior to your transmitting a new dispatch to the Tsung-li yamên, and also prior to the formal decision of the mission as a whole. The letter communicating this decision was dated February 1, while on February 18 you sent your dispatch to the Tsung-li yamên, in which you seemed to have followed the implication contained in the two letters of Rev. Mr. Reid and Dr. Coltman rather than the definite decision of the mission as made known in the letter of February 1. In case the statement of the mission had not yet reached you, it seems unfortunate that action was not deferred a little, since, on the one haud, Dr. Coltman referred to the business only as a "private individual," and, on the other, you had prepared a formal letter to the mission, requesting definite answers, and stating that you "will await an answer from" this mission, in order to learn whether we "desire further action." |