Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.
Peking, October 31, 1889. (Received December 6.)
Sir: I have the honor to report that I have had very lengthy negotiations with the Tsung-li yamên relating to the claim for injuries suffered by Louis McCaslin by the closing of a bridge of boats at Ningpo, April 29, 1888. The case was, unfortunately, not managed exactly according to my instructions to the consul at Ningpo. Upon the happening of the injury the consul took the evidence of the foreign witnesses and the native boatmen; the taotai took the evidence of the bridge-tenders. When the case came to me and was presented by me to the yamên, they answered that, according to the proof furnished by the taotai, the bridge-tenders were not to blame in closing the bridge that notices had been stuck up that boats could not pass at the point in question; and that the bridge-tenders had not been guilty of negligence. I replied that, unfortunately, they did not have all the evidence before them; that the proof in my possession indicated either a willingness to inflict the injury or the grossest negligence. I suggested that, as the evidence in their possession and mine, respectively, was not identical, the best thing to do would be to direct the consul and the taotai to hear all the evidence as a joint commission, which the treaties provide for, and to report all the evidence to Peking. By this means the yamên and I would have the same evidence before us, and we could then argue the case from the same standpoint.
The yamên made an order to the taotai to open a joint commission and to hear all the evidence.
I immediately sent to Mr. Pettus positive and minute instructions to meet with the taotai in joint commission, and to make out the best case he could, and to see that all the evidence in the case was sent to the yamên and to me. My instructions to Mr. Pettus, under date of April 3, 1889, contained this language:
They (the yamên) insisted on the evidence the taotai sent forward. I insisted on that which you had sent to me. A joint investigation will secure the same evidence. After you have taken it, if the taotai still refuses satisfaction, you can appeal to the legation. Then the evidence will be undisputed and there will be common ground for the yamên and the legation to meet on. You are therefore instructed to consent to a joint investigation and to make the best case you can.
Under date of June 1, 1889, attention was called to these instructions, and they were repeated. The taotai notified the consul of the time when the joint commission would meet. Mr. Pettus attended, but for some reason, not satisfactory to me, inquired whether he should bring, the foreign witnesses to be examined before the joint commission. The taotai replied, in substance, that he could take his own course as to that matter. The taotai then proceeded to examine the native witnesses, [Page 148] and Mr. Pettus, assuming that the taotai meant that the evidence already taken by him would be considered, failed to produce either the plaintiff, Mr. McCaslin, or any of his foreign witnesses, who were the most important he had. The taotai then rendered the same adverse decision that his predecessor had rendered.
Mr. Pettus then protested that the taotai had not considered the testimony of the foreign witnesses; but the taotai answered that no foreign witnesses were introduced before him, and that his duty was to consider the evidence heard before the joint commission. The taotai then reported to the yamên the same proof that they already had, and I was in the same difficulty from which I thought I had escaped, that is, no foreign evidence was before the yamên. I immediately represented to the yamên that, owing to the misconstruction of my instructions, and owing, partly, to a misconception of the true meaning of the taotai, the consul had failed to introduce the foreign witnesses before the joint commission, and the actual situation had not changed at all. I very earnestly asked that the case be reopened and remanded again, so that on a new hearing we might have all the evidence before us; but the yamên refused to grant any relief, stating that it was contrary to Chinese law; that the case had been twice heard, once before a joint commission, and was at an end, and proceeding further to argue that on the merits there was no cause of action. I also proceeded to argue the case on the merits. I strenuously strove also to show to them that such evident errors as had occurred should be remedied at any stage of the proceedings. But my efforts were in vain, and no remedy now remains to Mr. McCaslin in China. I reported all this to the consul and suggested to him that the only chance for recovery on the part of McCaslin was to represent the facts to the Department of State, with the view of recouping the amount claimed in any future application that might be made to the Government of the United States for damages claimed by the Chinese in the United States for injuries, should such case ever arise.
This legation has latterly been very much pressed with work, and I have not deemed it necessary to send you complete copies of all the correspondence with the yamên in this case, but will do so if you so direct.
I have, etc.,