Mr. Blaine to Mr. Denby.
Washington, January 31, 1890.
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 understand [Page 161] 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.,