Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.

No. 1045.]

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.

[Page 162]

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.,

Charles Denby.
[Inclosure in No. 1045.]

The missionaries to Mr. Denby.

Sir: We, the undersigned, members of the American Presbyterian mission at Chi-nan-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.

[Page 163]

The punishment of the ring leaders 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, 1888, 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 his 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 bad not yet reached you, it seems unfortunate that action was not deferred a little, since, on the one hand, 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.”
(7)
Even if the inference that was drawn was that possibly by the possession of the second piece of property there would be required a relinquishment of the first, it hardly seems to us expedient to have acquainted the Chinese authorities with the fact. It was hardly possible for you to see the probable outcome of the existing complications more clearly than we did, and yet we carefully refrained from making known to the provincial authorities our private fears or conjectures. The responsibility of making known the possible, but not desirable, result of the negotiations to the imperial authorities certainly does not rest with us.
(8)
Only at this late date, in your letter of the 19th, have we learned that the inference drawn had been made known to the Tsung-li yamên, and that your definite policy contemplated an abandonment of the original case. When Mr. Reid in July last learned that the local officials were trying to combine the two property cases, he wrote you under date of the 18th, asking whether you desired that the original points should be relinquished, and the answer of August 20 was, “In my last dispatch to the yamên I distinctly demanded a full and entire settlement, covering the first purchase, the punishment of the rioters, and compensation to you.” From this statement, therefore, we have never understood that it was expected that the possession of the second property would be given only in relinquishment of the first.
(9)
If “the possession of this new tract was to be in lieu of the original demand,” we remark that such, in fact, has not been the agreement with the Chinese authorities. In July last the deputies, on the basis of your dispatch to the Tsung-li yamên, in February, endeavored to persuade our mission to abandon the original purchase in the event of gaining possession of the second; but the proposition was rejected by the mission, and the official then stated, “We will first settle the land case,” i. e., the second purchase. When the deed of the land purchase was stamped, the officials did not insist that as a condition of settling the second it should be accepted as an exchange for the first, but rather hinted that the first case remained unsettled. In fact, then, no exchange has yet been made for the original property. Your demand that there be “a full and entire settlement covering the first purchase” has not been complied with. There was a mutual agreement on the second piece of property, and the deed therefor was duly stamped, but there has been no agreement as yet concerning the first piece.
(10)
Whatever may have been the misunderstanding of the past, we earnestly hope that it will yet be possible, considering all subsequent developments, to receive your valuable aid in the settlement of the original purchase. Since the settlement of the second purchase the mission has continued to press for the just settlement of the original case, and had begun to do so before reporting to you in November last. When Mr. Reid was in Peking in that month, he represented to you the measure of success that had already been attained, how the present time was particularly opportune, since the local gentry had ceased to oppose, and, in consequence, in seeking the further mediation of Your Excellency, he would not ask you to enter into any discussion with the Tsung-li yamên or to insist on any definite action, but merely to report that the original property case and that of the riot could not yet be considered as settled. It is therefore a great disappointment to us to read in your letter of November 20, “I can simply very gently advise the mission that, in my opinion, it would be best to abandon any claim to the original lot.” Notwithstanding your opinion, as here expressed, we sincerely trust, in view of the fact that the settlement of the original case is still considered a matter for discussion by the local officials, and therefore promises possible success, that Your Excellency may see your way clear to lend us further aid in prosecuting the case. We doubt if property has ever been purchased by missionaries in China more clearly in accord with every regulation of the country. The officials themselves have never for an instant denied the legality of the transaction. If now, after 2 years’ standing and discussion, the case should be abandoned, and that, too, by the order of the United States Government, we have grave apprehensions of the results which might follow the establishing of so unfortunate a precedent.

On the other hand, if, with moderation and perseverance, the claim for a suitable exchange for the original purchase be pressed, we hope that fitting property may be acquired, our rights vindicated, and a valuable precedent established.

Such, then, is our view as a mission of the three questions to which you direct our attention. If our language is in any way too strong, we beg you to remember that it is due to our deep sense of the importance of the questions involved. For the assistance of the past, we most heartily thank you, and we hope that the way may still be clear to receive your efficient aid in this, to us, most vital matter.

Submitting the communication to your careful attention,

We, remain, etc.,

  • John Murray,
  • Paul D. Bergen,
  • Wm. P. Chalfant,
  • W. B. Hamilton,
  • Gilbert Reid.