Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.
Peking, March 18, 1890. (Received May 5.)
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that a Chinese subject, having the English name of Alvin F. Howe, applied to me to-day for information as to the mode by which he can gain access to the United States.
He is a Christian, a physician by profession, and an employé of the Methodist mission at Peking. He desires to complete his medical studies in the United States under the patronage of the Methodist Board of Missions. He speaks English very well, and is in all respects reputable. It is likely that his board will apply to you to facilitate his landing in the United States. To enable you to come to a decision in his case, I make a few observations touching the general subject, as well as this particular case.
I have never made but one application to the yamên for a certificate for a Chinese subject who desired to go to the United States. The yamên’s reply to that application will be found at page 223, Foreign Relations of 1887. The yamên therein states that it has never issued such a certificate, and, impliedly, it grants my request as a compliment to me. The question whether the yamên should issue certificates, or whether the local authorities should issue them, is held up for future determination. The law on this subject will be found at page 116, United States Statutes at Large, 1883–1885, vol. 23. It will be seen by reference to it that, taking into consideration the peculiar language of China, its form of government, its immense population, the general ignorance of foreign laws and customs, the requirements of the statute are almost impossible of performance. According to the law, the certificate must be issued, by the Chinese Government, must be in English, and must cover an accurate history of the applicant. I presume that no certificate complying with these conditions has ever been issued by the Chinese Government. I have often wondered how, without such certificate, Chinese subjects ever gained the right to land in the United States. I have stated to Dr. Howe and his friends here that I deemed it inadvisable to apply to the Imperial Government for the certificate described in the statute of 1884. Some of the reasons why I do not feel inclined to raise the question now are the following: The danger that since the passage of the “Scott law” the yamên would refuse to act, the liability of precipitating a discussion of the whole Chinese question, a disinclination on my part to embark in such a discussion without instructions from you, and the feasibility, as I conceive, of accomplishing the desired purpose through the local authorities. I take it that the “Government of China” does not necessarily mean the Imperial Government, but may be construed to mean a local official, such as a taotai, who represents the Government in the district where the applicant resides.
It would evidently be impracticable to adopt any other interpretation. I have therefore advised Dr. Howe to proceed to Shanghai, near which place he resides, and secure a certificate from the taotai, and have it viséed, as required by law, by the consul-general. If you construe the law differently, and hold that the certificates provided for by the act of 1884 must be issued by the Imperial Government at Peking, I will have time to so inform Dr. Howe, who will not leave until July. If it is your desire that I shall apply to the yamên to frame definite rules under which Chinese subjects can go to the United States, I will take up that subject.
[Page 178]While it must be conceded that the whole question is involved in doubt, and that, in the course of events, some definite solution must be arrived at, still I am inclined to favor the policy of “laissez aller,” and to go slowly, and to look to precedent rather than to sudden and positive decisions.
I have, etc.,