Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Second Session Thirty-eighth Congress, Part III

Mr. Burlingame to Mr. Seward

No. 73.]

Legation of the United States, Peking, May 26, 1864.

Sir: I have the honor to enclose (marked A, B, C, D, E) a correspondence in relation to smuggling and arrests on the Yangtse. The strictures of the prince upon Mr. Seward are alluded to in dignified language in my reply, (C,) and were subsequently made the subject of satisfactory explanations. The truth is, there is no more scrupulous or hard-working consul anywhere than Mr. Seward, and at this time none are more ready to admit the fact than the Chinese themselves. The trouble here is that the local authorities, desiring to make a show of activity, send up the most exaggerated statements in relation to everybody and everything. The consuls form a fruitful subject of their attack; but learning at length that their statements are not permitted to go unchallenged, the local Chinese officials are becoming more cautious. The authorities here, exasperated at the undeniable violations of the treaty by lawless parties, are too apt to confound respectable merchants with smugglers and rebels, and to use the same language in reference to all. Time and patience alone are required to correct these things. I do not reply in kind; if I did, the controversy would be endless and fruitless. My practice is to correspond as little as possible, and then to make my letters brief and plain. This course gradually wins their respect and leads them into a more respectful style. Nothing confuses them more than to let them know that you think their have been wanting in politeness. I am trying with my colleagues to secure a “mixed commission,” which will at least collect evidence not to be denied by either party. Now, both parties send up the most confused and contradictory statements. From these I say one thing, and the Chinese another; from this unpromising attitude we seek an equitable solution of questions. In the interests of justice I sometimes go to the verge of diplomatic propriety in seeking to controvert what I may deem the false statements of their officials.

The Chinese feel sensitive when I give more weight to our people’s statements than to those of their people. In an enclosure to my despatch No. 74, which will go with this, you will find a significant illustration of this feeling, where they express the hope that as they believed my statements in the Scotland case, that I will believe theirs as unquestionably in turn. I write the above to show the difficulties of the situation, and to explain the correspondence which I sometimes send you. I believe my relations with them were never better than they are at present. Our frequent interviews have made us well acquainted and strengthened our faith in each other.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

ANSON BURLINGAME.

Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c.

A.

Prince Kung to Mr. Burlingame

Prince Kung, chief secretary of state for foreign affairs, herewith makes a communication.

On the 20th instant I received a despatch from Li, the governor of Kiangsu, and acting superintendent of commerce, as follows:

“I enclose a report from a captain in charge of marines, named Sun Shenching, to the following purport:

“While cruising about between Pie-kiang, Hung-kau, and Kaw-miaw, I observed a small Chinese boat, manned by foreigners, and suspecting something from her motions, I boarded her, and found four foreigners, with arms, opium, &c., in the hold; on one of them was discovered a passport from a rebel chief named Yin. I now hand them all over to the proper officer for examination.

“The intendant of Sie-chan then had the foreigners brought up to his office. One was named Willie Hart; another, Thomas Hanson; a third, Faniko White; and the fourth, George Shurersy—all of them British, as well as the arms and other articles, and the vessel, which belonged to H. Evans & Co. They were accordingly all sent to the British consul, with a copy of the rebel passport and the evidence taken, to be tried and punished, and a request that Evans might be arrested and punished. Shi Tsai-lung, the master of the boat, and his men, were imprisoned for trial.

“The British consul replied to the intendant that only Willie Hart was a British subject, and he should be punished; but that Thomas Hanson was a Dane, and Faniko White and George Shurersy were Prussians, and had all been handed over to their respective consuls for trial. He further informed the intendant that in examining the firm of Evans & Co., it was proved by two witnesses that the American firm of H. Leighton & Co. had chartered three vessels from them, as their account-books could show. They could not know to what purposes the vessels would be applied after chartering, and asked to have them returned. The intendant decided that the vessel having been found with arms and ammunition on board, was justly confiscated, whoever owned her; and the evidence respecting the participation of H. Leighton & Co., in trading in the same, was very clear. An under officer in the court named Ying-meh also deposed that the said firm had already been convicted of illegal traffic, and punished by the British consul for it, and that it was notorious for the way in which it aided the rebels.”

All these facts have been made known to the United States consul, who has hitherto failed to reply to them, and it is generally supposed that he tries to screen them, even if engaged in this contraband trade, and, if possible, to let them off without punishment.

On receiving the above, I, the prince, have looked at Art. XIV of the United States treaty, which provides “that any citizen of the United States who shall trade in contraband articles of merchandise shall be subject to be dealt with by the Chinese government, without being entitled to any countenance or protection from that of the United States.” This language is explicit, and the stipulation severe, to induce traders to regard it; but the recent Yangtse regulations contain even stronger rules against aiding the rebels. Since last year I have written several times respecting such practices to your excellency, requesting that they be restrained; one of these despatches related to a foreign steamer going to a place held by rebels—Kwanyin-mun—to which I was honored by a reply as follows: “The conduct of this steamer in thus disregarding the treaty should be denounced, and as soon as the facts regarding her proceeding are ascertained she shall be punished as the law provides. If United States citizens transgress the regulations at any time I hope you will inform me immediately, that I may aid the Chinese authorities in bringing offenders to justice, and so the innocent will not be implicated.”

It appears, therefore, that the merchants have been repeatedly warned by your excellency as well as myself, so that the disregard of all laws by the firm of H. Leighton & Co., in this contemptuous manner, is the more surprising. Their former punishment and imprisonment by the British consul for dealing in contraband articles did not deter them, for they are again detected in supplying arms and ammunition to the rebels. Such wilful contumacy should not again be overlooked.

The intendant copied out the rebel passport, and the evidence taken for the information of the consul, who ought, therefore, by treaty, to give up the manager of the vessel to the Chinese authorities, and not try to screen him. Why is it then, when the proof is so clear, that the consul has delayed his reply? for this is one of those cases where the treaty allows jurisdiction to the Chinese alone. It was an act of courtesy for the intendant to inform Mr. Seward of the facts, that he might inquire into them for adjudication; but if he obstinately delays all action, and thinks that he can screen the offenders in some way, it will then remain for the Chinese officers to attend to the case themselves, and carry treaty provisions into effect.

As your excellency regards this illegal and clandestine traffic with utter disfavor, and desires that it be punished in all cases as a warning, I hope that you will strictly enjoin upon Mr. Seward the immediate trial of the parties in this case, without any specious excuses or delay, so that it may be concluded, and a stop be put to similar and even worse proceedings.

I shall enclose a copy of this communication to Li, the governor of Kiangsu, ordering him to attend to the settlement of the case in accordance with treaty, and it is in order to inform your excellency that I send this to you.

His Excellency Anson Burlingame, United States Minister,

April 23, 1863—Tungchi, 2d year, 3d moon, 6th day.

B.

[Untitled]

Prince Kung, chief secretary of state for foreign affairs, herewith sends a communication.

The superintendent of commerce at Shanghai, Li, has forwarded to me the following report:

“The intendant of circuit here has lately informed me as follows: A steamer was recently seized from the American firm of H. Leighton & Co., who had chartered it from the English firm of Evans & Co., detected in furnishing arms and ammunition to the rebels. In her were taken a number of persons—Willie Hart, Thomas Hanson, Faniko White, George Shurersy, and others, who were all handed over to the four consuls of their respective countries to be dealt with and punished according to treaty stipulations. The British, Danish, and Prussian consuls replied that they had examined and punished the men, and the steamer belonging to Evans had been confiscated legally, the British consul making no objection to the procedure. But Mr. Seward, the American consul, had said in his reply that he had sent for Mr. McCready, the leading man in the firm of H. Leighton & Co., who had declared that they owned 192 kegs of gunpowder, and that the matter needed to be most thoroughly examined before deciding it; to which I, the intendant, answered, that this part of the case was involved in the evidence given by Evans; and furthermore, that Mr. McCready himself had acknowledged the facts, and the whole matter had been fully inquired into. Several times I have urged Mr. Seward to adjudicate the case and punish the offenders, but he still persists in adhering to the same course. I beg, therefore, that you will communicate with the American minister at Peking, in order that he may require the case to be speedily settled.”

It appears, on looking over the records, that the firm of H. Leighton & Co. has already been engaged in supplying the rebels with arms and ammunition, as I, the prince, have already informed your excellency. In the present instance the British, Danish, and Prussian consuls have already punished their subjects for their complicity in the transaction, and Evans’s steamer has been confiscated, so that, the case is settled so far as they are concerned. But the consul of your honorable country, Mr. Seward, still replies in a crafty manner, refusing to adjudicate it, so that it seems as if he were desirous to get the offenders clear. The prohibition for private individuals to trade in arms and ammunition is well known; but how much stronger is this case, wherein the head of the firm confesses to having privately traded in 192 kegs of powder, and thereby completes all the evidence wanted in the clearest manner.

If the consul determines thus to violate the treaty, our own officials have only to maintain them fully and to carry them out by seizing and settling the matter themselves. I have, therefore, to request your excellency sharply to instruct the consul to carry out the requirements of the treaty in this case immediately, and settle the same without any more delays and partialities, so that its results may serve as a warning for the future to all concerned.

His Excellency Anson Burlingame, United States Minister, &c., &c., &c.,

January, 28, 1864—Tungchi, 2d year, 12th moon, 19th day.

C.

Mr. Burlingame to Prince Kung

Legation of the United States, Peking, January 30, 1864.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge your highness’s despatch of the 19th instant, in which you inform me of the American firm of H. Leighton & Co. having been found trading in arms and ammunition, and the seizure of 192 kegs of gunpowder, &c.

I have carefully read this communication, for, as Mr. Seward’s report has not yet been received, I had before heard nothing about the matter. If the report of the intendant is full, and there are no other circumstances connected with the case, the treaty requires the property to be confiscated, and I will instruct the consul general to adjudicate the case equitably, in conformity to treaty requirements.

In the despatch under reply it is remarked that Mr. Seward stated that he wished to have the case most thoroughly examined before deciding it; from which might be inferred that there was some other reason, or that there were more points still undetermined. I am able to say that he desires most carefully to inquire into all the circumstances of every case, without any leaning to either side, and that when he has ascertained all the truth respecting this one, it will be decided equitably as between the two parties, in conformity to the stipulations of the treaty. But in this first despatch respecting the case, and when the facts are not yet all known, it is inexpedient to intimate that there has been any partiality, and hence feel suspicious and indignant at his conduct, in order to render the decision of such cases as this more strict and exact.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

ANSON BURLINGAME.

His Imperial Highness Prince Kung, &c., &c., &c.

D.

[Untitled]

Prince Kung, chief secretary of state for foreign affairs, herewith makes a communication.

In the reply just received from your excellency you observe: “I have heretofore heard nothing of the case of the firm of H. Leighton & Co. having been found trading in 192 kegs of gunpowder, in violation of law, as the despatches respecting it have not been received;” and add in conclusion, “In the first despatch respecting the case, when the facts are not yet all known, it is inexpedient to intimate that partiality has been shown, and hence feel suspicious and indignant at his conduct, in order to render the decision of such cases as this more strict and exact.”

Now, on the contrary, this case of H. Leighton & Co. was reported to you on the 23d of last April, with a request that the consul at Shanghai might be ordered to adjudicate the case immediately; but no reply has been received to that despatch. In the report recently received from the superintendent of commerce at Shanghai, he says that the British, Danish, and Prussian consuls have replied, informing him that the guilty parties have been punished and Evans’s steamer confiscated; but that Mr. Seward says the 192 kegs of powder belong to Mr. McCready, of the firm of H. Leighton & Co., and careful examination is needed before deciding the case. All these particulars were stated in my despatch of the 27th ultimo for your excellency’s information and action. The case occurred last spring, or more than half a year since; and there can hardly be any other reason why you have not learned all its features than the intentional dilatoriness of Mr. Seward, as any one may see. This statement is not the first, but the second, therefore; and it was owing to the high regard I have for you that I was induced to delay for six months, or more, before pressing the matter.

In reference to your remark that there should be no partiality shown, it may be observed that Mr. McCready, having himself confessed that the 192 kegs of powder belonged to him, and no one else had implicated him, has thereby completed all the evidence wanted, and removed all grounds for partiality. The truth of the whole affair is, that the ease is a plain violation of the treaty, and Mr. Seward should not try, as it appears, to screen the offenders by needless delay in settling it. It is proper, therefore, for me to bring it again to your notice, and request that he may be strictly enjoined to proceed with the case and punish the criminals as required by the treaty. The matter is very important, and it is for this end that I now send this communication.

His Excellency Anson Burlingame, United States Minister to China.

February 3, 1864—Tungchi, 2d year, 12th moon, 26th day.

Note in reply.

Legation of the United States, Peking, February 6, 1864.

Sir: In your communication of the 27th ultimo, respecting the firm of H. Leighton & Co., which has been engaged in trading with gunpowder, the date of the transaction was not stated; and in the one written last April, there was nothing stated respecting the 192 kegs of powder, so I inferred that the present was a new transaction. I therefore trust that you will excuse the mistake in my reply. As nothing has been received by me concerning this whole proceeding of last April, I supposed it had been already settled at Shanghai, and have not, therefore, written to urge its speedy settlement; but I will do so now, and enjoin on the consul general to investigate and decide it according to treaty. When he has informed me of his action, I will reply to the present despatch officially for the information of your imperial highness.

With compliments and best wishes, I have the honor to be, yours, most obediently,

ANSON BURLINGAME.

His Imperial Highness Prince Kung, &c., &c., &c.