Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 6, 1875, Volume I
No. 161.
Mr. Avery
to Mr. Fish.
Peking, June 11, 1875. (Received August 9.)
Sir: In further reference to the question of missionary rights beyond treaty-ports, I have the honor to inclose an unofficial note from R. M. Johnson, esq., consul at Han-kow, discussing a correspondence between Mr. Beebe, formerly acting consular agent at Kiu-kiang, and Mr. Low, in which the latter clearly states the views set forth at more length in his dispatches to the Department.
In my reply to Mr. Johnson I discourage the tendency to establish permanent missions farther in the interior. It seems to be unnecessary to add anything to what I have already written on the subject.
I have, &c.,
Mr. Johnson to Mr. Avery.
My Dear Sir: Please permit me to refer unofficially to my official com you of the 1st instant, in reference to the Shinchang affair, and to hand you certain documents touching the question at issue, which may not have come to your excellency’s notice, being unofficial papers.
The questions submitted in my unofficial communications above referred to were asked Mr. Low in a private note, as far back as 1872, under the following circumstances: In 1872 Mr. Hart, then as now superintendent of the American Methodist Episcopal mission at Kiu-kiang, expressed a wish to establish a station in the interior, at, I think, [Page 338] the capital of Kiangsi Province. I had several interviews with Mr. Beebe, then acting consular agent at Kiu-kiang, and finally it was determined to write to Mr. Low and obtain his views on the subject. Accordingly, on the 16th of December, 1872, Mr. Beebe wrote Mr. Low a private note, asking him certain questions in regard to the rights of missionaries to locate in the interior, &c.
Mr. Low replied to Mr. Beebe, in an unofficial note dated January 15, 1873, in which he answered Mr. Beebe’s question plainly and decidedly. I now hand you copies of the two letters above referred to, thinking you may like to see them, and supposing there are no records of them in the legation, they being unofficial communications.
The question at issue is one of grave importance, and should be settled at once decidedly.
If the missionaries have no right to establish in the interior, then they should be informed of the fact, and warned against building or renting chapels outside of the treaty-ports. But if, on the contrary, they have a right by treaty-provision to rent or build chapels in the interior, then they should be protected in this right to do so, and the local authorities should be held responsible for such occurrences as the Shinchang affair. I beg to ask that your excellency will give me your views on this subject, and instruct me what action to take in case American missionaries again wish to rent chapels outside of this port or Kiu-kiang.
I might mention that I have shown Mr. Low’s letter (to Mr. Beebe) to the missionaries at Kiu-kiang for their information, but they seem disinclined to accept his view of the case.
The feeling among the natives at Kin-kiang, as I recently wrote you, is one of bitter hatred of all foreigners, especially missionaries, and, unless the latter are very prudent in their movements, I fear trouble of a serious kind may arise.
I have nothing further to report in regard to the destruction of the chapel at Kiu-kiang than what I gave you in my 348 of the 12th instant.
I am, sir, very respectfully, yours,
Hon. Benjamin P. Avery,
United States Minister, Peking.
Mr. Beebe to Mr. Low.
My Dear Mr. Low: Mr. V. C. Hart, an American missionary at this port, contemplates establishing a station some distance in the interior, for the purpose of extending his business, i. e., converting the heathen.
Before proceeding, however, he wishes to know the amount of protection he will have from the United States, and has addressed the following questions to me, viz:
- 1st.
- “Can American citizens purchase, legally, property outside a treaty-port?”
- 2d.
- “If property can be purchased thus, and dwellings or chapels be built thereon, will the American Government hold the Chinese government responsible for damage or destruction of said property by mob or other violence of the Chinese?
- 3d.
- “Can full damages be recovered in case rented property be destroyed, outside a treaty-port?”
The above are Mr. Hart’s questions, and he further adds: “I should like to be clear in my own mind; for some two years since Dr. Jenkins, late of Shanghai, informed me that the favored-nation clause might not be pressed in such case.”
Can you give me a reply to these queries? I do not address yon officially, because it occurs to me that you may feel more free to answer privately.
Yours, truly,
Hon. F. F. Low, Peking.
Mr. Low to Mr. Beebe.
Peking, January 15, 1873.
Dear Sir: Your note of the 16th ultimo, inquiring what rights missionaries have in regard to the purchase or renting of land and buildings at places other than the open ports, only came yesterday.
[Page 339]In reply, I have to say that, according to the interpretation placed on the treaties by the Government of the United States, all American citizens are placed on an equality, and that no rights will be claimed for missionaries that are denied to merchants. It therefore logically follows—
- 1st.
- That there is no authority under the treaties for citizens of the United States to purchase land outside of the limits of the treaty-ports.
- 2d.
- If property be purchased, and buildings erected thereon, and they should be damaged or destroyed “by mob or other violence of the Chinese,” the claim for damages would be an equitable, rather than a legal one; and, if the local, or the imperial, authorities should refuse to respond, upon the ground that the property was purchased in violation of treaty-rights, it is extremely doubtful if our Government would sanction any proceedings which might be instituted by its diplomatic or consular officers to collect it.
- 3d.
- Merchants and missionaries are permitted by treaty to travel in the interior under passports. Any property which may be necessary for their temporary use and occupation, during such travel, it would be competent and lawful to rent, and they should be fully protected in the use and occupation thereof. If, on the other hand, property be rented for permanent residence inland, it would be subject to the same rules and liable to the same disabilities as purchased property.
To sum up the whole question in a few words, there is no provision in any of the treaties which, honestly construed, will permit of permanent residence away from the open ports. The right has been claimed under the 6th article of the French treaty of 1860, and many honestly believed, until recently, that it was legal and proper so to do. The fact is now proven that all that part of article 6, before referred to, on which missionaries have hitherto relied for their protection, is an interpolation in the Chinese text, for which there is no equivalent in the French version, which must be taken and held to be the original in cases of dispute.
* * * * * * *
There are, at the present time, a considerable number of missionaries in the interior, who went there in the full belief that they had a right to do so, and I shall do nothing which may endanger their safety or injure their usefulness. But while I shall try and protect, to the utmost of my ability, the people before referred to, my opinion is clear and decided that no further efforts should be made to establish stations inland, until we have a clear and undisputed right to do so by treaty.
Yours, very truly,
C. G. Beebe, Esq., Kiu-kiang.
Mr. Avery to Mr. Johnson.
My Dear Mr. Johnson: I have your note of the 17th ultimo, and thank you for the copies of correspondence inclosed. It appears from Mr. Low’s letter of January 15, 1873, that he was careful to cover the point about protection beyond the ports which he left untouched in his officials of 1870, to which reference is made in my dispatch to you and Mr. De Lano.
You will see from the latter that I agree with Mr. Low on the legal question at issue; indeed, there is room for but one opinion on that subject.
The difficulty is that our missionaries have advanced their stakes, and cannot be left in the lurch; yet it would be wrong to encourage them to make any new ventures beyond treaty-limits in the present unsettled and somewhat threatening aspect of the question. Knowing the policy of their Government, they ought to abstain from forcing on it embarrassments, by pursuing a course that would not be tolerated on the part , of traders for a moment, and it must be remembered that the Government can make no distinctions, if its attention is ever formally called to the matter by the Chinese. Our position is already compromised by missionary zeal, and it is certain that sooner or later the Chinese government will make complaints on the subject. I have forwarded to the Department copy of my dispatch to Mr. De Lano, with full explanation of the situation, and have asked for instructions. Meanwhile I leave it to the sense of prudence and patriotism of the missionaries if they should not learn to wait and labor where they are? Have they so well tilled the field already lawfully occupied that they can afford to enter a wider one clandestinely?
If they will be patient, it is not unlikely circumstances may occur to enable our Government, by treaty-revision with other powers, for instance, to legalize what is now done without a warrant of treaty. But whether they like it or not, the policy and wishes of the Government ought to control in an international question like this, and not the views and desires of private individuals, bent on a special object, of a nature beyond the purposes of a government entirely secular and political.
[Page 340]You are at liberty to show this note and my dispatch to the missionaries, in confidence, if you think it advisable. I am anxious to give them every facility and protection which I am likely to be sustained in affording. They must see on what delicate ground they stand when they quit the treaty-limits.
Yours, truly,