No. 257.
Mr. Fish
to General Schenck.
Department
of State,
Washington, December 1,
1874.
No. 641.]Sir: Referring to instruction No. 603, bearing date
September 2, with which was inclosed a copy of an instruction to Mr.
Bingham, No. 65,* dated August 26, and which you were requested to read
to the minister of foreign affairs,* * * I now inclose you a copy of an
extract from a dispatch, No. 131, from Mr. Bingham in reply to that
instruction No. 65. It appeared that Sir Harry Parkes, Her Britannic
Majesty’s representative in Japan, had stated that the decision of the
foreign representatives on the occasion of their intervention upon the
arrest of a servant of the translating secretary was reached at a meeting at
which all of them were present, with the exception of the United States
minister. Mr. Bingham now informs the Department that the first intimation
of the existence of the note in question was conveyed by the instruction
from this Department, No. 65, and that he was not consulted in the matter,
or aware of the joint action referred to. It seems just to Mr. Bingham that
the same course should be taken, with reference to his explanation, as was
taken in regard to the instruction, and you are therefore instructed to read
to Lord Derby the extract herewith inclosed.
As Mr. Bingham was not aware of any joint action by the representatives of
the foreign powers on the question, there appears to be no ground for remark
arising from the absence of his name from the joint note.
I am, &c.,
[Page 584]
[Inclosure in No. 641.]
Mr. Bingham to Mr.
Fish.
United
States Legation, Japan,
Tokei, October 6, 1874.
(Received November 16.)
No. 131.]Sir: * * * * *
Touching the absence of my name from the joint note in relation to the
arrest of a Japanese servant of the translating secretary of the.
British legation, and the inquiry, of the British chargé d’affaires
whether I had communicated the occurrence to the Department, I have the
honor to say that, so far as I know or can learn from my secretary, the
information of the existence of such a joint note first reached this
legation through your instruction No. 65, and that I was not consulted
in relation thereto, either by the British minister or by any of my
colleagues. Had this joint note been submitted to me, as is usually done
when a collective note is proposed, I should have responded, either by
signing it, or by respectfully declining to sign it, for precisely the
reasons stated in your instruction.
* * * * * *
You call my attention especially to the statement of Sir Harry S. Parkes,
in relation to the assault upon the servant of the translating
secretary, that the decision of the foreign representatives was reached
at a meeting at which all of them were present, “with the exception of
the United States minister.” It would have been satisfactory to me, as I
have no doubt it would have been to you, to have been informed by Sir
Harry whether the meeting referred to was a regular or a special
meeting, and, if the latter, whether I was notified of it or its object,
and, if so, when, how, and by whom. Permit me to add that I was not
always able to be present at the regular meetings, generally held at Sir
Harry’s house at Yokohama; and, to repeat what I have heretofore said,
that I was never notified of his desire to make the arrest of his
translating secretary’s servant the subject either of consideration at a
meeting of the foreign representatives or of a joint note.
* * * * * *
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. Hamilton Fish,
Secretary of State.
