Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 6, 1880
No. 135.
Mr. Seward
to Mr. Evarts.
Pelting, November 25, 1879. (Received January 7, 1880.)
Sir: I have the honor to hand to you herewith the report of the committee, appointed at the recent conference of foreign representatives at this capital, to consider the changes needed in the forms of intercourse between foreign and native officials, together with two memoranda presented to the committee by the two senior interpreters of the services represented and a protocol adopted by the conference.
The report of the committee does not differ essentially from the conclusions reached by the ministers who considered the subject in 1876, shown in the protocol transmitted to the department with my dispatch No. 177.
I beg leave to ask for authority to sustain my colleagues in an effort to secure the adoption of the changes proposed.
I have, &c.,
Report of the committee upon official intercourse.
The question which your committee has had to consider might be generally described as the question of etiquette, a term which may be held to include the conditions of personal relations and of official correspondence alike.
It is in the provinces that the change seems more particularly to be called for, though [Page 186] in these, as elsewhere, there has been improvement of late. Up to a recent date the chiefs of provincial governments were on some occasions all hut inaccessible to consular officers desiring to see them on business or to pay them a visit; accessible only if the foreign official would accept admittance into the Yamên by such entrance as would be the only one open to a Chinese of rank corresponding to the consuls when waiting on the provincial superior as his subordinate. This state of things has been modified, and greatly for the better.
It seems unquestionably desirable that whether at a port or in the interior, a consular officer, having occasion to speak to the governor-general or governor of a province on business, should be assured access to the high authority, and that neither, when admitted into his Yamên nor into his presence, he should be treated as the subordinate of the high authority no matter what the inferiority of his official rank. The Chinese perfectly understand what is due from host to guest, and no more should be asked for.
In the forms of correspondence between the consular officers and provincial authorities, high and low, some changes have long been called for. The earlier treaties assigned to consular officials certain conditions of co-ordination with Chinese officials which have in themselves a certain value, and which, at all events, it is not proposed to disturb. But the prescription of forms in correspondence which at first sight appear the logical consequence of this co-ordination of grades was not equally happy.
The whole subject is treated exhaustively in the two memoranda appended, the one prepared by Monsieur Devéria, interpreter of the French legation, and the other by Monsieur Arendt, interpreter of the German legation. Both gentlemen recommend substitution for the form, more or less objectionable, in which foreign consuls and high provincial authorities have addressed each other, the term “wên i,” to “correspond officially,” to which no objection can be taken on the part of the foreigner, and to which it will scarcely be possible for the Chinese to object. The term, though official, marks nothing as to the rank either of the writer or person written to.
In correspondence between the legation and the Tsung-li Yamên the term “chao hui,” heretofore used in accordance with treaty, should be retained.
It has been usual for the high provincial authorities, in their dispatches to consular officers, to prefix to the word indicating the consular officer addressed, when there was occasion to mention him in the body of the document, the word “kai.” This, the accepted form of the high officer’s dispatch “cha,” which is literally an “instruction” considered, is idiomatically correct, but it is as objectionally depreciatory as the term “cha” itself. It would be desirable to substitute for it, when the consul is spoken to, the word “kuei,” which, with the noun, forms the second person of politeness; and when he is spoken of, as in a communication to the consul’s superior, he is to substitute his surname. The old form in the latter case might be translated, “This consul”; the proposed substitute, “Mr. Consul, so and so.”
memorandum upon official intercourse by mr. c. arendt.
With reference to the form of correspondence between Chinese and foreign officials of unequal rank it is my opinion:
1. That the term “cha hsing,” which has been in use until now for dispatches from governors-general to consuls, &c., and which, in Article XI of the treaty of Nanking (Mayers, p. 3), is translated by “declaration,” but in reality designates an “instruction” sent from a higher official to a direct subordinate, should be completely abolished.
But I hold also that—
2. The term “shin chin” or “shin chin,” translated by “statement” in the treaty of Nanking and by “memorial” in Article VII of the United States treaty of 1858 (Mayers, p. 86), which has been used by consuls writing to governors-general, is equally inadmissible. To prove this it is only necessary to keep before one’s eyes the facts that (a) according to fol. 11 vers. ult. of the first volume of the Chinese official quarterly almanac, subordinate civil officers in writing to the superior provincial authorities make use of the characters “shen wen,”* (b) that the inspector-general of customs in addressing the Tsung-li Yamên employes the characters “shen cheng.” This shows that the character and its combinations should only be used by subordinates addressing their direct superiors,† and are not fit therefore for correspondence between foreign and Chinese officials.
[Page 187]3. In trying to find other expressions for those to be discarded in future, I understand the task before us to be to substitute for them characters which have upon them no mark whatever of either superiority or inferiority, or equality of rank or position, on the one side or the other.
Such a general expression containing simply the idea of official correspondence without any by-thought seems to be supplied by the Chinese characters “wen yi,” which indicate simply the transmission “yi” of an official document (“wen”) from any civil or military officer to another, as is proved by many passages in the official Chinese quarterly almanac (1. 1. and fol. 16, 199, of the part treating of military officers).
For there it is said at every moment that as regards the mutual transmission of official documents addressed by the one to the other (“wen yi”), this one will use such and the other such characters. “Wen yi” seems to me, therefore, to be the general term needed for the purpose before us.
4. I hold, therefore, that the characters “wen yi” would form a very appropriate basis for dispatches from the governor-general, or any other very high officer, to a consul-general or consul, and vice versa; or from an official lower than a taotai to a consul or consul-general, and vice versa, with one word for all cases when officials of unequal rank, or considered an such, write to each other in an official form.
5. To show the manner in which this system would work, in detail, the following remarks will suffice:
I. In the body and at the end of the dispatch where in the dispatches between the Yamên and the legations or consuls and taotais the characters “wei chas hui shih,” “so and so sends a chao hui or communication,” are employed at present, we would write in the above-named cases “wei wen yi shih,” “so and so hereby transmits a dispatch.”
The expression corresponding to” wei tzu chas hui,” “therefore I send this chao hui, or communication,” would be “wei tzu wen yi,” “therefore I send this official document,” for “hsee chih chao hui che” “a necessary communication,” it would be “hsee chih wen yi che” “a dispatch necessary to be sent,” and for “yo chao hui” “the above is a communication sent to so and so” it would be “yo wen yi,” “the above official paper is sent to so and so.”
II. On the title page of the dispatch, where the yamên, legations, &c., at present use the words “chao hui,” “a communication,” as a noun substantive, I believe, for idiomatical reasons, that a transposition of the characters wen yi would be recommendable, and one should write “yi wen” “a dispatch to be transmitted.” So also in the body of the dispatch for “I have received your chao hui” it should be I think “I have received your wen yi.”
III. The characters “lai wen,” literally the dispatch that has come from you, i. e. “your dispatch,” which occur frequently in chao huis, ought not to be changed in dispatches between officials of unequal ranks.
IV. Where the writer wants to express the idea of reply, characters such as “fu wen” “a dispatch in reply,” corresponding to “chao fu” “a communication in reply,” and “wen fun” “to reply in an official form,” ought to be used.
V. On the envelope of the dispatch, the characters used in chas huis communications between the Yamên and legations, &c., viz: “kung wen tsze chih,” “a paper on public business sent to so and so” ought either to remain unchanged “or yi wen tsze chih” “an official missive sent to so and so,” substituted for them. The former expression seems to me preferable for merely international reasons.
Where on the envelope of communications (chas huis) the words “tang tai k’ai ch’ai, to be opened on his raised platform,” appear in Peking, the likewise common phrase “tang tiang k’ai ch’ai,” “to be opened in his hall,” might be used by governors-general writing to consuls, &c., but as a mere form of politeness, consuls writing to governors-general, &c., might retain the former phrase, “to be opened on his raised platform.”
VI. The use of the character “kai-in” addressing the person to whom the dispatch is written, as “kai ling shih,” “the consul in question,” should be entirely discarded and “kuei ling shih,” “the honorable consul,” and so on, invariably substituted for it.
VII. The principle of elevation of characters to the top of the column or above it, should be the same in the new form of dispatches as it has been until now in chao huis, and no deviation of any kind from it be permitted.
VIII.VIII. It ought to be expressly stipulated that the whole phraseology of the dispatch should be in accordance with the general principle, and no expression indicating superiority be admitted nor any expression indicating inferiority be demanded.
6. Whilst, therefore, the new form of wen yi would be applicable in every case without hurting sensibilities on either part, so that also, for instance, I think, a consul might well accept this form from an inferior Chinese official, I hold on the other hand that the form of chao hui, which by the established usage of long years, though not in its original Chinese application, is expressive of absolute equality, might be conveniently retained in all those cases in which it has hitherto been made use of. So that there would be two, but only two, forms, the chao hui in all cases where it has existed until now, and the wen yi for all other cases without exception.
7. I would think it important to stipulate that, besides the seal, no other circles, [Page 188] marks, &c., in red ink, should be admissible neither in chao huts nor in wen yis, as they are a decided sign of superiority on the part of the writer.
The number of columns on one page ought to be in all cases mutually the same between foreign and Chinese officials.
8. As the term chao hui has become, as already mentioned, in the course of time an explicit expression of perfect equality (by which it differs from the entirely general term of wen yi), its extension to all other cases would probably not only meet with much opposition on the part of the Chinese, but also be less acceptable to consuls, &c., receiving dispatches from inferior Chinese officials.
9. As there is, in fact, nothing to find fault with in the form of chao hui as hitherto in use, I do not think it would either be necessary or convenient to extend the form of wen yi to those cases in which, until now, chao hui has been employed.
10. About the correspondence in the form of half official and friendly letters, nothing need be said. It has to my knowledge never given rise to objections on the one part or the other, and may remain as it was (only it might be well to stipulate that the character pi instead of pên must never be used and cannot be demanded).
I think it only right to state at the end, that by far the greatest part of the above arguments have not originated with myself but have been supplied to me in conversation with my colleagues and others. So, before all, the reference to the Chinese official almanac, only some of the details have been worked out by me.
memorandum by mr. deveria.
Règlement régissant la forme de missives officielles (sueny) échangees entre fonctionnaires civils de tous rangs.
Les autorités supérieures (dites du Tche-ly), dans leurs correspondances officielles avec les fonctionnaires de leur département, se serviront de la formule “pancarte;” les fonctionnairs sous leurs orders se serviront de la formule “exposé.”
Le Tchefou (préfet), écrivant á son assistant (Tso-Eurh), se servira de la formula “exposé.”
L’assistant se servira vis-à-vis de lui de la formule “soumission de rapport.”
II en sera de même des sous-préfets, Tche-tcheou et Tche-hsien, vis-à-vis de leurs assistants, et réciproquement.
Les sous-préfets (tche-tcheou) dites du tche-ly, dans leurs correspondances officielles avec des préfets, tche-fou-se, serviront de la formule “soumission de pancarte;” le préfet usera de celle de “communication à l’enere noire.”
Le directeur universitaire correspondant avec le trésorier de la province (fan-sse) ou le grand juge provincial (nieh-sse) addressera sa missive à ces personnages, mais au has de la suscription il ajoutera “aux soins de ses sécrétaires.”
Les trésorier et grand juge, dans leur correspondance avec le directeur universitaire se serviront de l’expression “signification confinée aux soins de nos sécrétaires pour être remise au directeur universitaire.”
Dans sa correspondance avec les Taotais le directeur universitaire se servira de l’expression “pancarte,” en retour de laquelle le Taotai se servira de la formule “lettre soumise á—.”
Les directeurs des métiers impériaux—Tche tsao—dans leurs correspondances avec les Tche-fou (préfets) et les Tche hsien (sous préfets de 2de classe) se serviront de la formule “pancarte.”
Les Tche-fou et les Tche hsien en s’addressant à lui useront de la formule, “soumission de subordonné.”
Tels sont les renseignements ofiiciels fournis par 1’Almanach trimestriel administratif.
A part cela les individus dépourvus de fonctions mais ayant un titre nobiliaire se serviraient vis-à-vis des fonctionnaires de tous rangs de l’expression “déliberation.”*
Les fonctionaires se serviraient vis-á-vis d’eux de la même formule.
Les savants ou docteurs enseignants ou hommes considérable en Chine et qui n’exercent pas de fonctions officielles se serviraient de l’expression “information.”
Les autorités leur répondraient suivant la meme formule. Le même Almanach contient le règlement relatif aux visites officielles échangées entre les fonctionnaires chinois.
Les Tsan tsiang, les Yeou Ki, se servent de la formule.
Les Fou sze, les Chao-pei, se servent de la formule.
protocol.
The report of the committee upon official intercourse having been this day read before a general meeting of the representatives of treaty powers assembled in Peking, it was agreed that the attention of the Chinese Government should be invited to the propositions therein contained; but verbally and not in correspondence.
- THOMAS FRANCIS WADE.
- M. v. BRANDT.
- GEORGE F. SEWARD.
- J. H. FERGUSON.
- J. F. ELMORE.
- FERD. de LUCA.
- HOFFER de HOFFENFELS.
- A. KOYANDER.
- R. G. y OSSA.
- PATENÔTRE.
- HUB. SERRUYS.
- The same objection as against “shen “would, in my opinion, also hold good against “hsiang,” an explanation as it may be proved from the official almanac that “hsiang wens” or explanation statements are only addressed by subordinates to their superiors, and never replied to in the same form.↩
- There is only one exception to this rule, viz: When a prefect, in writing to his second (the T’ung-chih), uses by courtesy the expression “shen wen,” the latter replies then by a “tieh-cheng” or ““submission of report.” This solitary case can have no influence on the matter in question.↩
- Ne se trouve pas dans l’Almanach. C’est le Ta King, Hoei Tien Kin 328, fos. 92, 97, chapitre—, qui attesterait l’exactitude de ce renseignement.↩