I have responded to Dr. Lord, that he is at liberty to send his dispatches to
the authorities in English if he can do so without sacrificing any of the
interests committed to him.
[Inclosure 1 in No. 719.]
Mr. Lord to Mr.
Seward.
Ningpo, May 31,
1880.
No. 124.]
Sir: I venture to submit a few remarks for your
consideration on the question which forms the subject of this letter,
namely, “Why should not foreign officials use their own language in
their communications addressed to the Chinese authorities?”
That they should do so, and that they should do so as soon as it could be
made practicable, was certainly contemplated at the time when the
treaties were made, as a number of these treaties have stipulations to
that effect.
In the English treaty, Article I, we read: “All official communications
addressed by the diplomatic and consular agents of Her Majesty the Queen
to the Chinese authorities shall, henceforth, be written in English.
They will, for the present, be accompanied by a Chinese version, but it
is understood that, in the event of there being any difference of
meaning between the English and Chinese text, the English Government
will hold the sense as expressed in the English text to be the correct
one.”
The language of the French treaty, Article III, is to the same effect,
only more explicit. We read: “Les communications officio lies des agents
diplomatiques et consulates français avee les autorités chinoises seront
écrites en français, niais seront accompagnées, pour faciliter le
service, d’une traduction chinoise aussi exacte que possible, jusqiv’au
moment oú le gouvernemeut impérial de Pérkin ayant des interprètes pour
parler et ècrire correctement le francais, la correspondance aura lieu
dans cette langue pour les agents francais, et en chinois pour les
fonctionnaires de l’empire.”
Several of the other treaties have similar stipulation, but I need not
burden this
[Page 289]
letter with
further quotations. Their language on this subject is the language of
reason simply stating what should be, and what commonly is, official
custom, that communications are made in the language of the party
addressing, and that translations of them, if translations are needed,
must be provided by the party addressed. There would be no justice,
there would be great inconvenience in laying the burden of making these
translations all upon one side. And so it is never done except under
extraordinary circumstances, and then only, as here contemplated, till
these circumstances can be changed. At the time these treaties were
made’, it was understood that the Chinese Government could not perform
its part of this work, for the want of suitable interpreters. So foreign
governments kindly consented to perform this work for it, until it
should have time to provide its interpreters, it being understood, of
course, that prompt and efficient effort would be made in that
direction. This was many years ago, time more than enough for all the
interpreters needed to have been born, reared, trained, and put into
service. But we see them not.
The burden which we took up then we have still to carry; and there is
very little doubt but we shall have to carry it forever, unless we
ourselves determine to lay it down. The Chinese certainly will never
offer to relieve us of it. They understand too well the convenience and
advantage afforded them by their present freedom. But we need not blame
them for this. We might do the same in like circumstances, for we can
easily imagine what a convenience it would be to us, if, in our
intercourse with these officials, we could use our own language in our
communications to them, and then have them use it in their
communications to us. To be rid of the endless bother which we now
experience, first in trying to understand them, and then in trying to
make them understand us, would be a boon that we might well covet. This
boon—this peculiar privilege—they have long enjoyed, and one can hardly
wonder if they are loth to part with it now. Of course the peculiar
privilege which they have enjoyed we cannot expect. We cannot ask the
Chinese to speak and write to us in English. They will use their own
language, and it is right and proper that they should, but we may ask
and insist upon a similar right, the right to use our language in our
communications to them.
* * * * * * *
I do not know whether you will regard this a subject of sufficient
importance to demand your attention either now or at some future time.
But it is one which practical difficulties have often forced upon my
attention; and I have taken the liberty of submitting to you these few
remarks upon it.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 719.]
Mr. Seward to Mr.
Lord.
Peking, June 12,
1880.
No. 69.]
Sir: I have had the honor to receive your very
interesting dispatch No. 124. I concur in your view that it is desirable
to use the English language in letters addressed to the Chinese
authorities, whenever we can do so without injury to the interests
involved, and that it will be allowable to write in English, having
reference to treaty stipulations and to some, at least, international
usages.
If you believe, then, that you can discontinue the preparation of
dispatches in Chinese, sending them to the authorities in English,
without sacrificing the interest confided to you, you have my full
approval for adopting such course.
I am, &c.,
