No. 181.
Mr. Angell
to Mr. Evarts.
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, August 20, 1880.
(Received October 12.)
No. 10.]
Sir: I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a
letter, No. 172, from Mr. De Lano, until lately consul at Foo-Chow, giving
an account of an enforcement in an offensive way of certain rules of the
governor-general of the province of Fukien, which are prejudicial to the
interests of foreign residents wishing to acquire property.
I send to you also a copy of my reply sent to the present consul, Mr.
Wingate.
You are well aware that the spirit of the inhabitants of Fukien has long been
more unfriendly to foreigners than that of most of the other inhabitants of
the coast provinces. It is thought that since, some time ago, the English
supreme court found the title of one of the English missionary societies to
the premises it occupied invalid, and restored the property to the Chinese
claimants, there has been kindled in the minds of the Chinese, both citizens
and officials, a new desire and a strong hope of making it uncomfortable, if
not impracticable, for foreigners to secure and hold leases of real
property.
Obviously, if the example set by the officials in the case recited by Mr. De
Lano is to be followed, great and perhaps insuperable obstacles will be put
in the way of our citizens who desire to lease property.
I trust my course in the matter may meet your approval.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 10.]
Mr. De Lano to Mr.
Seward.
Foochow, June 23,
1880.
No. 172.]
Sir: I have on several occasions of late, in my
dispatches, called your attention to various acts of the local and
provincial officers calculated to prejudice the natives against
foreigners, and more particularly to intimidate their people so that
they shall not dare to effect leases or sales of property to
missionaries.
In the autumn of last year the American Board mission purchased on
perpetual lease a piece of land in one of the suburbs of the city, which
they had occupied for a number of years under leases effected from year
to year. They sent their deed of lease through the consulate to the
magistrate for registration in the usual way, and in February last they
reported to me that the sellers, the Tepo of the ward, the middleman,
the writer, and the witnesses had all been summoned to the Yamên for
examination, were kept in the Yamên lock-up two days and nights, and had
been mulcted collectively in the sum of some 13,000 cash.
This was a sudden departure from the prevailing custom at the port, and
was doubtless intended to make it impossible for the mission to make
further purchase of ground. I first made inquiry about the matter, and
found that the new system had been inaugurated by order of the viceroy,
and later on I addressed a letter to the intendant on the subject,
complaining that this official interference was contrary to the spirit
and letter of Article XII of our treaty, as well as to Article XXVIII,
which forbids the extortion of illegal fees.
I stated that, according to my interpretation of those articles of the
treaty, when Chinese subjects effected sales or leases of property to
American citizens voluntarily, and without fraud or coercion, the
authorities should not interfere or intimidate. That the custom of the
past of sending a single Yamên runner to the seller to inquire if the
sale had been voluntary, and collect a fee of some 1,200 cash for
stamping the deed, had answered all necessary requirements, and had not
been complained of, and that when new regulations were made, or were
about to be made, affecting the interest of foreign residents it would
be only fair and courteous to give notice to the resident consuls.
[Page 299]
I also suggested that, as a means of preventing the possible extortion of
unlawful fees by the runners, it would be better if the foreign lessor
be required to pay the official fee for stamping the leases, and that it
be sent by the consul when sending the lease for registration.
The intendant in his reply said, “I find that in cases of perpetual lease
by foreigners from Chinese, of buildings or grounds, if the lease is
sent to the consul and by him to the local authorities, the latter ought
immediately to summon the sellers, middlemen, witnesses, &c., before
them, and after finding, by clear examination, that there has been no
breach (of treaty) nor harm to the free course of the elements, and
after making these men prepare a bond, they are immediately to affix
their seal to the lease, retain a copy, and return the other to the
consul. But when these men (the sellers, middlemen, witnesses, &c.)
are before the magistrate, any illicit extortion of fees by the runners
would be extremely improper.”
I replied to the intendant’s dispatch protesting against the practice,
and added that if the new system was to be adhered to, American
citizens, when effecting leases, would be permitted to enter upon the
possession of their property on depositing their title papers in the
consulate, and the consul might elect when he would send them to the
magistrate for registration. My last dispatch brought no response, and
as I have had no deeds for registration since there has been no revival
of the question.
I shall feel obliged for your advice as to the proper course to be
pursued in case the subject should again come up.
If the new system were to be enforced, there would be no Chinese who
would venture to sell or lease property to our people.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 10.]
Mr. Angell to Mr.
Wingate.
Peking, August 20,
1880.
No. 3.]
Sir: I have before me Mr. De Lano’s dispatch
No. 172 to Mr. Seward, giving an account of the enforcement by the
governor-general’s order of certain new rules, which are prejudicial to
the interests of foreign residents wishing to acquire property.
When one examines these rules and the manner in which they were enforced
in the case described, and especially when one recalls the spirit so
often shown in and near Foochow towards foreigners, one cannot escape
the conviction that these regulations are intended, as they are
calculated, to render the acquisition of real property by foreigners
extremely difficult, if not impossible.
I heartily approve the general spirit or Mr. De Lano’s remonstrance
against this innovation. I may suggest that Article XII of our treaty of
1858 furnishes a stronger ground than Article XXVIII on which to rest
objections to these rules and, an altogether sufficient and impregnable
ground. Clearly, the treaty assures to our citizens the right to rent
real estate freely of Chinese citizens who are willing to lease.
Clearly, the procedure resorted to in the transaction described by Mr. De
Lano must have the effect to deter Chinese from leasing and so to hinder
our citizens from obtaining leases.
You are authorized to say to the intendant that the matter has been
referred to this office, and that we cannot assent to rules and
procedures so clearly in antagonism to our treaty. You may also say that
in case any modification of the old regulations concerning the leasing
of property by foreigners is made, it seems to us but courteous and
proper that the consul should be informed of it before it is put into
execution.
Mr. De Lano states that he had informed the intendant that “henceforth,
American citizens, when effecting leases, would be permitted to enter
upon the possession of their property on depositing their title papers
in the consulate, and the consul might elect when he would send them to
the magistrate for registration.”
It is so desirable to comply promptly with all reasonable requirements
about the registration of leases that I will ask you to consider
carefully what is wise in that regard. Your acquaintance with the
circumstances and your discretion will, I am sure, lead you to a prudent
decision.
I am, &c.,
