No. 169.
Mr. Angell
to Mr. Blaine.
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, July 28, 1881.
(Received September 19.)
No. 190.]Sir: I have the honor to submit to you some
correspondence between Mr. Vice-Consul Carrow and myself concerning the
refusal of a district magistrate at Canton to stamp the deeds of two lots of
land purchased by the Rev. E. Z. Simmons for the Southern Baptist
Mission.
You will observe by perusing the vice-consuls dispatch (copy inclosed) that
the magistrate refuses to stamp the deeds because, as he alleges, first,
foreigners have no right to hold lands outside the foreign concessions, and
secondly, Mr. Simmons has no right to buy for the society. Now, it is
notorious that the missionaries have for years owned and occupied estates
outside the foreign concession. It is also well known that the clause
inserted in the twelfth article of the British treaty of Tientsin, 1858,
authorizing the purchase of property “in other places” than the open ports,
was placed there with special reference to the unreasonable opposition which
had been made at Canton to securing convenient places of business and
residence.
It is also true, I believe, that there is no shadow of any ground in any
treaty for asserting that Mr. Simmons may not buy for his missionary society
if he can buy at all. This claim of the magistrate probably arises from the
fact that the French Roman Catholics, in order to secure real estate in the
interior for missionary purposes, do purchase in the name of the society or
church of Chinese converts.
This action of the district magistrate does not wear a pleasant aspect. It
may be simply the fruit of a superserviceable zeal of a new incumbent of the
office. But there are some indications that the authorities of Kwangtung are
just now inclined to a rather reactionary policy in the treatment of
foreigners. The viceroy has shown a reluctance to accept the regulations
concerning official intercourse. I have reason to believe that the
provincial authorities have embarrassed the Roman Catholics not a little
during the last few months. I have deemed it
[Page 283]
our right under the treaties, and in every way
expedient, to instruct our consular officer to take a firm position. I
inclose a copy of my dispatch to him. Trusting my course may meet your
approbation,
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 190.]
Mr. Carrow to Mr.
Angell.
Sir: I have the honor to submit for your
decision the following case:
Rev. E. Z. Simmons, an American missionary, acting for the American
Southern Baptist Mission, bought of two Chinamen (Wong Hoy Chow and Ngai
Tai Shing) two lots of ground adjoining each other, on which to erect a
dwelling-house. These lots of ground are situated on the river side,
outside the city walls, and in the immediate neighborhood of other
houses owned and occupied by missionaries. The deeds to this ground,
this office has forwarded to the Nam Hoi magistrate, through his
excellency the viceroy, for the magistrate’s stamp and verification as
is usual in such cases. He declines to stamp them for the following
reasons:
“That Shameen, the foreign concession being the “open
port of Canton,” these lots are therefore in the interior, and
China’s treaty with the United States does not allow Americans to buy land in the interior. That his predecessors
in office have committed grave errors in stamping and verifying deeds to
property which are now held by foreigners in different parts of the
city.”
Even should foreigners have the right to buy property in Canton, outside
of Shameen, he contends that these particular deeds are not proper ones
for verification, because the Reverend Simmons’ name is mentioned in
them, and that they should read the Baptist Mission buys, &c.,
instead of the Rev. Simmons buys for the American
Baptist Mission,” &c.
I have the honor therefore to submit to your excellency these two points,
viz: Can Americans buy property in Canton without
Shameen? In other words, what is to be considered the “open port of
Canton?” Second, are these deeds in proper form, and if not, how should
they be worded? I may say that the Nam Hoi admits the parties selling
the land are the lawful owners.
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 190.]
Mr. Angell to Mr.
Carrow.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your No. 16, in which you inform me that the Nam Hoi
magistrate declines to stamp the deeds of two lots of land purchased by
the Rev. E. Z. Simmons, an American citizen, acting for the American
Southern Baptist Mission. These lots lie on the river, outside the city
walls, but near to houses which missionaries have been heretofore
permitted to purchase, and which they now occupy.
The magistrate justifies his action on two grounds:
- First. That the treaties between the United States and China
do not allow our citizens to buy land beyond the walls of the
port of Canton.
- Secondly. That even if this is not the right view of the
treaties, still Mr. Simmons has no right to buy in his own name
for the mission society.
I cannot refrain from an expression of surprise that the magistrate
should suddenly depart from the example of his predecessors, when, so
far as appears, the occupancy by other foreigners of the land, in the
vicinity of which Mr. Simmons has purchased has wrought no harm to
Chinese interests.
But furthermore, his action is not sustained by the treaties. Article XII
of the British treaty of Tientsin, 1858, says:
“British subjects, whether at the ports or at other
places, desiring to build or open houses, warehouses, churches,
hospitals, or burial grounds, shall make their agreement
[Page 284]
for the land or buildings they require at
the rates prevailing among the people, equitably, and without exaction
on either side.”
Article XXX of our treaty of Tientsin, 1858, gives us all the rights and
privileges of other nations.
Now, without desiring to give to this expression “at
other places” too wide a meaning it is clear that it means
something. I believe it is historically true that it was inserted by the
British especially because of the restrictions to which foreigners had
been subjected in obtaining land in Canton. Now, when our citizens and
other foreigners have under this article been justly and peaceably
occupying land just outside the walls of Canton for many years, and the
authorities have by silence virtually admitted that such occupancy was
lawful, we have a right to protest, as we must most vigorously, against
such action as this of the Nam Hoi magistrate.
But, in the second place, the magistrate may be safely challenged to show
a line or a word in any treaty in support of his second point. If Mr.
Simmons has, as I maintain he has, a right to purchase at all in the
place described, he has a perfect right to buy for the society, or to
buy in his own right, as he may choose. I cannot imagine on what ground
the magistrate can rest his argument. If this is the only alleged error
in the form of the deeds, we cannot admit that it is an error.
You will, therefore, please communicate the substance of this dispatch to
the magistrate, and renew the request that the deeds be stamped, and in
case the magistrate persists in his refusal, you will carry the case to
the viceroy, and if necessary in the end send it up here again that it
may be presented to the Tsung-li Yamên.
I am, &c.,
