No. 172.
Mr. Angell
to Mr. Blaine.
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, August 18, 1881.
(Received October 3.)
No. 199.]Sir: I regret to have to report a somewhat serious
disturbance of the work of American Presbyterian missionaries in Tsi-nan-fu,
the capital of the province of Shantung. The interior of a building which
they had purchased and were fitting for use as a chapel, was destroyed by a
mob and the lives of the missionaries and their families were threatened.
Happily the intervention of the authorities, though apparently somewhat
tardy, soon secured safety from personal danger.
I first received information of the principal facts through Mr. Vice-Consul
Fisher, of Tientsin, late in the afternoon of July 29, He had received them
through Rev. Mr. Pilcher, an American missionary at Tientsin, to whom a
Chinese messenger had come from the missionaries at Tsi-nan-fu. A little
later on the same day I received a letter from the missionaries themselves,
Rev. John Murray and Rev. Stephen A. Hunter, M. D., reciting the facts in
detail, and submitting to me certain questions which they wished me to
answer for their guidance. I inclose a copy. On the next day I hastened to
address a communication to Prince Kung, an extract from which I inclose.
As is usually the case, this disturbance was fomented by the literati
[Page 287]
and gentry. Although, the
missionaries say they have no complaint to make of the Taotai, I have called
Prince Kung’s attention to what I deem his delinquency. He could certainly
have prevented the tumult with the same force which he used to suppress
it.
The missionaries, though young men, seem to have acted with much
discretion.
The first of the four questions presented by them to me raises one of the
most delicate points in the relation of missionaries to the government,
namely, by what right do foreigners hold real property in the interior. I
think the answer I have given is the correct one.
In respect to the fourth question as to the right of demanding the release of
the Chinaman who had acted as intermediary in procuring the property, I did
not see that anything could be asked under Article XXIX of our treaty of
Tientsin, since it does not appear that he was punished for his Christian
faith. On the other hand, as we have no treaty right
to acquire property in Tsi-nan-fu, we could hardly intercede with a demand for his release, on the ground that the
authorities were obstructing our citizens in the exercise of a right
guaranteed by treaty, as we have felt justified in doing when Chinamen have
been punished for leasing or selling us lands in an open port.
I have received a reply from Prince Kung, in which, after quoting my dispatch
at length, he says, “We have sent the purport of it to the governor of
Shantung, directing him to order his subordinates to take up the case and
deal with it justly.”
I at once informed the missionaries of the nature of the prince’s
communication.
Meantime the missionaries wrote me again on August 6, giving some further
particulars of the situation. I inclose a copy of their letter, and also of
my reply.
On the 16th instant I conferred with the foreign office on this disturbance.
I gave them the names of the two principal instigators of the mob, and urged
that the missionaries ought to be allowed to have an eligible site on the
main street. They said, what I have no donbt is true, that the location of
the chapel by the side of the examination hall was calculated to excite
opposition, but they added that the governor was desirious of reaching a
peaceful adjustment of the difficulties.
I think there is reason to hope that the missionaries will have no further
serious trouble, though possibly they may not secure premises exactly in the
location which they would prefer.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 199.]
Messrs. Murray and
Hunter to Mr. Angell.
We, the missionaries in Chi-nan-fu, capital of Shantung province, being
citizens of the United States, and having the usual passports, desire to
make a statement of certain difficulties which have arisen from the
purchase of property in this city. The main facts are the following:
- 1st.
- A property suitable for a chapel was bought on the main street
of the city during the month of January, 1881.
- 2d.
- Peaceable possession of the same was given during the month of
May, and the buildings put under contract for repairs.
- 3d.
- Upon the 13th of July the house was attacked by a mob led by
the teachers or sien shangs from the Shu Yuan Yamên, and
remained in the hands of the populace until taken possession of
by a body of soldiers from the Yamên.
- 4th.
- The property has been given up by us upon condition that the
authorities furnish us a suitable location elsewhere.
- 5th.
- The public excitement and popular outbreak has caused our
lives and that of the native Christians to be placed in imminent
danger.
Therefore, we now present the whole case to you, our national
representatives, and ask for advice and direction concerning the
proposed change of property, and, if need be, also, for protection of
our lives and persons.
In order that you may be able more perfectly to understand the whole
matter, we herewith subjoin a statement in detail of all the
circumstances connected with this difficulty.
During the autumn of 1880, Rev. J. S. McIlvaine, a former member of this
mission, but now deceased, entered into negotiation on behalf of the
mission for the purchase of the aforesaid property. This property is one
of the most eligible positions in the whole city for our purpose, being upon the west end of the main street, near
our former rented chapel and connected with all our former work. It is
situated by the side of the “Shu Yuan Yamên” and the ground is said to
have formerly belonged to the same. The purchase price agreed upon was
3,750 taels. On the 19th of January, 1881, the sum of 3,100 taels having
been paid, the titles were transferred, the balance to be paid upon
possession.
Owing to the difficulties in the way of a foreigner purchasing property
in the interior, one of our church members, Lui Yü Ting by name, agreed
to purchase the property in his own right, and afterwards deed it to the
church. The title which the former owner, Tsiao Tung Hing, made to Lui
Yü Ting was duly signed, witnessed, and attested by the customary feast,
Lui Yü Ting upon his part made a title to the church for public use. But
this, one of the neighbors refused to sign and it was held by us simply
as an evidence against the exclusive ownership of Lui Yü Ting. This title, however, does not properly form a
part of the present case, as Lui Yü Ting does not deny his
trusteeship.
The old titles furnished us extend over a period of eighty years, and the
property is commonly reported to have had consecutive owners for two
centuries. None of the titles, however, have the usual red stamp upon
them as the property is “meé liang ti.” Whether the same distinction
obtains in other provinces or not is unknown to us, but as ordinarily
explained, it has reference to certain laws, the owners of which were
favored by the present dynasty upon its accession to the throne, and the
lands were subjected only to a nominal tax. Much land is so held in this
city. The owners’ names are registered in the Ch’eng Shon Ying Ts’an Fu,
and each owner receives a yearly tax receipt with the official stamp,
upon payment of dues. When the property was bought the name of Lui Yü
Ting was registered as its present owner, and upon payment of tax the
usual receipt was given.
It is now claimed that these deeds are false, but the subsequent offer of
the authorities to furnish us another location is a virtual concession
that our title is valid.
We were put in peaceable possession of the property on the 19th of May
and entered into a contract for certain repairs, for which we were to
pay the sum of 1,300,000 small cash, and the carpenters to have the old
material, the value of which was rated at 200,000 small cash (the whole
sum being about $700 of our money). The building was to be repaired
according to native plans and style of architecture, and every effort
was made to avoid collision with the people. The repairing proceeded in
peace for about three weeks. On the 12th of July we were informed by
friends that on the following day an attack would be made upon the
building and the workmen stopped. Having received this information we
proceeded to the Taotai’s Yamên and asked for a proclamation to preserve
peace. The officer assured us that he would keep the peace and that no
trouble should occur. The next day, 13th, we, ourselves, ordered the
workmen to cease in apprehension of difficulty. About 9 o’clock a.m. the
house was attacked by a mob led by the sien shangs from the Shu
Yuon.
The Taotai was at that time in the Shu Yuan counseling with the officers,
and we are informed that the teachers acted in defiance of the orders of
their superior. After the teachers left the building it was in the hands
of the mob, who severely beat one of the head workmen, and destroyed
everything movable, carrying off money, valuable papers, &c. Late in
the day the property was taken possession of by the soldiery.
During the same day our Christian Lui Yü Ting was taken to the fu Yamên,
beaten, and cast into prison, where he still remains, despite our
earnest endeavors for his release.
Late in the day we sought an interview with the governor, but were not
able to obtain it. On the morning of the 14th we saw the governor in
presence of four other officials, whom it seems he had invited to hear
the case. After a lengthy consultation we agreed to give up the house we
had purchased, upon condition we were furnished another on the west end
of the main street. This they refused to promise, offering to refund us
the purchased price and damages. They also offered to assist us in
buying a house whenever we could find one. These
terms we would not accede to, but demanded another house in exchange.
This they would not promise to furnish, saying they
[Page 289]
would consider the matter and give us
word. But the governor promised to issue a proclamation affording us
protection, and ordered the fu officer not to beat or further oppress
our Christian now in confinement.
On the evening of the same day the proclamation was sent us, but it was
not satisfactory, as it only quoted the words of the treaty, and made no
mention whatever to the present circumstances. We returned it through
the Taotai, and the next day, 15th, it was again sent us; this time in a
more satisfactory form.
It was posted upon the gates of the city and upon our dwellings.
On the 16th the talk on the streets was alarming. The death of all the
foreigners and native Christians was threatened, and the 17th was said
to be the day on which it was to be carried into execution. A notice had
been previously posted in public places calling the scholars of the
province together upon that day to confer concerning the property we had
bought; and the lower classes, taking this for a threat, were ripe for a
mob.
In the evening of the same day we informed the Taotai of this increasing
turbulence and asked for soldiers to guard our premises. This was
promised. Upon the morning of the 17th, our position was apparently
critical. No soldiers had yet arrived; and, relying upon our passports,
in the early dawn we took protection in the Taotai’s Yamên. The
authorities then took precautions to avoid an outbreak, and in the
evening of the same day we returned to our homes.
Since that time the city has been quieter, and the Taotai and other
officials, invited by the governor to hear the case, have held several
consultations, at which we have been present, and they have promised to
furnish us another location and make good all our losses. But they
insist that it is impossible to find a place upon the main street.
We are willing to concede much for the sake of peace, but we are not
willing to be put in a corner. A chapel for daily preaching would be of
little use unless upon the main street, west of the
center of the city. And as the purpose of Mr. McIlvaine, the
original donor of the purchase money, was to have a street chapel, we
have no right to accept of any location unsuitable for such purpose. We
have no complaint to make against the officials, as the governor and
Taotai seem well disposed towards us. But it has been a difficult case
for them to manage, because the scholars have disregarded their
authority, and they cannot be dealt with as the lower classes. We only
fear that we will be trifled with from day to day, and this matter, for
an indefinite period, remains unsettled.
Therefore we have presented the whole case to you, and await your advice
and direction. We would especially ask for information concerning the
following points:
- 1st.
- Have we, or not, a right to demand a house upon the main
street, west end, when we are giving up the best location upon
that street and the best in the whole city for our work?
- 2d.
- In case a house is offered us at an exorbitant price, what
remedy have we to avoid imposition except refusing to take the
place?
- 3d.
- Is the name of the Presbyterian church, which is used in the
former deed, “Chang lao hui yeh su chiao
tang” a sufficient title to enable foreigners, as well
as natives, to control the property?
- 4th.
- Have we, or not, grounds for demanding the release of Lui Yü
Ting, our native Christian, inasmuch as he only acted for the
church in buying the property? In regard to these, and any other
points which seem to you to arise out of this case, we
respectfully ask and await your advice.
Hoping that the whole matter may be brought to a peaceful and
satisfactory concluclusion through your kind intervention,
We have the honor, &c.,
- JOHN MURRAY.
- STEPHEN HUNTER.
Chi nan fu,
Shantung,
July 20, 1881.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 199.]
Mr. Angell to
Messrs. Murray and
Hunter.
Gentlemen: Your communication of the 20th
instant reached me last evening. It is with deep sympathy and with great
regret that I hear of the violent interference with your missionary
work. But I am relieved to learn from you that you and your families are
probably safe from personal harm. The attitude of the governor furnishes
assurance of your safety. An hour before I received your letter, I had
heard from Bev. Mr. Pilcher, through our consul at Tientsin, that
perhaps your lives were in peril.
[Page 290]
You do not state what is the alleged objection to your occupancy of the
premises you had secured. But from what I have heard of similar
disturbances, I presume that your proximity to the Shu Yuan was
offensive to those who wished to make you trouble. I am satisfied that
it is generally advisable to choose for missionary work, especially in a
city where there is any spirit of opposition to missionary labor, a site
not too near any important official residence. The choice of a site near
a Yamên is pleaded as an excuse, if it is not the real reason, for
insisting on a change of place.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the laws and usages in Shantung to
decide whether there is any technical flaw in the deeds. But the
presumption is that they are valid, since the authorities seem to
recognize your title to the property by offering to compensate you for
it with money or with other land.
Your course during the trouble seems to me to have been very judicious. I
am glad that you did not leave the city and also that you promptly
offered to exchange your premises for some other eligible site. You
showed courage in insisting on your right to remain and a proper spirit
of conciliation in respect to the property.
You request me to give for your guidance answers to four questions.
“1st. Have we or not a right to demand a house upon the main street, west
end,” &c.
It must be confessed that we have very slender ground, if any, for demanding permission to purchase real property at
any interior city like Chinan-fu. The British treaty of 1858, article
12, does indeed read thus:
“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 for the land or
buildings they require at the rate prevailing among the people,
equitably, and without exaction on either side.”
But that phrase “or at other places” was inserted
with reference to situations contiguous to the ports and has been so
interpreted.
Our missionaries have been allowed to acquire property in the interior
rather on sufferance than by right. They have now so long been indulged
that we can make the indulgence a ground for remonstrating against the
discontinuance of it, but it is wise for us to proceed with much caution
and delicacy. I think we have, strictly speaking, no treaty right to demand a site as our
own anywhere in Chi-nan-fu. But from these facts, namely, that in nearly
all parts of the empire, missionaries are allowed to procure property;
that you and your associates have been so long in your city without
giving cause of complaint; that you were allowed without any
remonstrance to purchase the property on Main street and pay 3,100
taels, you have strong ground for insisting, and you may properly insist
with firmness, that if your premises are taken from you some other
eligible site shall be secured to you. I advise you to stand for that
until it is clear that you cannot succeed and at any rate until the
governor shall have heard from Prince Kung and the Tsung-li Yamên, whom
I shall at once address on the whole matter. When I receive an answer
from Prince Kung, I shall inform you immediately. He will probably
answer me and write to the governor within ten or twelve days.
If all efforts to secure a site where you wish it fail, I would counsel
you to take an inferior site rather than leave the city. We may expect
that after a time this violence will abate and you can then improve your
situation.
2d. In answer to your second question I should say your only remedy
against taking a house at an exorbitant price is to refuse it.
3d. In response to your third question I have to say that I suppose the
terms Presbyterian Church as used by you can only mean in law the
Presbyterian Board of Missions. In that case, I suppose, you
missionaries who are its only agents here, must control its
property.
4th. In answer to the question whether you have the right to demand the
release of Lui Yü Ting, the native Christian, who acted for the church,
I rely that you cannot demand it. You can, as his
friend, request it, and even urge it; I know of no ground upon which you
can do more.
You will have need of patience. But I trust your troubles may be ended
without too much delay. You may be assured that this legation will do
all in its power to assist you.
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 3 in No. 199.]
Mr. Angell to
Prince Kung.
[After reciting the facts and quoting largely from Messrs. Murray and
Hunter’s letter, the dispatch proceeds:]
I have never heard that any complaint was made against our missionaries
in Tsi-nan-fu. You will agree with me, I think, that they have showed a
proper spirit of conciliation
[Page 291]
in consenting promptly to make an exchange of their property for some
other eligible site.
It is hard that men of such a spirit should be so maltreated. I cannot
think the Taotai was as efficient as he should have been. When warned in
advance that an attack was to be made upon the building, he did not make
proper preparation to prevent it, and when the attack was begun in the
morning it was not until late in the afternoon that the soldiers were
called out to suppress the mob.
As to the mob and the leaders of it, I trust that your highness will urge
the governor to punish the guilty parties.
Furthermore, it seems to me only fair that these peaceable missionaries
who have so readily agreed to abandon their chosen site in order to
prevent trouble should be met in the same spirit and allowed to have
some good position. It is hardly to be credited that on a street nearly
two li in length, no place can be found for them. I trust the
authorities may assist them to find some site on the west end of the
main street.
Finally, while now as always it is only with great delicacy that I refer
to the punishment of a Chinese subject by the Chinese authorities, may I
not speak a friendly word in behalf of the release of the Christian, Lui
Yü Ting, unless he has committed some other offense than acting as the
intermediary in the purchase of the property.
Confident that your imperial highness will direct the governor of
Shantung to do what is right in the premises,
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 4 in No. 199.]
Messrs. Murray and
Hunter to Mr. Angell.
Tsi-nan-fu, August 6,
1881.
Dear Sir: Your communication of July 30 has
just come to hand. Allow us to express our warmest thanks for your
personal sympathy and interest in our welfare. While as the national
representative, the execution of law must be one and the same, it is the
source of no little gratification to us that you are so thoroughly in
accord with the plans and purposes of mission work.
Before hearing further from you, we send herewith some additional
information which may aid you in the prosecution of the case.
1st. The objections to our occupancy of the property bought were rather
vaguely stated by the officials. In substance they were (1),
unwillingness of the people; (2), proximity to the Shu Yuan; (3),
spoiling the Feng Shui, and (4), occupying public ground.
2d. The origin of the difficulty, as we learn now, was mainly with two
men; one commonly known as Li Shih-erh, a former governor of Honan. In
addition to instigating the riot, he endeavored to deprive us of
servants, by threatening to imprison them for aiding the foreigners, and
said this plan had succeeded in driving the foreigners from Honan. His
conduct has been so violent that it seems proper to make mention of his
name. The other man, Yin-shih-fang, a former “chih fu” in Honan, seems
to have been also a chief party in stirring up the people. Probably less
than a hundred teachers took part in the attack upon the building, but
the number of subsequent meetings was undoubtedly much greater.
3d. The officials have already offered us two locations. One of these was
entirely unsuitable, being in a very retired location, and was at once
refused. The other was inside the East Gate, and this we neither refused
nor accepted, saying we had referred the matter to Peking. At a former
conference they had pressed us so closely with the question, “If we
cannot buy upon the main street, what other location is there most
desirable?” That we at that time mentioned two other streets, viz, the
south end of the Pu Cheng-tz, and inside the East Gate. But when we
learned that three houses were for sale upon the main street, we refused
to accept their statement that no houses could be bought there.
We now mention this offer, lest it should be represented that we have
already consented to a location inside the East Gate. This we will not
accept so long as there is any hope of being placed upon the main
street. Should this hope fail us we will then consider other locations.
But to leave the main street, where we have had a small rented chapel
for a number of years, will necessitate a change of all our plans, and
change the base of all our work.
Our hope of being placed upon the main street was not that we had any
right a priori to demand a location there, but
being already located there, that we should not be displaced. We had
paid the full amount of purchase money, taels 3,750, and had been in
peaceable possession for more than six weeks before the riot.
4th. So far as we can learn our native Christian Lui Yu Ting was beaten
as much
[Page 292]
because he was a
Christian, as because he purchased the property for us. Many of the
questions asked him referred to his faith, and when he answered he was
beaten. While we are aware that, as a general rule, we have no right to
interfere with the native government in its punishment of its own
subjects, yet it seems to us that, in this case, the rights guaranteed
to native Christians have been infringed upon. The reason given us,
however, by the “fu” officer for his punishment, was that he had
deceived us (the foreigners) by selling us public land. Since we last
wrote his condition in prison has been materially improved. But owing to
the uncertain length of time that the case may be delayed in the courts
we are anxious that he be released upon our bond which was formerly
refused.
Presenting this additional statement of facts, we await the opinion of
the Tsung-li Yamên, being assured that our case will be well and ably
presented.
The city is now comparatively quiet, and we see little danger of further
trouble.
Respectfully yours,
- JOHN MURRAY,
- STEPHEN HUNTER.
[Inclosure 5 in No. 199.]
Mr. Angell to
Messrs. Murray and
Hunter.
Gentlemen: Your letter of August 6 reached me
last evening. I was glad to hear that no new disturbances had
occurred.
I shall report the names of the two prominent instigators of the troubles
to the Tsung-li Yamên.
The ground on which you are pressing your request for a position on the
west part of the main street is reasonable, and I should not readily
abandon it.
As to the case of Lui Yü Ting, I answered you as I did, because I
supposed they would not admit that they were punishing him for his
religious belief, much less formally charge him with Christian faith as
an offense. If they do admit that, or if it can be shown clearly that
such is the fact, then you have the right as his friends to ask that he
have the protection guaranteed by the treaty. While I have no
expectation that they will concede that they are punishing him because
of his Christianity, I will quote for you the twenty-ninth article of
the treaty of Tientsin, 1858, that you may use it if they should make
any such concession or if you can prove the fact. Article XXIX
(quoted.)
I inclose you also a copy of the same in China.
I thank you for your too kind appreciation of the little I have been able
to do for you. If it is my duty to aid you, it is still more a
pleasure.
I am, &c.,
