Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 5, 1881

No. 179.
Mr. Angell to Mr. Blaine.

Legation of the United States,
Peking, September 17, 1881. (Received November 4.)

No. 214.]

Sir: On the 27th of August I received from Mr. Consul Shepard, of Hankow, a dispatch calling my attention to a case of interference at Nan-Ch’ang-fu, the capital of the province of Kiangsi, with the Christian work of a native helper sent to that city by the Bev. Mr. Hart, an American missionary at Kin Kiang. The dispatch covered correspondence between the consul and Mr. Hart. I do not deem it necessary to send yon the correspondence, as the essential facts reported in it are embodied in my dispatch on the subject to Prince Kung, a copy of which is inclosed.

You will observe that the helper leased premises near a gate of the city. He was received kindly by the neighbors but was soon disturbed by a person, who is a sort of head man of a hundred families, and has a certain responsibility for them. This person after trying in vain to persuade him to leave, finally put the furniture of the helper into a boat and sent him with it down the river.

The district magistrate afterwards admitted to the foreign missionary, who went to Nan-Ch’ang-fu to inquire into the case, the right of the helper to hire the premises, but argued that the neighbors and the owners of the house were opposed to his remaining.

There can be no reasonable doubt that the whole proceeding was instigated by petty officials, and the class of gentry who originate all the opposition to missionary work. Ean-Ch’ang-fu has acquired an unenviable notoriety heretofore for its hostility to foreigners, even those Who are not missionaries. One of the British secretaries, sent there some years ago to visit the governor on business, was very rudely treated.

As we have no consul resident in the province of Kiangsi, I thought it wise, rather than to instruct Mr. Consul Shepard to open correspondence with the governor, as I should have done if the trouble had occurred in his province, to confer myself directly with the Yamên.

On the 6th instant I sent Mr. Acting Interpreter Taylor to the foreign office, instructing him to express my regret that there seemed to be of late an increasing tendency to interfere with the peaceable prosecution of missionary work, to recite the facts in the Case, to say that I could see no reason why under the treaties our missionaries might not send a native helper to Nan-Ch’ang-fu to hire premises and teach Christianity, that this seemed to be expressly provided for by the twenty-ninth article of the treaty of Tientsin, and to inquire whether the authorities at Nan-Ch’ang-fu could not be notified that such interference as that complained of is improper and should hereafter be prevented.

The ministers talked of the matter in an excellent spirit; said that these little troubles about missionary work could not be altogether prevented, and asked that I would send in an informal letter on the subject. Accordingly on the next day I sent to Prince Kung the letter above referred to and herewith inclosed.

The prince has replied, saying that he will at once write to the authorities at Nan-Ch’ang fu to learn what they have to say of the facts.

This is one of the cases in which, as I conceive, it is easy for the missionary to suppose that our treaty rights are broader than they really are. I think we may properly claim the right of the foreign missionaries to send a helper anywhere in the empire to teach Christianity, and that the helper may, if necessary for his work, hire premises. But I see no assurance in any treaty that the foreigner may rent or buy buildings in interior cities. The fact that they have so long and in so many places been permitted to do so, doubtless entitles us to remonstrate against any sudden change or perhaps against any change at all in the tolerant policy of the government. But, after all, it must be remembered that we cannot base on the treaties an argument for the right of purchasing or renting property in cities like Nan Ch’ang-fu.

I have written in this sense to Mr. Consul Shepard. I have also informed him of the action of the foreign office. I have, &c.,

JAMES B. ANGELL.

[Inclosure in 214.]

Mr. Angell to Prince Kung.

Peking, September 7, 1881.

Sir: Yesterday I sent Mr. Acting Interpreter Taylor to the Tsung-li Yamên to confer with the ministers concerning what seems to me an unwarrantable interference with the Christian work of a Chinese teacher employed at Nan Ch’ang-fu in Kiangsi by American missionaries. The ministers desire me to send in a communication.

By the instructions of the missionaries this teacher went to the provincial capital in June last, and rented premises just outside the Teh Sheng Gate and began his work. He was received with entire courtesy and kindness by the neighbors.

The owner of the house with willingness leased it to him, a deed of rental was executed in due form, and one term’s rent was paid in advance. While he was thus peaceably at work some persons from the PaoKia-chu, and afterwards the Pao Kia himself, called to tell him he must not stay. Finding they could not; easily frighten him away, they tried to alarm the owner of the house and succeeded in this, who then asked the teacher to go. On the 6th of July, the Pao Kia-chü hired a boat and ordered his men to take the teacher’s furniture from the house, and sent him away to Wu Cheng.

The American missionary, resident at Wu Ch’eng, went to Nan-Ch’ang-fu and saw the Chi-hsien. This magistrate admitted the right to hire the premises, but argued that the people were unwilling the teacher should stay, and finally produced a deed of sale of the premises leased, to show that the relatives of the man who leased the property wished to part with it. The missionary replied, and with justice, that the deed of sale could not affect the deed of rental for the term, which had been paid for, and that the neighbors were not unwilling that the teacher should remain until the Pao Kia and his men stirred them up to opposition. But as the Chi-hsien was unwilling to take any action, the missionary left and reported the fact to our consul at Hankow; we have no consul in Kiangsi.

It seems to me very clear that an injustice has been done. By the twenty-ninth article of the treaty of Tientsin, it is certainly guaranteed that a Chinese convert may peaceably teach the Christian doctrine anywhere in the empire; and as the American missionaries sent this teacher to Nan Ch’ang-fu, they may properly bring this case to the notice of your government.

I respectfully submit it to your consideration whether the authorities at Nan Chang-fu shall not be notified that proceedings like that now complained of shall not be repeated.

JAMES B. ANGELL.