No. 192.
Mr. Blaine to Chen Lan
Pin.
Washington, March 25, 1881.
Sir: Referring to your note of the 10th of November last, and my predecessor’s reply thereto of the 30th of December following, on the subject of the riot on the 31st of last October, at Denver, Colo., I have now the honor to acknowledge the receipt by the Department, of your notes of the 21st of January and 25th of February, respectively, in relation to the same matter.
I note with satisfaction the expressions of appreciation of the disposition of this government toward that of China, and the subjects of China resident in the United States, which you so frankly avow. I must express my regret, however, that the views so clearly expressed by my predecessor in regard to the question of liability of this government to make pecuniary indemnity to the Chinese sufferers by the occurrences at Denver, failed to commend themselves to your enlightened judgment. Concurring, as I do, in the conclusions thus reached by Mr. Evarts, and conceiving the principle upon which they rest to be in consonance with public law and the universal practice of nations, I must insist that that principle is the one by which the obligations of this government in regard to the incident in question are to be measured. After recounting the efforts put forth by the local authorities for the suppression of the riots (efforts that happily proved successful with only the loss of one life, although the mob numbered thousands), my predecessor thus states the rule:
Under circumstances of this nature, when the government has put forth every legitimate effort to suppress a mob that threatens or attacks alike the safety and security of its own citizens and the foreign residents within its borders, I know of no principle of national obligation, and there certainly is none arising from treaty stipulation, which renders it incumbent on the Government of the United States to make indemnity to the Chinese residents of Denver, who, in common with citizens of the United States at that time resident in that city, suffered losses from the operations of the mob. Whatever remedies may be afforded to the citizens of Colorado, or to the citizens of the United States from other States of the Union resident in Colorado, for losses resulting from that occurrance, are equally open to the Chinese residents of Denver who may have suffered from the lawlessness of that mob. This is all that the principles of international law and the usages of national comity demand.
You observe with reference to these views, “that it appears to you that treaties, as well as the Constitution, are the supreme law of this land.” “The Chinese residents,” you add, “who were subjected to the wanton outrage of the mob came to this country under the right of treaties between China and the General Government of the United States,” and quoting from the verdict of the coroner’s jury at the inquest over the body of the unfortunate Sing Lee, you proceed to say that “this verdict shows clearly that the local authorities had not brought into requisition all the means for the suppression of the mob.” Invoking a support of these views the treaty of June, 1858, between the [Page 336] United States and China, you partially quote the provisions of the first article, the entire text of which is as follows:
There shall be, as there have always been, peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Ta Tsing Empire, and between their people respectively. They shall not insult or oppress each other for any trifling cause, so as to produce an estrangement between them; and if any other nation should act unjustly or oppressively, the United States will exert their good offices on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement of the question, thus showing their friendly feelings.
In submitting for your consideration such remarks as these observations in your note seem to demand, I first bring to your notice the provisions of the first paragraphs of Article XI of the same treaty. It says:
All citizens of the United States of America in China, peaceably attending to their affairs, being placed on a common footing of amity and good will with the subjects of China, shall receive and enjoy for themselves and everything appertaining to them, the protection of the local authorities of government, who shall defend them from all insult or injury of any sort. If their dwellings or property be threatened or attacked by mobs, incendiaries, or other violent or lawless persons, the local officers, on requisition of the consul, shall immediately dispatch a military force to disperse the rioters, apprehend the guilty individuals and punish them with the utmost rigor of the law.
You will perceive that neither in this article, nor in any other part of the same treaty is there any provision reciprocal with this with regard to subjects of China resident in the United States, and the reason for this must at once be obvious to your superior intelligence. No treaty stipulations are necessary to enable subjects of China to come to this country, take up their residence here and pursue any lawful business or calling in common with the citizens or subjects of every country in the world, who may choose to make their home in this republic. The subjects of China, in respect to their rights and security of person and property, are placed under the protection of the laws of the United States in manner and measure equal to that extended to native citizens of this country, and that the Chinese residents of Denver at the time of the unfortunate occurrences now in question, were in the enjoyment of this common protection of the law, is shown by the report of the Chinese consul, Mr. Bee, to you, a copy of which accompanies your note. One or two of the local functionaries may, at first, in the presenee of an enraged mob numbering over 5,000, have shown some hesitation and timidity. Under the circumstances, it cannot be a matter of surprise that they were seized with such feelings, but as is seen by the report in question, the governor of the State, the mayor of the city, and the sheriff, acting in conjunction in the exercise of their respective powers, succeeded in quelling this formidable riot, which had its incipiency (in a drinking-house where Chinese and others were engaged in gambling on Sunday, contrary to the laws of the State) at two o’clock in the afternoon, within the short space of eight hours, quiet and order having been completely restored by ten o’clock of the same night. A more successful resistance to a mob of such character and numbers cannot be found in the history of any community or country, and that this should have been accomplished without the shedding of blood or a resort to the use of fire-arms is at once creditable to the authorities and to the popular respect for the laws.
And it is pertinent to add here that from Mr. Bee’s report, it also appears that amongst a number of the ringleaders who have been arrested, two have been identified as the chief assailants of Sing Lee, and are now held for trial for the murder.
Your observations to the effect that treaties form a part of the supreme [Page 337] law of this land equally with the Constitution of the United States, is evidently based on a misconception of the true nature of the Constitution. That instrument, together with all laws which are made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land. Such is the language of the Constitution, but it must be observed that the treaty no less than the statute law, must be made in conformity with the Constitution, and were a provision in either a treaty or a law found to contravene the principles of the Constitution, such provision must give way to the superior force of the Constitution, which is the organic law of the republic, binding alike on the government and the nation. It is under this interpretation of the Constitution that foreigners, no less than citizens, find their best guarantee for that security and protection in their persons and property which it is the aim and desire of the Government of the United States to extend to all alike.
Having thus replied to the several observations and suggestions submitted in your note, I venture to express the hope entertained by this government that the determination thus reached after mature consideration, will be accepted by that of China as the final conclusion of the subject.
Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my high consideration.