No. 78.
Mr. Holcombe to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

No. 99.]

Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith, for the consideration of the Department, copies of dispatches which I have received from Mr. Vice-Consul Carrow, of Canton, Consular Agent Williams, of Swatow, and Rev. W. K. McKibben, an American missionary at Swatow, all making inquiry as to the status under the treaties of missionaries in the interior of China, and whether any special concession not contained in the treaties had been made authorizing the permanent residence of this class of our people beyond treaty limits in China.

As this question is frequently arising, it seemed best to consider it somewhat fully. This I have done in my response to Mr. Carrow, a copy of which is inclosed. In it I have stated:

1st.
The treaty rights of missionaries;
2d.
The policy of the Chinese Government regarding missionary residence in the interior, so far as I understand it; and
3d.
What I believe to be the position of our government upon the same question.

I shall be very glad to receive the approval of the Department for my exposition of the policy of our government upon this subject, if it appears to you to be correct.

[Page 138]

It is proper to remark that during my ten years of connection with this Legation, there has been a very marked and noticeable change for the better in the entire attitude and policy of the Chinese Government upon the missionary question.

I have, &c.,

CHESTER HOLCOMBE.
[Inclosure 1 in No. 99.]

Mr. Carrow to Mr. Holcombe.

Sir: I have the honor to inclose you herein No. 1 from the United States consular agency at Swatow, and to ask that you will oblige me with an answer at your convenience.

I am, &c.,

F. CARROW.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 99.]

Mr. Williams to Mr. Holcombe.

Sir: I am desirous to be informed if the Chinese Government officials have ever granted any general permission for missionaries to reside permanently in the interior outside of the treaty limits, as there are several missionaries of the various denominations now residing in various parts of the interior of the Empire. I should be much obliged if you could let me know on what conditions they are permitted to remain there; some difficulty having lately taken place with one of the American missionaries, the Rev. W. K. McKibben, at the town of Fai Poo in the interior, on account of his having rented a house at that place for six months, while traveling under the protection of a passport.

If there is any concession made to the missionaries in the northern part of China by which they are allowed to reside in the interior, I should like to secure the same privileges for the missionaries here, as it would doubtless save a great deal of trouble and correspondence with the local officials.

I am, &c.,

C. C. WILLIAMS.
[lnclosure 3 in No. 99.]

Mr. McKibben to Mr. Holcombe.

Sir: Our consul, Mr. Williams, is writing to you to ascertain on my behalf what is the status under the treaty of American missionaries in the interior of China.

The various treaties clearly recognize and provide for the right of missionaries to trade freely in pursuit of their calling. Nothing is said, so far as I have seen, as to where they may stop, whether in boats or at inns, or in other houses; nor for how long a time they may stay at a place. I suppose, however, the general permission to travel and preach is intended to include such requisites of the missionary’s calling as the privilege of renting houses for chapels and for temporary residence as may be necessary.

It is of importance to me to ascertain somewhat more definitely what privileges are recognized as being within, the general scope of treaty provisions. I have frequently seen in the periodicals notices of missionaries having purchased or rented ground and houses at interior places, as at Soochow, Nanking, Kalgan, Tsi Nanfoo, Teun Haw Chan. I have seen the statement made that missionaries may rent “t’ung” or chapels, but not purchase them, at interior places. In connection with the case at Teun Haw Chau, between Peking and Tientsin, the statement is made that “the right (missionary) of residence in the interior is officially conceded in the very highest (Chinese) quarters.” (See “Chinese Recorder” for November, December, 1880, p. 476.)

Whether or not there are restrictions or limitations upon missionaries who wish to avail themselves of this recognized treaty privilege—for instance, as to the length of time he may stay at a place, or as to special passport regulations—I have never heard authoritatively; and I trust that your reply to Consul Williams’s letter may inform me in regard to any usages or regulations to which I will need to conform.

[Page 139]

I should have mentioned in my account of the difficulty at Fai Poo Hien that the district magistrate to whom I appealed in vain for protection, told me that I had no rights in the city except it were for a few days’ residence; and that my having taken lodgings at the inn for a period of six months was more than I had any right to do.

I need hardly say that I am not seeking for privileges outside the treaties, as perhaps some of the consular representatives of this Province understand; hut for a recognition of privileges under the treaties.

I am, &c.,

W. K. McKIBBEN.
[Inclosure 4 in No. 99.]

Mr. McKibben to Mr. Holcombe.

Sir: Remembering the kind interest you expressed two years ago in my unsuccessful attempt to obtain a building site at Chow Chow Fu, I recently addressed you a note, through Mr. Williams, asking for information in regard to the status of American missionaries in the interior of China. This note made inquiry to the following effect, viz: The various treaties provide that missionaries may travel freely in pursuit of their calling; but they say nothing about where or for how long a time they may stop; what, if any, are the usages or. restrictions to which the missionary should conform?

The special occasion for my raising the inquiry is that in November of last year I was mobbed at my inn and driven out of the city of Fai Poo Hien by a mob, led by runners from the Yamên, and apparently with the connivance of the district magistrate. The town of which I speak is about 120 li from Swatow. I reached the place October 26, and put up at the house of a church member. Shortly after I rented some upper rooms of an inn that adjoined. I called a man to patch the floor, and did a little whitewashing, all in the inside, and made no further changes. About November 9 I heard that some of the people were threatening that I should not be allowed to stay. Both in writing and in person I requested the magistrate to take some measures to prevent a disturbance. He promised, but did nothing, and on the 13th he left the city. The next morning a crowd of several hundred men came, who broke up the church member’s shop, destroyed a part of the inn building, and destroyed or carried off a quantity of property. While this was going on I escaped by a back door and made my way to the river, pursued by a part of the mob, who pelted me with stones, sticks of wood &c. A heavy umbrella protected me from injury, and I obtained refuge on a revenue boat.

Arriving at Swatow I laid the case before Consul Williams, who has spared no pains to get some of the ringleaders brought to punishment and to secure compensation for damages sustained by the property. The usual Chinese shifts and evasions have been resorted to by the officials, and no very tangible satisfaction has yet been secured. Mr. Williams is exerting himself to the utmost to secure such a measure of satisfaction as will make it safer for missionaries to visit that region hereafter, and which will practically serve the purpose of giving some measure of security to the native Christians of that region. He may find it necessary to refer the case to the higher authorities before it is settled.

But a question arises with regard to privileges of missionaries traveling or sojourning in the interior. And it was to ascertain with some degree of definiteness what is recognized as coming within the scope of the treaties that I wrote you through the consular agent.

Two years ago I sustained a serious defeat in having my plans thwarted at Chow Chow Fu. It is of great importance to me at this time to be able to avail myself of whatever measure of support a fair interpretation of the treaty may afford. Whatever information or suggestions you may be able to give will be gratefully appreciated.

I am, &c.,

W. K. McKIBBEN.
[Inclosure 5 in No. 99.]

Mr. Holcombe to Mr. Carrow.

Sir: I have had the honor to receive your dispatch of the 6th ultimo, covering a letter from Mr. Consular Agent Williams, in which inquiry is made of me whether any concession has been granted by the officials of the Chinese Government, by virtue of which missionaries are allowed to reside permanently in the interior, that is to say, outside of the treaty limits at the several open ports.

[Page 140]

In reply I have to say that under the terms of our treaties with China, all citizens of the United States are placed upon a footing of equality.

No formal concession of any special privileges to missionaries as such has been made by the Government of China, nor, so far as I understand the policy of the United States, is it prepared to assert any peculiar rights for missionaries which may not, under an honest interpretation of our rights as laid down in the treaties, be demanded for merchants or any other class of citizens.

Under these conventions citizens of the United States are permitted—

1st.
To reside and pursue their various avocations at the ports in China which are open to foreign trade.
2d.
To travel under passport to all parts of the interior; and they are guaranteed—
3d.
Protection to their persons and property and immunity from insults and injuries everywhere in China.
4th.
Exemption from all disabilities or persecutions in teaching or professing the Christian faith.

The right to travel under passport in the interior carries with it, by fair and indeed necessary inference, the privilege of temporary residence there, but would not justify any assertion of the right to rent or purchase premises for permanent occupation.

The “toleration article” may be justly construed as promising the protection of the Chinese Government to chapels and similar places of public worship owned or used by native Christians in all parts of the Empire.

The foregoing statement covers, in my opinion, all the rights conceded by treaty to missionaries in China, and as already indicated no other concessions to them have been formally made by the Imperial Government.

It is true, on the other hand, as Mr. Williams remarks, that “there are several missionaries of the different denominations now residing in various parts of the interior,” and he very naturally asks, “on what conditions they are permitted to remain there?”

Protestant and Romish missionaries are to be found to-day quietly established as permanent residents in very considerable numbers in every province of China. There are fifty-two Protestant missionaries in this province alone, outside of the treaty port of Tientsin, forty-three of whom are Americans. And proclamations have in many instances been issued by the local Chinese authorities declaring the full right of the missionary thus to establish himself and to acquire property in the interior, and warning the populace not to oppose or disturb him in any way. This very marked and valuable advance beyond the strict line of privileges granted by treaty has been gained, not by any formal concession on the part of the Chinese Government, but by the discreet and patient effort of individual missionaries on the one hand and by the liberal and tolerant disposition of the local authorities, influenced more or less by the good will of the people, on the other.

Only in very rare cases has there arisen any trouble in connection with these establishments, and in no instance within my knowledge has it been maintained by the local authorities that the missionaries concerned were seeking that which the treaties did not warrant.

The policy of the central Government of China in regard to missionary residence in the interior, though never formally enunciated, seems to be, so far as it can be gathered as the result of the discussion of cases which have arisen from time to time, to make no opposition to such residence, to tacitly concede it provided no objection is urged by the authorities of the locality concerned, no disturbance arises, and our people are able to establish themselves and their work quietly. Should the issue be squarely raised by the local authorities of any city or district, that certain missionaries, in seeking to gain a residence among them, were going beyond their rights as4aid down in the treaties, it is in my mind more than doubtful whether the foreign office here would consent to make that issue with the foreign government concerned. They would, however, if I am to judge of the future by the past, doubtless raise imaginary difficulties in the given case, and while carefully avoiding the question of the right of residence in the interior, would give practical support to the opposition raised by their local officers.

The policy of our own government in the question under discussion is plain and well defined. While it does not claim for any class of its people the right to reside permanently beyond the limits of the open ports, it appreciates the self-denial and philanthropic motives of the missionary, and is disposed rather to congratulate than to censure him if, by wise and patient effort to conciliate the good will of the natives, he is able quietly to extend his operations beyond treaty limits, and to develop his benevolent work in the heart of this vast Empire. It certainly does not enter into the wish or purpose of the Government or of this Legation to repress or hamper the wider action upon which American missionaries have entered, to advise any retreat from the advanced ground which has been taken with the tacit consent of the Imperial Government, or to fail in taking rightful measures for their protection whenever it may become necessary. On the contrary the Government of the United States will be found ready to give such moral support and encouragement and practical protection to its [Page 141] missionary citizens, either at the ports or in the interior, as their valuable work may justly deserve, and a sound policy and their manifest rights under the treaties may demand.

It may be a legitimate question for discussion, whether the Chinese Government by this tacit acquiescence in the process which has been going on for more that twenty years, and which has resulted in the permanent establishment of missionaries in considerable numbers in every province, may or may not be held to have positively conceded the right of such residence. Prescription and precedent reckon for more in China than in western nations, and may establish “quasi” rights, which, while not conferred by the letter of treaty, are nevertheless entitled to official recognition.

Be this as it may, our treaties with this Empire specifically guarantee to all citizens of the United States in every part of China entire immunity from every species of insult or injury whether to persons or property. Nothing can be more explicit than the language of Article XI of the treaty of Tientsin upon this point. Our people are entitled to, and must receive the full benefit of this stipulation wherever they may be in China. For any supposed or actual breach or excess of treaty rights they may be proceeded against by clearly defined, methods before the duly authorized officers of our government. But under no circumstances will the Government of the United States allow its citizens, whether residing within or without the so-called treaty limits, to be subjected to mob violence, to be violently expelled from this or that district by illegal means, or to have their lives or property jeopardized in any manner except by due process of law.

I am, &c.,

CHESTER HOLCOMBE.