Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 6, 1886
Ju to Mr. Bayard
Washington, D. C., November 30, 1885.
Sir: I have the honor to state that it becomes my painful duty to bring formally to the notice of your excellency a subject of the gravest importance, heretofore referred to in other notes, and to ask for it the careful and considerate attention which distinguishes your conduct towards this legation and my Government.
It appears that several hundred subjects of his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of China, having entered the territory of the United States in accordance with treaty stipulations, had located themselves at Rock Springs, in the Federal Territory of Wyoming; had there erected houses, and for a number of years past had been engaged in the lawful pursuits of peaceful industry. On the 2d of September last these subjects, while quietly engaged in their usual avocations, were suddenly attacked; without any provocation on their part, by a lawless band of armed men, [Page 102] said to have numbered about one hundred and fifty persons. With scarcely any warning the Chinese were ordered by the mob to leave their homes, but before an opportunity was afforded them to execute these orders a deadly fire of musketry was opened upon them, and they were compelled to abandon their houses and all their property and flee to the mountains for their lives. In a short space of time all who were able had fled without offering any resistance, many of them being shot while in their homes or as they ran away from them. Fire was then set by the rioters to their houses, and the entire village, which constituted their chief place of abode, and all Chinese habitations outside the town of Rock Springs, were burned to the ground. As a result of the mob, twenty-eight Chinese were killed, fifteen more or less severely wounded, and a large amount of property (estimated at $147,748.74) was destroyed or appropriated by the rioters.
The Chinese consuls at San Francisco and New York were directed by this legation to go to the scene of the massacre and make a personal investigation of the circumstances attending it. I desire again to make acknowledgment of the inestimable service which was rendered to these consuls through the very prompt and generous action of your excellency, in causing to be sent high officers of your Government to accompany them for protection and assistance in their work. It is also a grateful duty I discharge in praying you to convey to the noble President of this nation the hearty thanks of my Government for the timely dispatch of troops to Rock Springs after the massacre, which, I am sure, prevented still further loss of life and property among my countrymen.
After a careful and thorough investigation, the Chinese consuls have sent to me their reports, which, with the accompanying papers, I inclose herewith for the information of your excellency. To some points established by these documents I deem it proper to direct attention.
It will be noticed that the attack upon the Chinese was unprovoked on their part. The consul at San Francisco reports that “no grievances are complained of by the miners as against the Chinese,” and this is confirmed by all the witnesses whose testimony was taken. The postmaster, a resident of the town for ten years, says he has found the Chinese, “as a class, quiet and well disposed,” and he had “never known of any feeling among the Chinese towards the white miners.” The consul at San Francisco “was assured by prominent citizens, long resident in the Territory, that, as a class, the Chinese have always been law-abiding, quiet, and peaceable, promptly complying with all exactions in the payment of taxes, never in any way becoming a tax upon the authorities.” There seems to have been no complaint as to discrimination in wages, the only motive alleged for the assault being the refusal of the Chinese to join the other miners in their “strikes.”
A second fact shown is, that the events occurred in “broad day-light.” One of the witnesses says, “I think nearly all the murderers can be identified, as no concealment was attempted, * * * but all done in daylight.” It does not appear that any civil or other authorities made any attempt to prevent or suppress the riot. The judicial proceedings which followed the sad event are described as “a burlesque.” The conduct of the coroner who investigated the causes of death seems to me strange, but with my imperfect knowledge of American procedure I prefer not to criticise it.
A further fact is stated by the consul at San Francisco. He says, “I am, after thorough investigation, firmly of the opinion that not one of these criminals who murdered the Chinese, burned and robbed them at Rock Springs, will or can ever be brought to punishment by the so-called [Page 103] Territorial or local authorities. In this opinion I am sustained not only by my own convictions, but also by the governor and prosecuting attorney of the Territory, and scores of citizens, resident and non-resident.” This opinion would seem from subsequent events to have been well founded, as, according to the reports in the public press, all of those who had been arrested for participating in the riot have been released, and the grand jury of the county has refused to find any bills of indictment.
For about twelve hours the rioting, robbery, and arson continued unrestrained; for although, as stated, the killing and wounding of the Chinese and the burning of a great part of the houses were done during the daytime, the witnesses testify that “a little after nightfall the firing of the remaining Chinese houses commenced and continued until after midnight. All this time men, women, and children were engaged in looting and plundering.” And the miners’ newspaper at Rock Springs says, “All night long the sound of rifle and revolver was heard, and the surrounding hills were lit by the glare of the burning houses.” I purposely refrain from giving the details of the massacre contained in the testimony inclosed, as I deem them of too revolting and sickening a character to be repeated in this note, and I am too well acquainted with the noble and humane sentiments which inspire your excellency to think that such a statement is necessary to awaken your sympathy and indignation, and can forth all the powers of your Government to vindicate its laws and repair the wrong which has been done to my countrymen.
It therefore remains for me to ask, in the name of the Emperor and Government of China, that the persons who have been guilty of this murder, robbery, and arson, be brought to punishment; that the Chinese subjects be fully indemnified for all the losses and injuries they have sustained by this lawlessness; and that suitable measures be adopted to protect the Chinese residents of Wyoming Territory and elsewhere in the United States from similar attacks. In this connection, I beg to refer to a list of names of those who were killed and wounded, and of the property losses which were inflicted upon Chinese subjects at Rock Springs by the mob of September 2 last.
With this statement I might consider my duty discharged, but for the fact that this legation having had occasion to call the attention of two of your worthy predecessors to a similar but much less bloody and disastrous event, the honorable Secretary Evarts expressed some doubts as to the legal liability of his Government to make pecuniary indemnity to the Chinese sufferers by the mob at Denver, in the State of Colorado, in 1880, and that the honorable Secretary Blaine concurred in the views of Mr. Secretary Evarts. I have, therefore, to beg the kind indulgence of your excellency while I attempt to show why the present request for indemnification, in the opinion of my Government, ought in justice and equity to be granted, notwithstanding the views set forth in the notes of Secretary Evarts of December 30, 1880, and of Secretary Blaine of March 25, 1881. In doing this it is not my intention to either appeal to you from or to question the correctness of the interpretation of the laws of the United States as given by the distinguished jurist’ Mr. Evarts, and confirmed by the experienced statesman, Mr. Blaine. It would seem to me, however, to be just that if the view taken by Mr. Evarts as to the obligation of the United States to make indemnity for injuries to private individuals from mob violence should be insisted upon and adhered to by your excellency’s Government, China should, in due reciprocity and international comity, accept and practice the same principle.[Page 104]
In the first place, I desire to submit to the enlightened judgment of your excellency, whether the present case is not, in one material respect, different from the occurrence at Denver, Colo. In the latter, Mr. Evarts called attention to the fact “that the powers of direct intervention on the part of this Government are limited by the Constitution of the United States. Under the limitations of that instrument, the Government of the Federal Union cannot interfere in regard to the administration or execution of the municipal laws of a State of the Union, except under circumstances expressly provided for in the Constitution.” And after referring to those circumstances as applied to the Denver riot, he concluded that action “belongs exclusively to the Government and authorities of the State of Colorado.” But in the present case, if I have been correctly informed as to the Governmental practice of your excellency’s nation, the administration of justice and the protection of life and property belong exclusively to the Government and authorities of the Federal Union, and the limitations referred to, as hampering the immediate and direct intervention of the Supreme Government in the Denver case, do not obstruct the action requested in this note. But it is not my intention nor am I qualified to discuss the relative responsibilities or duties of the central and provincial bodies or authorities of the American Union. I count my Government and myself fortunate in having had at the head of the foreign department of this country, in the person of your excellency, one whose long and distinguished experience in public affairs and intimate knowledge of domestic law, and whose well-known sense of international justice and fair dealing eminently fit him for this task, and I cheerfully leave this question in your hands.
There is, however, a broader view of the subject, to which I desire to ask your excellency’s consideration. Mr. Evarts states that he knows “of no principle of national obligation, and certainly there is none arising out of treaty stipulations, which renders it incumbent on the Government of the United States to make indemnity to the Chinese residents of Denver, who* * * suffered losses from the operations of the mob. Whatever remedies may be afforded to the citizens of Colorado * * * are equally open to the Chinese residents of Denver. * * * This is all that the principles of international law and the usages of national comity demand.” I again disown any desire to question the interpretation of international law given by so high an authority, but as “the usages of national comity” are matters of fact and not of law, I trust it may not be considered inappropriate for me to examine somewhat in detail what these “usages” really have been and now are.
There is a principle of reciprocal justice and comity so fair and so true that it is incorporated as a cardinal doctrine, in common, in the system of religion and ethics of the people of America and of China. And in proof of the fact that this principle is equally applicable to Governments in their international relations as to persons in their individual duties, it has been inserted in one of the earliest treaties between China and the United States, and the maxim “to do to others as they would have others do to them” remains in a treaty which is to-day the international law of the two nations (Article XXIX, treaty of 1858). Although, unhappily, this principle has not always been observed in the relations which Christian nations have maintained towards China during the present century, it affords me the highest gratification to recognize the fact that whatever advances have been made in the direction of a practical application of that principle are due in great measure to the [Page 105] magnanimous conduct and powerful influence of the Government of the United States. This conduct has been manifested in a number of instances, but notably so when my Government determined to ask the nations of America and Europe to change the policy which they had heretofore pursued, and to enter upon new treaty stipulations. China cherishes with grateful memory the cordial reception given by the United States to its special embassy in 1868, and the ready acceptance of the treaty proposed by it. As to the effect and meaning of that treaty, I beg to refer your excellency to the declarations of the Secretaries of State, Messrs. Seward and Fish, as quoted in inclosure No. 4 to this note.
I recognize the fact that the treaty of 1868 did not repeal various stipulations of former treaties, whereby China had conceded certain extraterritorial rights to citizens of the United States; but I think it is also clear that so far as the questions involved in this note are concerned, to wit, the full protection of the laws, punishment for acts of riot, murder, robbery, and arson, and pecuniary indemnity for losses occasioned thereby, American citizens in China have no other and no greater treaty guarantees and rights than Chinese subjects in the United States. They are placed on a common footing with the people of the country. A reference to the treaties and the opinions cited in inclosure No. 4 to this note will, I think, establish the correctness of this position. I do not understand that, in citing Article XI of the treaty of 1858, guaranteeing to Americans in China the protection of the local authorities, and in noting the fact that this provision is not reciprocal, Mr. Blaine designed to assert that an equivalent obligation was not incumbent upon the local authorities of the United States. Neither that distinguished statesman nor any other patriotic citizen of this powerful nation of law and order would admit that any Government of the globe was more ready than the United States to do justice and afford protection to those who had legally entered its territory. Besides, it is expressly stipulated in Article VI of the treaty of 1868, and in Article II of the treaty of 1880, that Chinese subjects in the United States should be treated as those of the most favored nation.
I now ask that your excellency will examine with me what has been the practice of the Government of the United States in respect to the injuries and damages which its citizens have suffered from mob violence and lawless acts in China. The investigation which I have caused to be made has necessarily been confined to the published records of your own Government, as the desire I have had to bring officially to your attention the Wyoming massacre with as little delay as possible has prevented me from availing myself of the voluminous data in the Chinese archives at Peking. Before the year 1858, upon the request and intervention of the American diplomatic and consular representatives, the Chinese provincial and local authorities had, in a considerable number of instances, indemnified American citizens for losses occasioned by riots and violence, but in that year a convention was agreed to whereby the Government of China paid over to that of the United States the sum of $735,258.97, “in full liquidation of all claims of American citizens.” In making that payment my Government did not consider the strict obligations of international law or treaty, but was influenced by a desire to show its appreciation of the friendly conduct of the United States in a time of great trial. It neither examined the evidence upon which the claims were based, nor did it insist upon having a representative on the board which disbursed this large sum. The diplomatic representative of the United States, under instructions from his Government, had declared that the claims were equitable and [Page 106] just to that amount, and ought to be paid by China, and upon the faith of his representation the payment was made. From an examination of the claims paid out of that fund, an epitome of which accompanies this note as inclosure No. 3, it appears that a large part of them was for losses sustained by mob violence, robbery, and other lawless acts of individual Chinese subjects. While I desire to embrace this opportunity to again recognize the illustrious conduct of the United States in returning to China the unexpended balance of that fund, it is a fact clearly established by the history of the claims convention of 1858 that the Government of the United States demanded and received from the Government of China a large sum of money as indemnification for losses sustained by American citizens in China by mob violence and robbery.
In addition to this, your excellency, in reviewing the correspondence of the American legation and consulates in China, from the date of that convention up to the present day, will find that it has been the constant and uniform practice of the diplomatic and consular representatives, under direct and specific instructions or subsequent approval of the Department of State, to intervene with the Chinese imperial and local authorities in all cases which came to their notice of injuries or losses suffered by American citizens from mob violence, and have asked these authorities not only to punish the offenders but to indemnify the citizens for all their losses. An abstract of some of these cases has been compiled, and is sent with this note, to substantiate its declarations on this point. It will thus be seen that the Government of the United States has insisted upon the direct indemnification by or through the imperial and local authorities for almost all conceivable losses by mob violence and other kindred acts. It has caused losses to be paid for the burning or destruction of houses by mobs; required the local authorities in some cases to rebuild or repair them, even when owned by Chinese and rented to Americans, the rent paid during the time the houses could not be occupied by the Americans on account of the acts of the mob to be made good. It has exacted indemnification by the authorities for the robbing of Americans and the plunder of their houses by mobs; reimbursement of traveling expenses occasioned by fleeing from them; for petty thefts where the perpetrators were unknown or could not be arrested; the return of money or the value of clothing and other property taken from the native helpers or Chinese servants of Americans. It has asked and received from the imperial treasury large sums of money as indemnification for losses to Americans, where the Chinese passengers and crew of merchant vessels have risen and by force seized the vessel and stolen portions of the cargo, or where wreckers or local pirates have plundered vessels in distress. It has sent its consuls and vessels of war to demand the trial of rioters where a single American suffered losses valued at less than $500; required the infliction of punishment on the guilty in the presence of the representatives of the American Government, and that the rioters should give bond for the future security of American citizens. Its representative has asked for the destruction of prints in interior districts calculated to incite mob violence, the destruction of the block or type, and the punishment of the possessors. Its minister plenipotentiary has intervened with the imperial prince minister to secure the return of sums as small as $73 stolen from American citizens, and to have the latter guarded with greater vigilance. These acts of intervention on the part of the American Government and its representatives, so often repeated through a long serious of years, have been independent of any treaty stipulations [Page 107] to that effect. Article XI, heretofore referred to, confers upon the United States representatives no greater privileges than are, as I am informed, enjoyed by the consular and diplomatic representatives of foreign nations in the United States without any treaty stipulations; and it gives to American citizens no other or greater protection than is afforded by the laws of China to its own subjects. Notwithstanding this, the Government of the United States has asked for, and that of China has uniformly conceded to, American citizens full indemnity through the imperial or local authorities, for all losses and injuries sustained by mob violence and lawless acts of Chinese subjects.
It cannot be believed that in doing this the United States has required of China that which it would not, in the language of Secretary Fish, expect of a “European or American state under the rules of the equitable code which regulated the intercourse of civilized nations.” Neither can it be believed that the United States would so far violate the spirit of the “golden rule,” incorporated by it in one of its treaties, or “the usages of national comity,” referred to by Mr. Evarts, as to require of China that which under similar circumstances it would not concede to China in reciprocity.
Having thus examined what has been the practice of the Government of the United States towards China on this subject, I trust your excellency will not consider that I exceed diplomatic propriety if I refer to the conduct of the United States with respect to other nations. I regret that this note is already so long, and I will, therefore, confine my reference on this point to one notable instance. I learn from an examination of the published records of your excellency’s Government (a memorandum of which is herewith inclosed) that in the year 1851, in consequence of a great excitement created throughout the United States on account of the execution of a considerable number of American citizens by the authorities of Cuba, the indignation against Spain was so great that a mob took place at New Orleans and another at Key West, and the houses of several Spanish subjects were attacked, but the damages done by the mob were confined to the injury of some property, no lives being lost. Without loss of time, the Spanish minister at Washington made a demand for the punishment of the rioters, and “indemnification for damages and injuries inflicted upon Her Catholic Majesty’s subjects.” To this request the distinguished statesman who occupied the post now so worthily filled by your excellency replied in almost the same terms as those used by Mr. Evarts, in which he took the position that Spanish residents were entitled to no other or greater protection and rights than afforded by the laws and courts to native-born citizens. This answer does not appear to have satisfied the Queen of Spain, and her minister in Washington was instructed to renew his request for indemnity, and he, referring to the friendly relations existing between the two Governments, applied to the “equity and wisdom” of Secretary Webster to provide “a generous remedy,” and also invoked the interposition of the President to secure from Congress the indemnification desired. Thereupon the Congress of the United States authorized the Secretary of State to indemnify the Spanish subjects at New Orleans and Key West for all the losses sustained from the lawless mobs at those places, and a large sum of money was paid out of the national Treasury for this object.
Your excellency must not infer from this citation that I regard this act as legal a precedent, binding the United States in all its future national relations. On the contrary, I understand that it was a voluntary act of good-will, above and beyond the strict authorization of domestic [Page 108] law. But I do claim that it goes to show that there are high principles of equity and “national comity,” rising above the narrow limits of statutory law, which control the action of nations; and I heartily rejoice that the early, constant, and steadfast friend of China, the great and enlightened Government of America, has done so much to bring the nations of the earth up to this high plane of international justice and fair dealing. It is far from my mind to undervalue the friendly relations of any other Government towards the United States, or to lessen the obligations of reciprocal good-fellowship which exists between them; but I would be wanting in my duty to my august sovereign did I admit that any Government has cherished for your excellency’s nation more cordial friendship or has been more ready to reciprocate its acts of goodwill than China. If, therefore, in the past the equity and wisdom of the Secretary of State, of his excellency the President, and of the Congress of the United States have found a way whereby the obstructions referred to by Messrs. Evarts and Blaine have been overcome as to the subjects of other nations, I do not doubt that an equally efficacious method will be devised for the relief of the subjects of China, especially in view of the fact that the Government of the latter has uniformly and for a long series of years granted, at the request of the Government of the United States, similar relief to its citizens, and that, too, in the face of strong local prejudice and at the cost of many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I ask the indulgence of your excellency in order to refer to a single further point. I cannot disguise the fact that the presence of Chinese laborers in the United States awakens the hatred and opposition of a certain class of the inhabitants of this country. I am happy to know that neither the Government nor the mass of its citizens share in or sympathize with that hatred. It will be remembered, however, that your excellency’s Government, only a few years ago, in order to remove some of the causes of that opposition, sent a special embassy to Peking to ask my Government to modify the treaty of 1868 respecting immigration, and in their conferences with the Chinese plenipotentiaries that embassy gave assurances that if the modifications proposed should be conceded by China, the Chinese laborers then in this country should have ample protection guaranteed to them by a specific treaty stipulation, and that the Government would “construe all such obligations in that spirit of friendly liberality which has marked its relations with the Chinese Government.” While it was difficult for the Chinese plenipotentiaries to see why a greater obligation rested on their Government to modify treaty stipulations in respect to Chinese laborers than in respect to American missionaries, for instance, whose presence awakened among certain ignorant and prejudiced Chinese a similar hatred and opposition, nevertheless, upon the faith of the solemn assurances of the American ambassadors, they consented to the treaty modifications desired. (For. Rel., 1881, pp. 173 and 178.) I therefore submit to the recognized candor of your excellency, whether your Government did not thereby incur an increased obligation, if that were possible, to afford ample protection to Chinese laborers, such as those who have been murdered and robbed so cruelly at Bock Springs, Wyoming Territory. In view of the state of public sentiment at that place, and of the failure of justice at Denver, I cannot believe that you will refer my suffering countryman, as their only remedy, to the local courts of that Territory. But calling to mind the conduct of China, and the practice of the United States for a long series of years, you will, in such way as your equity and wisdom may devise, provide an ample and prompt indemnification [Page 109] for the lives and property of the Chinese subjects sacrificed by the acts of the lawless mob on the 2d of September last.
I do not think it necessary to make any special appeal through your excellency to the august Chief Magistrate of this nation. His sense of justice is so conspicuous, and his conduct towards my country and its people in the United States has been so magnanimous and so praiseworthy, that I am entirely sure he will heartily seek to carry out any recommendation which your excellency may make to him.
Accept, Mr. Secretary, the renewed assurances of my most distinguished consideration.
Report of F. A. Bee, consul at San Francisco, and accompanying documents.
San Francisco, September 30, 1885.
Sir: In accordance with your excellency’s instructions, transmitted by telegraph on the 13th day of September, requesting me “to go at once to Rock Springs, Wyoming Territory, and fully investigate the massacre of Chinese subjects that took place on the 2d day of September at that place, and report the result of such investigation to your excellency at the earliest possible moment,” I left San Francisco the day following, accompanied by Mr. Huang Sih Chuen, consul at New York, and Mr. Tsang Hoy, interpreter; arriving at Rock Springs on the morning of the 18th, entering at once upon the discharge of our duties. To facilitate our investigations, Consul Huang and Mr. Tsang Hoy took charge of that part relating to all information to be obtained from the Chinese, and confining my duties to obtaining facts from citizens and others.
The result of my investigation is herewith submitted, embodied in the statements of citizens resident there for long periods, and present on the day of the outrages—eyewitnesses, in fact, of one of the most murderous, cruel, and uncalled-for outrages ever perpetrated in any Christian country.
Your excellency will notice by reading the testimony that no grievances are complained of by the miners as against the Chinese; that they had worked for long years together, coming in daily contact with each other, without the slightest complaint ever having been made to the managers or company owning the mines against the Chinese; but, notwithstanding, without a moment’s warning, without previous notice, when unsuspicious of danger, in broad daylight, they were attacked by a large body of armed and unarmed miners, estimated at over one hundred, and brutally shot down, their dwellings surrounded, robbed of everything valuable, then set on fire. Those who attempted to escape from their burning buildings were shot down or driven back into the flames. Fifteen remains of those burned have been taken out, not one of which could be identified. There is not the slightest testimony that the Chinese made any resistance whatever. No appeals for mercy were heeded by these human fiends. “No quarter, but shoot them down,” was the slogan of these murderers during the massacre of these inoffensive and unarmed Chinese miners.
Your excellency will notice by the testimony that the one fact is set forth and given as the only cause of this outrage, to wit, that the Chinese miners stood in the way of the white miners striking, as they, the Chinese, would not join them in that movement, and hence they must be driven from the mines.
You will also notice that it is not charged that the Chinese came in competition with white miners in the way of cheap labor, as the Chinese are paid the same rates per ton for taking out coal as the white miners. Both classes work upon the same terms, and are governed by the same regulations in all the mines in this Territory when Chinese are employed. Therefore no complaints of this nature can be charged to the Chinese residents.
I am assured by prominent citizens long resident in this Territory that as a class the Chinese residents have always been law-abiding, quiet, and peaceable, promptly complying with all exactions in the payment of taxes, never in any way becoming a tax upon the authorities. It is significant in proof of this, that I am further informed that for ten years past there have been about 1,000 Chinese engaged in coal mining in the Union Pacific Railroad Company’s mines in this Territory, and never yet has a Chinese miner been convicted of a felony.[Page 110]
My investigation establishes another fact in connection with this outrage. It appears that the white miners there, who were the authors of the massacre are members of an association known as the “Knights of Labor,” whose membership extends over the whole United States, and it is given as a reason for this outrage that when coal miners strike in distant places who are members of this association, such a strike cannot be successful, for the reason that the Chinese coal miners here would largely contribute to that end by supplying coal from these mines for use where the strike is made. I am assured that this has been the case in several instances in the past five years. Hence they claim that the Chinese must be expelled from all the mines along this railroad that a strike whenever made must be effective. This seems to be the only offending of the Chinese. If they would enroll and become members of this organization, or agree to strike with the white miners, no massacre would have taken place. For months past it has been in contemplation to organize a strike among the coal miners in that Territory and adjoining States and Territories, but the Chinese and a few Mormons would not join in this general strike.
It may be of interest to your excellency to know that not one of these murdering fiends was a native of this country, many of them not residents of the United States one year, and but a small number naturalized citizens. Such were the facts I learned from undoubted authority. As an instance, his excellency Governor Warren, governor of the Territory of Wyoming, was waited upon by a committee of miners, who, among other demands made upon him, said that under no circumstances would they permit the Chinese to labor in the coal mines of the Territory. When asked by the governor if they made these demands as citizens, they all had to admit that they were not citizens, and never had been naturalized as such.
Learning that several arrests had been made by the local officers of Rock Springs, I found upon inquiry that the whole proceeding was a burlesque. Several of the murderers were arrested by warrants issued by a justice of the peace residing at that place, and, for the crime of murder and arson, were admitted at once to bail by this officer of the law in the paltry sum of $500 each. The justice who performed this act is a member of the Knights of Labor, as well as those so arrested.
I am, after a thorough investigation, firmly of the opinion that not one of these criminals who murdered the twenty-eight Chinese, burned and robbed them at Rock Springs on the 2d day of September, will or can ever be brought to punishment by the so-called Territorial or local authorities. In this opinion I am sustained not only by my own convictions, but also by the governor and prosecuting attorney of the Territory and scores of citizens, resident and non-resident. It is not exaggeration to say that no honest resident or non-resident dare openly denounce the acts of these fiends without imperiling his safety, if not his life. Several instances came to my notice when there wherein persons who had given expression to their honest opinions and denounced this outrage were promptly notified in writing to leave the place or suffer the consequences. In obtaining the testimony herewith transmitted to your excellency, it has been a source of great difficulty on account of this terrorism. Therefore, with the present situation of affairs, it is useless to expect the punishment of the guilty wretches who massacred, burned, and robbed the Chinese there.
I call your excellency’s attention to the action of the coroner in holding an inquest over the remains of the dead Chinese. You will notice that no effort was made to summon witnesses to even learn the cause of the death of the victims. Only one witness was permitted to testify, and his evidence was only permitted as a matter of form, to establish the fact that the remains were dead. The jury declared that the nationality of the dead was unknown to them. This coroner is the same official that admitted to bail the parties arrested for the murder of the Chinese. These instances of the administration of justice by the local officers is proof positive that any attempt to mete out the deserved punishment for the late outrages would be but a farce. It is the universal opinion of all good citizens, resident and non-resident, that only by the declaration of martial law can these murderers be brought to understand the enormity of their crime and the richly-deserved punishment meted out to them.
Your excellency’s attention is called to the correspondence between the general manager of the Union Pacific Railroad and Thomas Weatham, representing the Knights of Labor. I may say in connection with the complaints set forth by the committee, or the so-called grievances, that the Government directors of the Union Pacific thoroughly investigated these complaints at Rock Springs and found them untrue.
In conclusion, it gives me pleasure to inform your excellency that we are under great obligations to the military officers now stationed at that place, as well as the officers of the Union Pacific Railroad, for the aid given your commissioners at all times and under all circumstances, to the end that we might make our investigation thorough. To General A. McD. McCook and Lieutenant Groesbeck who were, at your excellency’s request, detailed by the War Department to accompany the commissioners to Rock Springs, we [Page 111] are greatly indebted to both officers for the aid and assistance given us. The instructions given to General McCook by the commander, General Howard, accompany this report.
I have the honor to be your excellency’s most obedient servant,
His Imperial Majesty’s Consul at San Francisco, Cal.
To his excellency Cheng Tsao
Chinese Minister, Washington, D. C.
testimony of o. c. smith, postmaster.
September 18, 1885.
To Colonel Bee:
Dear Sir: In compliance with your request I give what I know and what I believe to be true in relation to the riot in this place that occurred on the 2d day of this month.
About 9 o’clock in the forenoon on the day mentioned word was brought to me that there was trouble in No. 6 mine between white and Chinese miners. I immediately started to walk there. Half a mile this side of No. 6 mine I found about thirty white miners sitting on the railroad track. About half of them had guns in their hands. I inquired what it meant, and they said there had been a fight in the mine between two white men and some Chinese miners about a room; that the white miners and Chinese had been hurt. I advised them all to go back and go to work, and that if the white men had been wronged by the Chinese to take legal steps to get their rights. I then went on toward the mine to find the foreman and see if I could learn full particulars from him. I found him and heard his statement. I then started back. When I came to where I had passed the white men when going up, I found they had left, and about twenty of them were coming toward this village. I came back to the post-office. About 11 o’ clock I saw about thirty miners march by the post-office. I saw no guns at that time. About 2 o’clock p.m. I heard firing in the direction of Chinatown. Went to the depot and got on top of a box-car and saw a mob of men—about sixty white men—running into Chinatown shouting and firing; the Chinese were running out of their houses and running east. Saw that some men fired toward the Chinese and some fired up into the air. I did not see any of the Chinese fall, and at the time I supposed that the firing was only done to scare them. Chinatown is about half a mile north of the depot, where I was standing, too far to distinguish individuals, but I could easily tell a white man from a Chinaman from his dress.
Soon after the Chinese left I saw one of their houses on fire, then another, until eight or ten were burned. Then rumors began to come that several Chinese were killed. Soon after I saw the crowd of white men start to come to this village, heard firing in the direction of a Chinese wash-house, and afterward learned that the owner had been shot. Not knowing what the mob would do next, I went home to my family. Saw them come to a house in the village where a Chinese foreman named Sui Qui lived, but saw no violence there. Later I saw a number of men around the mouth of No. 1 mine slope, and as the Chinese miners came out, I heard shouting and firing, and saw the Chinese run for their lives. That evening, just after dusk, I saw the houses, about forty, in Chinatown take fire one after another and burn. During the next day, September 3, I learned that at least fifteen Chinamen had been killed, some of their bodies nearly burned up in their houses. How many were shot before burning I cannot say or guess, but that some who were sick were burned alive I have no doubt.
There was a complete reign of terror here during the next day. Toward the close of this day, September 3, there were rumors that the Mormons were to be driven out of town that night, and the people were greatly excited; but that night passed and nothing was done.
I have been living in this village since the 29th day of October, 1875. Have been postmaster here since the first of December, 1875. Saw the Chinese brought here in the month of November, 1875, and have seen and dealt with them from that time until the 2d day of this month, when they were driven away. Have paid them for their labor here, and have had more direct dealings with them than any other man here. Have found them as a class quiet and well disposed. Have never heard of their molesting any family, woman, or child here. Have never known of any feeling among the Chinese toward the white miners, only a desire to be let alone. During the time the Chinese have been here there have been several small quarrels in the mines about pit cars and rooms, but these have in most cases been settled by the pit bosses.
During the first six or seven years the Chinese were here I heard few complaints from the white men on account of their employment, some white miners saying they were glad the Chinese were here, as it prevented the formation of a union among the white men; [Page 112] that they had seen enough of miners’ unions and strikes; that they preferred the rule of one intelligent foreman to the tyranny of a hundred ignorant and selfish men.
About two years ago it was reported that a sort of miners’ union was being organized among the white men here. Since that time I have heard complaints and grumblings because Chinese were employed here. Hints were thrown out that the Chinese were to be driven out of town, and I have not the least doubt that it was the support of and encouragement given by this union that led to the riot of September 2, referred to before. I would not be understood as saying that all the men, or perhaps very few of them, took part in or approved of the killing and burning that was done; but their joining the union, and, after the crimes were committed, remaining still in such union and expecting benefits from the results of the riot, are inexcusable.
In conclusion, I would say that, in my opinion, the riot was the result of this union referred to among the white miners. Of this I think there can be no doubt in the minds of intelligent men who know the facts.
testimony of w. h. o’donnell.
Have resided in the Territory since 1868, and Rock Springs over fifteen years. Have been most of the time in the employ of the railroad company.
Was here on the 2d day of September, 1885, the day of the attack upon the Chinese. As to the cause of the massacre, I know of no grievances of any kind. On the part of the white miners there had been symptoms of discontent for some months previous to this trouble. I think the whole origin of the trouble is based upon the fact that Chinese miners were employed, and that no successful strike could be ordered as long as Chinese were employed, as they never would join in a strike. For ten years that Chinese have been employed in these mines there has been no trouble between the two classes worth mentioning. The opinion of the pit bosses is that they have had less trouble with the Chinese miners than with the white. I did not have the least idea that the white miners would attack the Chinese. The first indication of trouble was on the day of the massacre. I saw a body of men coming from No. 6 mine, who marched through the main street, who ordered the saloons closed where liquor is sold. This was in the forenoon of that day. I saw no other demonstration until about 2 or 3 p.m., when they came through again with guns, going to King, Gagen & Matthew’s store. From that point they marched toward the Chinese quarter, crossing the Bitter Creek bridge, and attacked the railroad section-men (Chinese), then passed on into the Chinese quarter, keeping up a continuous firing with their arms upon the Chinese until they reached engine-house of No. 3 mine; where they formed again in a body, and then attacked the Chinese houses indiscriminately, the Chinese fleeing to the hills, followed by the white men, who shot them down as they were fleeing. Many remained in their houses, as they evidently knew that if they came out they would be killed. Then I saw one house on fire. They ran several out of the houses, and shot at them as they ran. As soon as the Chinese had been driven off they commenced setting fire to the houses generally, burning the entire Chinese quarter.
The whole number with arms and who committed the murders did not exceed over sixty men. A large number were on the ground who had no arms.
I was ordered to leave town at once, and did so, going east as far as the “Point of Rocks,” 24 miles east, returning the next morning on the regular overland train. On my way back I took on the train about sixty Chinese who had escaped, and took them to Evanston. The railroad people gathered up several hundred, and took them to Evanston. There was about four hundred Chinese miners employed here at Rock Springs. I think nearly all of the murderers can be identified, as no concealment was attempted on the part of the murderers, but all done in daylight.
testimony of james h. dickey.
I have been a resident of Rock Springs for five months past. Am in the employ of Beckwith, Quinn & Co., and have charge of their store at No. 6 mine. Was there on the 2d day of September, when the Chinese were attacked and driven off by the white miners. The nationality of the men was Welsh, Cornishmen, and Swedes, and from [Page 113] other foreign countries. Don’t know of any Americans being engaged in the trouble or attack. The first thing that attracted my attention on that day was when a Chinaman, named Ah Lip, came out of the mine and went to Mr. Francis’s house, he being a pit boss, and requested him to go into the mine and settle some trouble there. Mr. Francis asked him, “What is the matter?” Lip said, “The white miners want to fight the Chinamen.” Mr. Francis went with him to the pit. Mr. Francis told me that Mr. Evans had marked off four rooms in No. 5 entry, two for Chinese miners, and Isaiah White-house and William Jenkins went to work in two of the rooms, and the first day put in a shot and left it, not going back that day, but did so the next morning, September 2. On this day the Chinamen went to the rooms that had been assigned to them the day before, and fired the shot that Whitehouse had put in the day before. When he went to the room and found the Chinamen at work the difficulty took place, the Chinamen claiming that the pit boss had assigned the room to them. The two white miners beat the Chinamen in a terrible manner. This took place about 8 o’clock a.m. I saw them taking the wounded Chinamen on a buckboard over towards their houses.
About half past 8 o’clock I saw the white miners come out of the mine and go to Rock Springs, about 45 men all told. No. 6 mine is about half a mile from Chinatown. About three or four o’clock I heard shooting in that direction and saw smoke from the burning buildings. Saw Chinamen on the hills running away. I was telephoned from the Rock Springs store to close the store and come to town at once. The distance is about 2 miles. On my way I saw the white men firing at the Chinese, and saw them running away.
What caused the massacre, in my opinion, is wholly owing to the Chinese refusing to go out on a strike, and as long as Chinamen were employed. The average pay of white miners in No. 6 mine has averaged $3.55 per day right along about six months. This can be proved by the books. Never heard it charged that the Chinese worked cheaper or for a less price than the white miners.
statement of a. c. beckwith.
I am a member of the firm of Reckwith, Quinn & Co. Our business has been carried on at this place, Rock Springs, for ten years. A branch of our firm is and has been engaged in the furnishing of miners for the Union Pacific Railroad. We have furnished all nationalities, including Chinese. Up to the year 1875 these mines had been worked exclusively by white men. At that time a strike took place by the miners.
We then decided to employ a portion of the force, at least by experiment, comprising Chinese. We obtained about 400 and set them to work, paying them the same wages we paid white men, which we have adhered to up to this time, a period of ten years. The earnings of the Chinese miner will average every day that he works the sum of $3. The white man averages from three to four dollars per day. There are the names of two white miners on our pay-rolls for the month of August, 1885, whose earnings run over $100 each for that month. This is common and not an unusual thing, and has been for two years past. There never has been, to our knowledge, any complaint made by the miners against the Union Pacific coal department in reference to the wages of any class of miners. Our firm can say that no complaint has ever been made by the white men against the employment of Chinese. There has been the best of feeling between the two races working in the mines. No complaints of a serious nature have ever been made. Everything has gone on in harmony until the past few weeks.
There are but two nationalities working as laborers in these mines—European and Chinese. The only objection I have ever heard from white miners against the Chinese was that they would not join them in a strike. This seemed to be the whole offending of the Chinese, and until they got rid of them they could never be successful in any strike in Wyoming. There is no doubt but emissaries have been all through the company’s mines from Carlin to Ogden stirring up discontent and discord. We have known of this for some time. I know of no grievance that in the least justifies the late outrages.
We as a firm have not brought into these mines any more Chinese the past year than years previous, and those who have been brought here this year were only to fill vacancies.
statement of ralph zwicky.
In the forenoon of September 2 our clerk reported from No. 6 mine that a right had taken place in the mine between white and Chinese miners; that several Chinamen had been seriously hurt, and that the men were all leaving the mines.
About one-half hour afterwards an armed body of men from. No. 6 came marching down the track towards the town. At the bridge crossing Bitter Creek the men halted and held a conference. Upon persuasion by a few citizens, they left their arms in the store near by, and continued their march up town and down Front street towards the hall of the Knights of Labor, shouting, while marching, “White men, fall in.” Their number was augmented by several tradesmen and miners from other mines. The word was then passed around, “A miner’s meeting will be held at 6 o’clock in the evening, to settle the Chinese question.” The men then dispersed in the different saloons. It becoming evident that the men were imbibing freely, all stores and saloons agreed not to sell any more intoxicating drinks that day. A good deal of talk was indulged in about making the Chinese leave camp, but no outsider took it seriously. In the afternoon, about 2 o’clock, the same body of men came marching past the store again, armed with their rifles. They crossed the railroad towards the Chinese section-house, driving the men out towards Chinatown. Soon the rioters came abreast the outlying houses of Chinatown, about 150 strong, half of them carrying Winchester rifles. There they halted, as it seemed, for consultation. In a little while several revolver shots were fired, whether by whites or Chinamen I could not say, but I began to realize the seriousness of the situation. What appeared first to be the mad frolic of ignorant men was turning into an inhuman butchery of innocent beings. The rioters now cautiously advanced. Now a rifle shot, followed by another, and still another, was heard, and then a volley was fired. The Chinamen were fleeing like a large herd of hunted antelopes, making no resistance. Volley upon volley was fired after the fugitives. In a few minutes the hill east of the town was literally blue with the hunted Chinamen. In the mean time fire broke out in a China house, and one after another followed in being laid into ashes. Some houses may have caught fire from others, but it was also evident that many separate fires were laid. Shooting and burning continued uninterrupted until no more Chinamen were in sight, and half the houses were gone up in flames.
Towards 5 o’clock the rioters headed for the town again, crossing Bitter Creek, stopping on the bank, where stood a Chinaman’s wash-house. The rioters surrounded it, and fired several shots through the roof. It was evident that a poor Chinaman was hid away, for a revolver shot made the crowd more cautious. A good many more shots were fired into the house, and then the bloody work was finished; the poor fellow was shot in the back of the head. The rioters took up their march towards Son Quie’s house, in the midst of the town. All the Chinamen being gone, they ordered Son Quie’s wife to leave town. From here the rioters went to No. 1 mine. A few poor wretches had sought safety there, but they were driven out, while the rioters fired their rifles into the air. It was too public a place for any rioter to aim low, and this fact probably saved the lives of the Chinamen. The rioters then went to Foreman Evans and told him to leave town first train east; also gave the same order to William H. O’Donnell, foreman of the Chinese, and employed by Beckwith, Quinn & Co.
The first act was now over, and the rioters dispersed for supper. But it was plain to be seen that their bad blood was up, and could only be cooled down by further destruction. A little after nightfall the firing of the remaining China houses commenced, and continued until after midnight. All this time men, women, and children were engaged in looting and plundering. The next morning a horrible sight presented itself to the visitor in Chinatown. In one place lay three burnt bodies, and one or two in several others. One body was almost eaten up by hogs. It had been roasted by the fire. Another body, shot through the back, lay in the sage-brush, and others were found in different directions. Altogether the number of those known to have lost their lives reached twenty-one. Thirty-nine houses were burnt at No. 3 mine, with a large number of dugouts belonging to Chinamen. Five houses were burnt at No. 6 mine, and one section house in town.
The immediate cause of the riot was the occupation of two rooms by Chinese which white miners claimed had been given to them by Foreman Evans and Pit Boss Brookman. As the Chinese would not vacate the rooms, a fight ensued, in which many white miners took part. As a statement of the parties connected with the affair is contradictory, and my knowledge is based upon hearsay, I would respectfully refer to the testimony given before the Government directors. My belief, however, is that there was no intention of defrauding white miners or of favoring Chinese, but that there was a misunderstanding of the orders by Evans and Brookman.
A remoter cause of the riot was the importation of Chinese miners during the summer, and non-employment of white men coming to town. The reason for this was the coal [Page 115] company feared a strike of white miners, and to prevent this introduced more Chinamen. All white miners belonging to Rock Springs had work at good wages.
The grievances of white miners adduced to have led to the riot are favoritism of the Chinese against white men by pit bosses and officials of the coal company. Of this I have no personal knowledge, except that one boss, McBride, was discharged from the employment of the coal company, it having been proven that he sold rooms. I would again refer to the testimony before the Government directors.
In conclusion let me say, that there is no grievance or argument that can be offered in behalf of white miners to justify even the mere driving out of the Chinamen, much less to justify such inhuman butchery. The Chinamen, as I know them, are inoffensive and peaceable workmen. The white miners have earned good wages all summer, and very likely could not earn more if the Chinese were gone. That it may have been exasperating to white men to see alien labor employed, I admit. The remedy, however, was not in killing them, but in compromise, arbitration, or legislation.
This statement I submit as an eye-witness, and to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Manager Bock Springs Store of Beckwith, Quinn & Co.
certificate of dr. e. d. woodruff.
September 18, 1885.
The following is a memorandum of bodies examined by me since September 2, 1885, at Rock Springs, Wyo.:
September 3, 1885, a.m., dressed gunshot wound of left hip for Chinaman, and left him in fair way of recovery.
September, 3, 1885, p.m., at coroner’s inquest held by John Ludvigsen, acting coroner:
- Body No. 1. Chinaman at wash-house. Gunshot through head.
- Body No. 2. Chinaman near Chinatown, No. 3 mine. Gunshot through neck. Fractured neck, severing carotid artery.
- Body No. 3. Chinaman near Chinatown, No. 3 mine, in edge of creek. Gunshot left thigh through femoral region, cutting femoral artery.
- Body No. 4 Chinaman near Chinatown, No. 3 mine. Gunshot left chest above heart.
- Bodies Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Only charred remains found in the rains of the burned buildings formerly occupied by Chinese. Bodies supposed to be those of Chinamen, but burned beyond identification.
September 12, 1885, Chinatown, No. 3 mine. Charred remains of four bodies. Two of same known to be Chinamen from part of the hair remaining, two being burned beyond identification.
Some of said charred bodies were found in a standing posture, with the heads shoved far into holes in the walls in cellars, and none were found in the ruins of the main buildings.
My sworn testimony before coroner as to cause of death was as follows:
- No. 1, gunshot through head.
- No. 2, hemorrhage, result of gunshot wound.
- No. 3, hemorrhage, result of gunshot wound.
- No. 4, hemorrhage and exhaustion, result of gunshot wound.
- Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, probable cause of death from exposure to fire. Also four bodies found September 12, 1885. Probable cause of death, exposure to fire.
Sweetwater County, Bock Springs Precinct, ss:
[Justice’s court, before John Ludvigsen, justice of the peace, acting coroner.]
Rock Springs, Wyo., September 3, 1885.
Being notified of three bodies lying dead at or near the north side of Bitter Creek, in Rock Springs, Sweetwater County, Wyoming Territory, I ordered an inquest to be held.[Page 116]
The following-named persons were summoned as jurors in said inquest, to wit: E. S. Murrey, William Harcombe, John Gagan, William Musgrove, W. G. Heits, and O. S. Johnson.
The jury being sworn according to law, the following was subpoenaed as witness, to-wit: E. D. Woodruff, M. D.
The jurors having inspected the bodies, heard the testimony, and made all needful inquiries, they returned their inquisition in writing under their hands, the following:
We, the undersigned, members of the jury, being duly sworn, state, that Chinamen Nos. 2, 3, and 4 came to their death from gunshot wounds, the cause of the same being unknown to us.
- EDW. S. MURRAY, Foreman.
- WILLIAM HARCOMBE.
- W. G. HEITS.
- JOHN GAGAN.
- WILLIAM MUSGROVE.
- O. S. JOHNSON.
I therefore discharged jury, and ordered the bodies to be buried decently according to law. No property or effects found on the bodies.
Justice of the Peace, Acting Coroner.
Sweetwater County, Bock Springs Precinct, ss:
[Justice’s court, before John Ludvigsen, justice of the peace, acting coroner.]
September 3, 1885.
Being notified of a dead body lying at Rock Springs China wash-house, in Rock Springs, Sweetwater County, Wyoming Territory, I ordered an inquest to be held. The following-named persons were duly summoned as jurors in said inquest, to wit: E. S. Murrey, William Harcombe, John Gagan, William Musgrove, W. G. Heits, and O. S. Johnson.
The jury being sworn according to law, the following witness was subpoenaed: E. D. Woodruff, M. D.
The jurors having inspected the body, heard the testimony, and made all needful inquiries, they returned their inquisition in writing under their hands the following:
We, the undersigned, members of the coroner’s jury, from evidence before us, state that the deceased came to his death from a gunshot wound in the head, by some means unknown to the jury.
- EDW. S. MURREY, Foreman.
- WILLIAM HARCOMBE.
- JOHN GAGAN.
- WILLIAM MUSGROVE.
- W. G. HEITS.
- O. S. JOHNSON.
I therefore discharged the jury, and ordered the body to be buried decently, according to law.
No property or effects found on the body.
Justice of the Peace, Acting Coroner.
Sweetwater County, Bock Springs Precinct, ss:
[Justice’s court, before John Ludvigsen, justice of the peace, acting coroner.]
Rock Springs, Wyo., September 3, 1885.
Being notified of eleven bodies laying dead in Chinatown, in Rock Springs, Sweetwater County, Wyoming Territory, I ordered an inquest to be held.
The following-named persons were duly summoned as jurors in said inquest, to wit: E. S. Murrey, William Harcombe, William G. Heits, John Gagan, William Musgrove, and O. S. Johnson.
The jury being sworn according to law, the following witness was subpoenaed: E. D. Woodruff, M. D.
The jurors, having inspected the bodies, heard the testimony, and made all needful inquiries, they returned their inquisition in writing under their hands the following:[Page 117]
We, the undersigned, members of the coroner’s jury, from, the evidence before us, state that human bodies Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 came to their death from exposure to fire, the nationality of said bodies being unknown to us, as they were defaced beyond recognition.
- EDW. S. MUKEEY, Foreman.
- WILLIAM HARCOMBE.
- WM. G. HEITS.
- JOHN GAGAN.
- WILLIAM MUSGROVE.
- O. S. JOHNSON.
I therefore discharged the jury, and ordered the bodies to be buried decently, according to law.
No property or effects found on the bodies.
Justice of the Peace, Acting Coroner.
Sweetwater County, Bock Springs Precinct, ss:
[Justice’s court, before John Ludvigsen, justice of the peace, acting coroner.]
Rock Springs, Wyo., September 12, 1885.
Being notified of four dead bodies found dead in Chinatown, in Rock Springs, Sweetwater County, Wyoming Territory, I ordered an inquest to be held.
The following-named persons were duly summoned as jurors in said inquest, to wit: Thomas Whitmore, A. B. Benson, Albert Keirlie, L. L. Dane, John Petersen, and C. Andersen.
The jury being sworn according to law, the following witness was subpoenaed: E. D. Woodruff, M. D.
The jurors having inspected the bodies, heard the testimony, and made all needful inquiries, they returned their inquisition in writing under their hands the following:
We, the undersigned, having been duly empaneled as a coroner’s jury to inquire into the cause of the death of the four (4) persons whose names are unknown, do find, after inquiry, that said parties must have come to their death by fire.
- TOM WHITMORE, Foreman.
- A. B. BENSON.
- ALBERT KEIRLE.
- L. L. DANE.
- JOHN PETERSEN.
- C. ANDERSEN.
I therefore discharged the jury, and ordered the bodies to be buried decently, according to law.
No property or effects found on the bodies.
Justice of the Peace, Acting Coroner.
[Copies of telegrams received by Col. A. McD. McCook, Sixth Infantry, Brevet Majors-General, U. S, Army, at Camp Murray, 14 miles from Wauship Station and 21 miles from Coolville, the nearest telegraph station.]
Colonel McCook Sixth Infantry:
Arrange to keep in quick telegraphic communication with department headquarters. It is possible some of the troops under your command may be needed in connection with riots of coal miners along Union Pacific Railroad in Wyoming. Have you plenty of ammunition? How long will it take infantry to reach railroad?
By command of General Howard.
A true copy.
Colonel Sixth Infantry, Brevet Major-General, U. S. A.
Note.—The telegraph operator seems to have omitted the date to this telegram. It was received at Wauship Station, Utah, on the evening of September 5. I, Lieut. S. [Page 118] W. Groesbeck, adjutant Sixth Infantry, then at Wauship Station, in the name of General McCook, made all necessary arrangements for quick delivery of telegrams by mounted messengers from Wauship Station (the nearest railroad station) to Camp Murray.
Sixth Infantry, Camp Murray:
Have six companies in readiness to move, with ten days’ rations and necessary ammunition, in case they are needed in connection with miners’ riots along Union Pacific in Utah. Have an understanding with local railroad officials so that everything may be planned to move promptly. It is hoped there will be no occasion to call on your troops, but it may be necessary. Keep in quick communication with telegraph. Do not move without further orders. Acknowledge receipt.
By command General Howard.
A true copy.
A. McD. McCOOK,
Colonel Sixth Infantry, Bvt. Maj. Gen. U. S. Army.
Camp Murray, via Coolville:
Send six companies of your command without delay to Wauship Station, where cars will be in waiting by four o’clock to-day to take them to Evanston to report for duty to Lieutenant-Colonel Anderson. The troops under Lieutenant-Colonel Anderson at Evanston and Lieutenant-Colonel Chipman at Rock Springs have been ordered to protect Chinese laborers against lawless violence, and need prompt assistance. Give the six companies ten days’ rations and the necessary ammunition. Acknowledge and report letters of companies.
By command General Howard.
A true copy.
Colonel Sixth Infantry, Brevet Major-General, U. S. A.
Note.—The foregoing telegram was received at Camp Murray at 4.30 p.m., same day as its date, and at 6.30 the troops were in march for Wauship Station, where they took trains for Evanston a little after midnight.
General McCook, Camp Murray:
Two Chinese consuls and their interpreter, from San Francisco, will go to Rock Springs, Wyo., to make investigation into the late disturbances. The Secretary of War directs that the consul shall be met at Ogden by two suitable officers from the garrison of Fort Douglas, so as to secure the consuls from harm or insult, and procure them kind treatment while making the investigation and while traveling. The commanding officer at Rock Springs will be instructed to furnish any necessary guard. Select carefully two suitable officers for this duty from your command and order them at once to Ogden. If General McCook would go himself as one of the officers, there would be no concern here as to the success of his mission, but unless he is willing he is not ordered. Acknowledge receipt and report the names of the officers, so that orders may be issued here to cover their mileage. Further instructions will be sent care of Captain Ingalls at Ogden, where the consuls will await the arrival of the officers.
By command General Howard.
A true copy.
Colonel Sixth Infantry, Brevet Major-General, U. S. A.
[Copy of telegram.]
Omaha, Nebr., September 13, 1885.
Depot Quartermaster, Ogden, Utah:
Give the following instructions for the officers who go with the Chinese consuls to Bock Springs to them when they reach Ogden:
Your duty will he, in accordance with the instructions of the Secretary of War, to accompany the consuls to Rock Springs, attend them while they are there making their investigation into the late disturbances, and return with them to Ogden, and to take every possible precaution to preserve them from harm or insult, and to see that they are treated with every courtesy and kindness during the whole time. Take no chances of failure in this duty. This dispatch will be authority to call on the commanding officers at Evanston and Rock Springs for any escorts or guards you may need. Spare no pains to make this duty a success.
Report frequently each day by telegram your progress and so forth. Acknowledge receipt, and telegraph when you leave Ogden.
By command General Howard:
A true copy.
Brevet Major-General, U. S. A.
correspondence of manager of union pacific railroad company and knights of labor.
To General Manager and President of the Union Pacific Railway:
Gentlemen: We, the undersigned executive committee of employés of the Union Pacific Railway, wish to submit for your consideration the accompanying report. We believe the matter contained in it materially affects our well-being, as well as the company’s interest.
Since the introduction of Chinese labor great discontent has prevailed amongst all sections of your employés. On account of their being used for the upsetting of time-honored usages and the introduction of what we believe to be insidious innovations on our rights and liberties, have unsettled our minds and is preventing the due performance of our labor. The working of a great system like the Union Pacific Railroad cannot be recklessly tampered with, as has been done, without doing harm to all concerned, and we feel persuaded that as American citizens you would think us unworthy of name if we tamely submitted to the kind of treatment detailed in the accompanying report.
We respectfully submit that to adequately meet the case, the removal of the Chinese from the system, and the removal of Beckwith, Quinn & Co., and D. O. Clark, from authority is required. Nothing less, we believe, will suffice to prevent a repetition of the treatment or beget that feeling which we believe to be essentially necessary to subsist between the company and their employés.
Further, if this request be complied with, we will assist the company to get good, reliable white miners to fill the places of the Chinese, and do everything that is just to help the company.
Chairman Knights of Labor.
We respectfully report that we are in possession of information that satisfies us beyond a doubt that the white miners at Rock Springs have been subjected to robbery and other ill treatment at the hands of superintendent and mine bosses.
- They have been robbed of their rights by being turned out of their places in the mine and Chinese put into the same.
- They have been made to work where Chinese would not work.
- Their places have been bought by Chinese giving as far as $100 to the mine boss for the same.
- They have been robbed by false weights being used to weigh their coal.
- They have been discharged because they refused to vote for Mrs. Tisdel for school superintendent.
- They have been compelled to buy their goods of Beckwith, Quinn & Co., when they could have procured them cheaper elsewhere.
To tell all that the white miners have been subjected to by the parties named in our letter would take up too much of your time to read, and knowing that you will get the evidence from another quarter, we can only add that we trust that you will give it your most earnest attention.
J. N. Corbin, Secretary.
Chairman Executive Committee Union Pacific Employés, Denver:
Dear Sir: Your letter of September 19 came duly to hand, and as it was addressed to the president of the company as well as to me, it has been forwarded to the former gentleman at Boston.
You say that “since the introduction of Chinese labor great discontent has prevailed amongst all classes of your (our) employés.” You seem to forget during our numerous conferences no dissatisfaction was ever expressed on this account, and that at the last meeting with your chairman and some members of the Omaha committee, held in my office but a few days prior to the recent outbreak, gratification was expressed by them at the absence of any cause for complaint, and at the general harmony prevailing between the managers and other employés of the company. I beg also to remind you that Chinese were employed long before labor difficulties of any kind were known upon the Union Pacific, and that their employment was resorted to originally, not from choice, but as an absolute necessity in maintaining the road-bed and keeping the coal mines in operation.
The labor difficulties experienced by the Union Pacific Company prior to the recent outbreak have had no connection with or relation to the Chinese question, so far as known to me.
You prefer certain charges against the firm of Beckwith & Quinn and Mr. D. O. Clark, the general superintendent of the coal department, and demand their removal. It is the policy and purpose of the present management to give earnest and patient investigation and consideration to specific charges made against any of its officers or employés, but it will demand proofs and insist upon any party so accused having a fair opportunity to defend himself. In this particular case it might also be well to bear in mind that these charges have been preferred by men at Rock Springs, who are attempting to justify to the American people a most atrocious massacre and wanton destruction of property.
You also demand the removal of the Chinese from the service. When the company can be assured against strikes and other outbreaks at the hands of persons who deny its owners the right to manage their property, it may consider the expediency of abandoning Chinese labor; but under all circumstances and at any cost or hazard it will assert its right to employ whom it pleases and refuse to ostracise any one class of its employés at the dictation of another.
press account of the riot.
The exodus!—The true story of the Chinese exodus.
On Wednesday, September 3, all the Chinese in Rock Springs, to the number about 600, were driven out of camp by the long suffering miners. The true story of their expulsion is as follows:
The feeling against them has been getting stronger all summer. The fact that the white men had been turned off the sections and hundreds of white men were seeking in vain for work, while the Chinese were being shipped in by the car-load and given work, strengthening the feeling against them. It needed but little to incite this feeling into an active crusade against them, and that little came Wednesday morning at 6. All the entries at No. 6 were stopped the first of the month, and Mr. Evans, the foreman, marked off a number of rooms in the entries. In No. 5 entry eight Chinamen were working, and four rooms were marked off for them; in No. 13 Mr. Whitehouse and Jenkins were working, and Evans told them they could have rooms in that entry or in No. 11 or 5. They chose No. 5, and when they went to work Tuesday, Dave Brookman, who was [Page 121] acting as pit boss in Mr. Francis’s absence, told them to take the first rooms marked off. He supposed the Chinamen had begun work on their rooms, and that Whitehouse and Jenkins would take the next rooms beyond them. But as the two first rooms in the entry had not been commenced, Whitehouse took one, not knowing they had been given to the Chinamen. He went up town in the afternoon, and in his absence the two Chinamen came in and began work in the room Whitehouse had started. Wednesday morning when Whitehouse came to work two Chinamen were in possession of what he considered his room. He ordered them out, but they would not leave what they thought was their room. High words followed, then blows. The Chinese from other rooms came rushing in, as did the whites, and a fight ensued with picks, shovels, drills, and needles for weapons. The Chinamen were worsted, four of them being badly wounded, one of whom has since died. A number of white men were severely bruised and cut. An attempt was made to settle the matter, but the men were excited and bound to go out. They accordingly came out, armed themselves with rifles, shotguns, and revolvers, to protect themselves from the Chinese, they said, and started up town. After coming through Chinatown they left their guns behind them and marched down the front street and dispersed about noon.
In the mean time all was excitement in Chinatown. The flag was hoisted as a warning, and the Chinamen gathered to their quarters from all parts of the town, being gently urged by chunks of coal and brickbats from a crowd of boys. After dinner all the saloons were closed and a majority of the men from all the mines gathered into the streets. Most of them had fire-arms, although knives, hatchets, and clubs were in the hands of some. It was finally decided that John must go then and there, and the small army of 60 or 70 armed men, with as many more stragglers, went down the track toward Chinatown. On the way they routed out a number of Chinese section men, who fled for Chinatown, followed by a few stray shots. When the crowd got as far as No. 3 switch they sent forward a committee of three to warn the Chinamen to leave in an hour. Word was sent back that they would go, and very soon there was a running to and fro and gathering of bundles that showed John was preparing to move out. But the men grew impatient. They thought John was too slow in getting out, and might be preparing to defend his position. In about half an hour an advance was made on the enemy’s works, with much shooting and shouting. The hint was sufficient. Without offering any resistance, the Chinamen snatched up whatever they could lay their hands on and started east on the run. Some were bareheaded and barefooted, others carried a small bundle in a handkerchief, while a number had rolls of bedding. They fled like a flock of frightened sheep, scrambling and tumbling down the steep banks of Bitter Creek, then through the sage-brush and over the railroad and up into the hills east of Burning Mountain. Some of the men were engaged in searching the houses and driving out the stray Chinamen who were in hiding, while others followed up the retreating Chinamen, encouraging their retreat with showers of bullets fired over their heads.
All the stores in town were closed, and men, women, and children were out watching the hurried exit of John Chinaman, and every one seemed glad to see them on the wing. Soon a black smoke was seen issuing from the peak of a house in “Hong-Kong,” then from another, and very soon eight or ten of the largest of the houses were in flames. Half choked with fire and smoke numbers of Chinamen came rushing from the burning buildings, and with blankets and bed-quilts over their heads to protect themselves from stray rifle shots they followed their retreating brothers into the hills at the top of their speed. After completing their work here the crowd came across to Ah Lee’s laundry. There was no sign of a Chinaman here at first, but a vigorous search revealed one hidden away in a corner, but he would not or dare not come out. Then the roof was broken through and shots fired to scare him out, but a shot in return showed the China-man was armed. A rush through the door followed, then came a scuffle and a number of shots, and looking through an opening in the roof a dead Chinaman was seen on the floor with blood and brain oozing from a terrible wound in the back of his head.
[Rock Springs Independent.* Official paper of Sweetwater County. Independent Publishing Company, proprietors; Norman B. Dresser, editor.]
Foreman Evans was next visited and told to leave on the evening train. He quietly said he would go. He afterward asked to be allowed to stay till the next day to get his things ready, but a vote of the men decided against allowing this favor, and about four hours after Mr. Evans left for the East. The crowd next visited the house of Soo Qui, a boss Chinaman, but Soo had gone to Evanston, and only his wife was in the house. She came to the door much terrified, and with tearful eyes and trembling voice said, “Soo he go; I go to him.” The assurance of the men that she could stay in the house and would not be harmed did not calm her fears. She did not like the looks of the armed crowd, and gathering a small armful of household treasures she left and was afterward [Page 122] taken in by a neighbor. Then a few Chinamen working in No. 1 came out and were hustled up the hills after their fleeing brothers.
“Well, gentlemen, the next thing is to give Mr. O’Donnell notice to leave, and then go over to No. 6,” said one of the men in the crowd. But the crowd was slow in starting on this errand. A large number seemed to think this was going too far, and of the crowd that gathered in front of O’Donnell’s store the majority did not sympathize with this move. But at somebody’s orders a note ordering O’Donnell to leave was written and given to Gotsche, his teamster.
Joe Young, the sheriff, came down Green River in the evening, and guards were out all night to protect the property of the citizens in case of a disturbance. But everything was quiet in town. Over in Chinatown, however, the rest of the houses were burned, the whole of them, numbering about forty, being consumed to the ground. The Chinese section house and also the houses at No. 6 were burned, and Chinamen were chased out of nearly all the burning buildings. All the night long the sound of rifle and revolver was heard, and the surrounding hills were lit by the glare of the burning houses.
* * * * * * *
A look around the scenes of the previous day’s work revealed some terrible sights Thursday morning. In the smoking cellar of one Chinese house the blackened bodies of three Chinamen were seen. Three others were in the cellar of another, and four more bodies were found near by. From the position of some of the bodies it would seem as if they had begun to dig a hole in the cellar to hide themselves. But the fire overtook them when about half way in the hole, burning the lower extremities to a crisp and leaving the upper portion of the body untouched. At the east end of Chinatown another body was found charred by the flames and mutilated by hogs. The smell that arose from the smoking ruins was horribly suggestive of burning flesh. Further east were the bodies of four more Chinamen, shot down in their flight; one of them had tumbled over the bank and lay in the creek with face upturned and distorted. Still further another Chinaman was found, shot through the hips, but still alive. He had been shot just as he came to the bank, and had fallen over and lay close to the edge of the bank. He was taken up town and cared for by Dr. Woodruff. Besides this two others were seriously wounded, and many who got away were more slightly hurt. The trains to-day have picked up a large number of Chinamen on the track and taken them west.
[From Rock Springs Independent.]
The return!—Three hundred soldiers protecting them—Chinatown to be rebuilt—United and determined action needed.
It was rumored Wednesday noon that the Chinese were on their way back to Rock Springs. Few believed the rumor, as it was not thought they could be induced to return.
But about 2 o’clock a passenger train came in bearing two hundred armed soldiers. Closely following was a freight train of twenty-two cars loaded with 650 of the hated Chinese, the latter train switching off and going toward No. 3 mine, where the Chinese disembarked, and hurried over to the ruins of their houses. They began digging in the cellars, and soon unearthed a large amount of money. Six thousand dollars in gold and silver was dug up from one cellar, and as much more from another, where it had been concealed before their flight.
Numbers of them soon came up town. Some looked bold and defiant, while others were evidently fearful of being attacked, but no demonstration was made against them. The cars were afterward brought down the track to a point near the soldiers camp, where the Chinamen built fires, had supper, and spent the night.
The action of the company in bringing back the Chinese means that they are to be set to work in the mines, and that American soldiers are to prevent them from again being driven out.
It means that all the white miners in Rock Springs, except those absolutely required, are to be replaced by Chinese labor.
It means that the company intended to make a “Chinatown” out of Rock Springs, as they proposed to the Almy miners last Monday.
It means that Rock Springs is killed, as far as white men are concerned, if such programme is carried out.
[From Salt Lake Tribune.]
At Bock Springs.—A special Tribune representative on the ground.
After the massacre on September 2 the bodies of twenty-five Chinese were gathered and buried on a portion of the burnt district. The bodies were exhumed and placed in [Page 123] coffins, and given burial in the Chinese cemetery, while the Government directors were here, and they had an opportunity to see the ghastly remains. Probably no more horrible mortuary scene ever presented itself to man than this. Trunks and limbs of human beings, showing the work of fire-arms, knives, bludgeons, and of fire, mingled in one mass of putrefaction when all had been gathered together. On many the skulls were mashed in and brains protruded. Regarding the number killed, and who have perished from fright and starvation, or died from their wounds, it is doubtful whether the full list will ever be made known, but it is known that twenty-five have been buried; that in all forty-eight are missing, including these twenty-five, and it is believed that fifteen are dead in the hills. One Chinaman, who came in after living out several days, reports that two of his comrades died, and before he left them the coyotes had begun to devour the bodies. This is probably one incident in a half dozen or more. The Chinaman who reported this when he came in was so nearly famished that he lay down by a tub and drank as if he would never be able to quench his dreadful thirst, and, being wounded in his foot, went away for treatment, and cannot now be found.
investigation by the government directors of the union pacifc railroad.
[From Omaha Tribune-Republican, September 19, 1885.]
Cheyenne, Wyo., September 18.
Three of the Government directors, General E. P. Alexander, M. A. Hanna, and James W. Savage, are at Rock Springs, investigating the circumstances attending the late outbreak. They gave a hearing yesterday to a committee of citizens who had previously presented their case to Mr. Bromley, the representative of the company. The case was presented in a much better shape than upon the former occasion, and the causes of complaint were made more intelligible and clear. Nothing new, however, appeared as to the alleged grievance against the Chinese or against the employers of the miners.
The same rule was observed with regard to the circumstances immediately connected with the outrages. All the witnesses refused to say anything whatever concerning the attack upon the Chinamen and the burning of their quarters. The examination was chiefly conducted by Judge Savage, who was materially assisted therein by Mr. Hanna, who is himself amine owner, and familiar with the subject of miners’ grievances. Every opportunity has been furnished the citizens and miners to present their grievances. The Government directors decided upon the facts as shown to send the following dispatch to Secretary Lamar:
“The undersigned, Government directors of the Union Pacific Railway, pursuant to law, report that we have made an investigation upon the spot into the alleged outrages recently occurring at this place. We find such a condition of affairs here as in our opinion endangers the property of the road, jeopardizes the interests of the Government, and calls for prompt interference. We, therefore, deem it important that full authority should be given to the proper officers to afford ample assistance to the managers in their efforts to protect the property of the company and conduct the business of the road.
“E. P. ALEXANDER.
“M. A. HANNA.
“JAMES W. SAVAGE.”
[From Salt Lake Tribune, September 20, 1885.]
That bloody deed,
The inhabitants of this vicinity are all very much interested in the Rock Springs outrage committed on the Chinamen several weeks ago, and the Tribune, desirous of laying before its readers the facts as near as can be gathered at this time, deputed one of its representatives to call on the three Union Pacific Government directors, who arrived in this city yesterday from Rock Springs, where they have been investigating the circumstances attending the late outbreak. The distinguished gentlemen are M. A. Hanna, of Cleveland, Ohio; E. P. Alexander, of Augusta, Georgia, and Judge James W. Savage, of Omaha. In the afternoon they visited Fort Douglas and the several buildings in the Temple Block into whose sacred precincts the footsteps of the ungodly gentiles are permitted to enter, and, after a well-enjoyed dinner, were found in excellent spirits, prepared to submit to a series of questions and cross-questions. The replies were given in an open, frank, and unreserved manner, and each gentleman vied with the other in giving all the facts that would tend to elucidate the condition of affairs at Rock Springs to-day.
“Did you come West purposely to investigate this matter?” asked the reporter.
“No, sir; we were on a tour of inspection of the road, and went to Rock Springs at the solicitation of a committee of citizens and miners of that place, who telegraphed us, asking [Page 124] us to stop there. On Thursday last we examined into the story of these gentlemen, and yesterday (Friday) we heard the statement made by the Chinese consul at New York, Colonel Bee, and a number of Chinamen who had been wounded on the night of that awful and unjustifiable massacre.”
* * * * * * *
“Is that true that most of the attacking party of miners were aliens?”
“Quite true. We found, upon investigation, that there was not an American-born citizen among them. Their nationalities were English, Welsh, Scotch, Irish, and Scandinavian, their numbers predominating in the order named.”
“Colonel Bee intimates that the attempt to bring the offenders to trial will be abortive, on account of the jurors being all, or nearly all, from Rock Springs. What do you think of it?”
“It is a fact that of the sixteen grand jurors eleven are from Rock Springs. This, however, is nothing unusual, nor is it the fault of the sheriff, nor do I think Colonel Bee intended to complain of that. Rock Springs is the largest town in the county, and it would be impossible to get a grand jury at all unless drawn from the city people, for the other inhabitants of the county live at distances varying from 25 to 50 miles, over difficult roads to the court-house, and would rather pay their fines than attend court. The sheriff of Sweetwater appeared to be a competent man, desirous of doing his simple duty. He told us it would have been utterly impossible to have obtained the services of three men to suppress the riot or maintain order after the riot was suppressed, and that it was at his instigation that Governor Warren called out the troops. There are now about ninety soldiers on duty, being small detachments from three regiments. These soldiers are overworked, and although able to suppress any disorder ought to be re-enforced. It was for this reason, among others, that we telegraphed to Secretary Lamar the message, a copy of which appeared in this (Saturday) morning’s Tribune.”
“The white laborers said the Chinese were sober, industrious, quiet, timid, and thrifty. One man, who had worked with them in the same mine for eight years, declared that he never had any quarrel with them, and had never but once known of their having a difficulty with anybody. On the occasion of our examination they were temperate in their expressions, and confident in the belief that they would be protected in the future. We heard no word of bitterness from any one of them. The witnesses smiled as they showed their wounds and told the story of their escapes with an amused expression, as though surprised themselves at the outbreak.”
“Will the white men engaged in the riot be taken back in the Union Pacifiers employ?”
“No, sir. Only sixteen have been arrested, so far, under the law, and forty-five have been discharged as being participants in the riot. Of those discharged the company will take back any who can establish their innocence. Notice has been given that mines Nos. 3 and 4 will be started on Monday next. At present no work is being done at the mines.”
“Will you make a special report on this affair to the Government?”
“No, sir; but we will make a note of it in our report to the Secretary of the Interior, which is required to be made annually about November 1.”
In reply to numerous other questions the courteous gentleman stated that the people of Rock Springs are willing to concede that the killing was unfortunate, but they had yet to hear of any inhabitant of that place who thought that the massacre was wicked or wrong. Indeed, the citizen who was willing to concede that it was unfortunate said he could not help but rejoice when he saw the Chinese fleeing.
The directors could not tell how long the troops would be kept at Rock Springs, but thought if removed now another outrage would follow. The Chinamen are lodged in box cars near the encampment of the troops.
the result of the judicial investigation.
[From the Chicago Tribune, October 8, 1885.]
Nobody responsible for the Koch Springs outrages.
Cheyenne, Wyo., October 7.
The grand jury of Sweetwater County found no indictments against the Rock Springs rioters. It made the following report:
“We have diligently inquired into the occurrence at Rock Springs on the 2d day of September last, and though we have examined a large number of witnesses, no one has been able to testify to a single criminal act committed by any known white person that day. Whatever crimes may have been, committed, the perpetrators thereof have not been disclosed by the evidence before us; and, therefore, while we deeply regret the circumstance, we are wholly unable, acting under the obligations of our oaths, to return [Page 125] indictments. We have also inquired into the causes that led to the outbreak at Rock Springs. While we find no excuse for the crimes committed, there appears to be no doubt of abuses existing that should have been promptly adjusted by the railroad company and its officers. If this had been done, the fair name of our Territory would not have been stained by the terrible events of the 2d of September.”
The Union Pacific Railway Company is now employing Mormons at its mines at Almy and Rock Springs.
[Associated Press telegram.]
Rock Springs, Wyo., October 7.
There is great excitement here over the release of the alleged rioters. The accused were met on their return from Green River last night by several hundred men, women, and children, and treated to a regular ovation. The mines are turning out about half the usual quantity of coal.
[From the Alta-California, San Francisco, October 10.]
The wyoming massacre—why no indictments were found against the rioters—a derelict prosecution—consul bee reiterates his statement that every murderer could have been identified by the grand jurors.
As has been already announced by telegraph, the grand jury of Sweetwater County, Wyoming Territory, failed to find any indictment against any of the parties engaged in the recent massacre of Chinese at Rock Springs. It will be remembered that when Consul Bee returned from his investigation of the murderous assault upon the Mongolian residents of Rock Springs he predicted that no indictments would be returned by the grand jury. Of this he was most confident, because of the terrorism prevailing in that district, and because the grand jury would most likely be empaneled from the very mob which committed the cowardly murders. Yesterday an Alta reporter called upon Consul Bee and asked him what he thought of the grand jury’s report. “Think of it?” said Colonel Bee, “think of it? Why, they never tried to indict any one. See, here is what they say:
“‘We have diligently inquired into the occurrence at Rock Springs on the 2d day of September last, and though we have examined a large number of witnesses, no one has been able to testify to a single criminal act committed by any known person on that day. Whatever crimes may have been committed there, the perpetrators thereof have not been disclosed by the evidence before us, and therefore, while we deeply regret the circumstance, we are wholly unable, acting under the obligation of our oaths, to return indictments.’
“To show you what sort of a grand jury that must have been, I will simply state that I myself have nine affidavits of railroad employés, merchants, and superintendents of the mine, who saw every house fired from first to last. I told United States District Attorney Campbell, who was specially deputized by the Attorney-General to investigate the massacre, that if he would guarantee proper protection I would furnish him Chinese witnesses who could identify every white engaged in the assault. He said he would attend to the matter and let me know. He then went off to Evanston, and I have never seen or heard from him since. There was no attempt on the part of the prosecuting officers to indict; they did not want any indictments returned, thanks to the reign of terror. You must remember that these Chinese and white miners have been working together for the last eight years, and are a trifle more, than familiar with each other’s countenances. All the white miners, as well as the Chinese, were paid off by an American firm, and the head of that concern, as well as two or three clerks, could have identified every one of the rioters.
“‘Whatever crimes may have been committed,’ say the jurors, ‘the perpetrators thereof have not been discovered.’ Now, to expose the falsity of the statement let me tell you what took place before the Government railroad directors, M. A. Hanna, of Cleveland, Ohio; E. P. Alexander, of Augusta, Ga., and Judge J. W. Savage, of Iowa When these gentlemen began their investigations they desired the evidence of Chinese witnesses, and requested me to furnish such witnesses. They assured me that the Chinamen should be protected while giving their testimony, and I then produced the witnesses. The first Chinaman who testified had a deep cut fully 6 inches long on his scalp, and he was also shot through the fleshy part of his left arm. After obtaining the general facts as to the riot, Judge Savage asked the witness how he got the cut on his head. The Chinaman said he was struck on the head with a pick-handle and knocked senseless, and that after he recovered consciousness he started to run away and was shot. Judge Savage then said, “Can you recognize the man who struck you on the head?’ and the answer was prompt and unhesitating: ‘Oh, yes; I have known him a long time.’[Page 126]
‘Can you give his name?’ was then asked, and the witness at once replied, ‘Isaiah Whitehouse.’ Now,” continued Colonel Bee, “this man Whitehouse is an ignorant, bigoted Mormon, and a member of the legislature. He was the only available man in the district who could be nominated for the legislature. There is in that locality a colony of some twenty-five Mormon families. This honorable gentleman is in all probability the man who struck the first blow in the riot.
* * * * * * *
“Why, Mr. Reporter, I assure you upon my honor that I did not find a single one of the people of Rock Springs who spoke of the murders as wrong or wicked. Perhaps they did not dare to. But even those who did say the affair was unfortunate and to be regretted, added that they could not help rejoicing when they saw the Chinese fleeing for their lives from their burning cabins. Would you expect in such a community that there would be any indictment found against a white man who might murder a Chinaman? Had the prosecuting officers done their sworn duty I could easily have furnished them more than a hundred witnesses, both white and Chinese, who would have identified every individual rioter.”
Report of the Chinese consul at New York and accompanying documents.
San Francisco, Cal., October 5, 1885.
Sir: I have the honor to state that in compliance with your excellency’s instructions, I proceeded with Col. F. A. Bee, Chinese consul at San Francisco, and Mr. Tseng Hoy, interpreter, to Rock Springs, where we arrived on the 18th September, 1885, for the purpose of investigating the present condition of our countrymen in the latter place, and of ascertaining the facts connected with the recent riot that took place there against them.
As soon as we reached Rock Springs we ordered the remains of those Chinese killed in the riot to be disinterred and examined. We had fourteen coffins dug up, on opening which we found some bodies entire, some parts of bodies, the bones of separate bodies, and promiscuous heaps of bones; and we also dug up the remains of one without a coffin. Inquiring of the coroner at Rock Springs, he stated that since the 3d of September he had examined and interred nineteen persons, and I found that the Union Pacific Railroad Company had interred the remains of two. Besides five entire bodies, the remains of eight others were recognizable, while the bones of eight others were found wrapped up in separate bundles. We had, therefore, exhumed in all the remains of twenty-one persons. Besides these, the bodies or bones of four more persons were dug out of the ruins of buildings after our arrival, making a total of twenty-five persons whose remains have been found thus far. The examination of all these remains was made in the presence of the United States officials and others. According to the testimony given by the Chinese laborers there were twenty-eight Chinese killed in the riot, though the bodies or the bones of only twenty-five have been found. The coroner of Rock Springs, of whom I made inquiry, stated that some of the dead bodies may have disappeared, while the opinion of the Chinese laborers was that the bodies missing were either completely burnt or eaten by dogs and hogs, or left in the wilderness. It is, however, a fact that none of the surviving Chinese ever saw any of the twenty-eight Chinese who are now on the list of the killed succeed in reaching a place of safety. The Chinese laborers further stated that the country around Rock Springs for many miles is a barren wilderness, with no road except the railroad, and without habitation, vegetation, or water, and that even if the three missing Chinese had not been consumed by the flames they must have perished in some other way, since fifteen days have passed without their being seen. A list of the names of the twenty-eight Chinese killed, with the facts connected with each, is herewith inclosed.
Omitting those whose wounds have healed since the riot, I find that there are fifteen Chinese more or less severely wounded, several of whom, it is feared, will die, and several be disabled for life. A list of the wounded, with the facts of each, is herewith inclosed.
With reference to the property destroyed by the mob, I find that every one of the surviving Chinese has been rendered penniless by the cruel attack. There are three reasons why the Chinese so completely lost their property: 1st, most of them when fleeing had no time to gather up their money, and those that did carry money with them were forcibly deprived of it by the mob; 2d, what they left in their houses was either plundered or burnt; 3d, the huts which they built for themselves were completely destroyed.
Since the riot took place it has been impossible for them to secure even a torn sheet or any article of clothing to protect them from the cold, or even the crumbs from the [Page 127] table to satisfy their hunger, or even a plank or mat to rest their bodies on. These poor creatures, numbering hundreds, are all hungry and clothed in rags. They look worn out and frightened, and most of them forlorn and absent-minded. Words fail to give an idea of their sufferings, and their appearance is a sad one to human eyes to witness.
Upon making inquiries as to the past I found that the Chinese so savagely and unmercifully deprived of their property had been in Rock Springs, some for over ten years, others for a shorter time, for the purpose of working in mines or on railroads. Some of the Chinese locating at Rock Springs were afterwards joined by their fathers, brothers, or other relations, all settling themselves there as colonists, while others came with their goods for the purpose of peddling or trading. In the course of time they had built for themselves more than seventy huts, and the Union Pacific Raildroad Company had also built more than thirty camp houses for its employés, thus forming quite a town. This town is now nothing but a mass of ruins.
The total value of the property lost, belonging to over seven hundred persons, is only about $147,000, this being an average of only a little more than $200 for each. I have concluded that no one has made any fraudulent claim.
In addition to the two inclosures heretofore mentioned, I beg to inclose for your consideration a list of the claims of the Chinese, and for your information a copy of the memorial addressed to me while at Rock Springs by five hundred and fifty-nine Chinese.
I am, your obedient servant,
Chinese Consul at New York.
His excellency Cheng Tsao Ju,
H. I. C. Majesty’s Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary.
Memorial of Chinese laborers resident at Bock Springs, Wyoming Territory, to the Chinese consul at New York of the examing commission.
Hon. Huang Sih
Your Honor: We, the undersigned, have been in Rock Springs, Wyoming Territory, for periods ranging from one to fifteen years, for the purpose of working on the railroads and in the coal mines.
Up to the time of the recent troubles we had worked along with the white men, and had not had the least ill-feeling against them. The officers of the companies employing us treated us and the white men kindly, placing both races on the same footing and paying the same wages.
Several times we had been approached by the white men, and requested to join them in asking the companies for an increase in the wages of all, both Chinese and white men. We inquired of them what we should do if the companies refused to grant an increase. They answered that if the companies would not increase our wages we should all strike, then the companies would be obliged to increase our wages. To this we dissented, wherefore we excited their animosity against us.
During the past two years there has been in existence in “Whitemen’s Town,” Rock Springs, an organization composed of white miners, whose object was to bring about the expulsion of all Chinese from the Territory. To them or to their object we have paid no attention. About the month of August of this year notices were posted up, all the way from Evanston to Rock Springs, demanding the expulsion of the Chinese, &c. On the evening of September 1, 1885, the bell of the building in which said organization meets rang for a meeting. It was rumored on that night that threats had been made against the Chinese.
On the morning of September 2, a little past 7 o’clock, more than ten white men, some in ordinary dress, and others in mining suits, ran into coal-pit No. 6, loudly declaring that the Chinese should not be permitted to work there. The Chinese present reasoned with them in a few words, but were attacked with murderous weapons, and three of their number wounded. The white foreman of the coal-pit, hearing of the disturbance, ordered all to stop work for the time being.
After the work had stopped, all the white men in and near Coal-pit No. 6 began to assemble by the dozen. They carried fire-arms, and marched to Rock Springs by way of the railroad from Coal-pit No. 6, and, crossing the railroad bridge, went directly to “Whitemen’s Town.” All this took place before 10 o’clock a.m. We now heard the bell ringing for a meeting at the whitemen’s organization building. Not long after all the white men came out of that building, most of them assembling in the bar-rooms, the crowds meanwhile growing larger and larger.[Page 128]
About 2 o’clock in the afternoon a mob, divided into two gangs, came toward “Chinatown,” one gang coming by way of the plank; bridge, and the other by way of the railroad bridge. The gang coming by way of the railroad bridge was the larger, and was subdivided into many squads, some of which did not cross the bridge, but remained standing on the side opposite to “Chinatown;” others that had already crossed the bridge stood on the right and left at the end of it. Several squads marched up the hill behind Coal-pit No. 3. One squad remained at Coal-shed No. 3 and another at the pump-house. The squad that remained at the pump-house fired the first shot, and; the squad that stood at Coal-shed No. 3 immediately followed their example and fired. The Chinese by name of Lor Sun Kit was the first person shot and fell to the ground. At that time the Chinese, began to realize that the mob were bent on killing. The Chinese, though greatly alarmed, did not yet begin to flee.
Soon after, the mob on the hill behind Coal-pit No. 3 came down from the hill, and joining the different squads of the mob, fired their weapons and pressed on to Chinatown.
The gang that were at the plank bridge also divided into several squads, pressing near and surrounding “Chinatown.” One squad of them guarded the plank bridge in order to cut off the retreat of the Chinese.
Not long after it was everywhere reported that a Chinese named Leo Dye Bah, who lived in the western part of “Chinatown,” was killed by a bullet, and that another named Yip Ah Marn, resident in the eastern end of the town, was likewise killed. The Chinese now, to save their lives, fled in confusion in every direction, some going up the hill behind Coal-pit No. 3, others along the foot of the hill where Coal-pit No. 4 is; some from the eastern end of the town fled across Bitter Creek to the opposite hill, and others from the western end by the foot of the hill on the right of Coal-pit No. 5. The mob were now coming in three directions, namely, the east and west sides of the town and from the wagon road. Whenever the mob met a Chinese they stopped him, and pointing a weapon at him, asked him if he had any revolver, and then approaching him they searched his person, robbing him of watch or any gold or silver that he might have about him, before letting him go. Some of the rioters would let a Chinese go after depriving him of all his gold and silver, while another Chinese would be beaten with the butt end of the weapons before being let go. Some of the rioters, when they could not stop a Chinese, would shoot him dead on the spot, and then search and rob him. Some would overtake a Chinese, throw him down and search and rob him before they would let him go. Some of the rioters would not fire their weapons, but would only use the butt ends to beat the Chinese with. Some would not beat a Chinese, but rob him of whatever he had and let him go, yelling to him to go quickly. Some, who took no part either in beating or robbing the Chinese, stood by, shouting loudly, and laughing and clapping their hands.
There was a gang of women that stood at the “Chinatown” end of the plank bridge and cheered; among the women, two of them each fired successive shots at the Chinese. This was done about a little past 3 o’clock p.m.
Most of the Chinese fled towards the eastern part of “Chinatown.” Some of them ran across Bitter Creek, went up directly to the opposite hill, crossing the grassy plain. Some of them went along the foot of the hill, where Coal-pit No. 4 stood, to cross the creek, and by a devious route reached the opposite hill. Some of them ran up to the hill of Coal-pit No. 3, and thence, winding around the hills, went to the opposite hill. A few of them fled to the foot of the hill where Coal-pit No. 5 stood, and ran across the creek, and thence, by a winding course, to the western end of the “Whitemen’s Town.” But very few did this.
The Chinese who were the first to flee mostly dispersed themselves at the back hills, on the opposite bank of the creek, and among the opposite hills. They were scattered far and near, high and low, in about one hundred places. Some were standing, or sitting, or lying hid on the grass, or stooping down on the low grounds. Every one of them was praying to Heaven, or groaning with pain. They had been eye-witnesses to the shooting in “Chinatown,” and had seen the whites, male and female, old and young, searching houses for money, household effects, or goods, which were carried across to “Whitemen’s Town.” Some of the rioters went off toward the railroad of Coal-pit No. 6; others set fire to the Chinese houses. Between 4 o’clock and a little past 9 o’clock p.m. all the camp houses belonging to the coal company and the Chinese huts had been burned down completely, only one of the company’s camp houses remaining. Several of the camp houses near Coal-pit No. 6 were also burned, and the three Chinese huts there were also burned. All the Chinese houses burned numbered seventy-nine.
Some of the Chinese were killed at the bank of Bitter Creek, some near the railroad bridge, and some in “Chinatown.” After having been killed, the dead bodies of some were carried to the burning buildings and thrown into the flames. Some of the Chinese who had hid themselves in the houses were killed and their bodies burned; some who, [Page 129] on account of sickness, could not run, were burned alive in the houses. One Chinese was killed in “Whitemen’s Town,” in a laundry house, and his house demolished. The whole number of Chinese killed was twenty-eight, and those wounded fifteen.
The money that the Chinese lost was that which in their hurry they were unable to take with them, and consequently were obliged to leave in their houses, or that which was taken from their persons. The goods, clothing, or household effects remaining in their houses were either plundered or burned.
When the Chinese fled to the different hills they intended to come back to “Chinatown” when the riot was over, to dispose of the dead bodies and to take care of the wounded. But to their disappointment, all the houses were burned to ashes, and there was then no place of shelter for them; they were obliged to run blindly from hill to hill. Taking the railroad as their guide, they walked toward the town of Green River, some of them reaching that place in the morning, others at noon, and others not until dark. There were some who did not reach it until the 4th of September. We feel very thankful to the railroad company for having telegraphed to the conductors of all its trains to pick up such of the Chinese as were to be met with along the line of the railroad and carry them to Evanston.
On the 5th of September, all the Chinese that had fled assembled at Evanston; the native citizens there threatened day and night to burn and kill the Chinese. Fortunately, United States troops had been ordered to come and protect them, and quiet was restored. On the 9th of September, the United States Government instructed the troops to escort the Chinese back to Rock Springs. When they arrived there they saw only a burnt tract of ground to mark the sites of their former habitations. Some of the dead bodies had been buried by the company, while others, mangled and decomposed, were strewn on the ground, and were being eaten by dogs and hogs. Some of the bodies were not found until they were dug out of the ruins of the buildings. Some had been burned beyond recognition. It was a sad and painful sight to see the son crying for the father, the brother for the brother, the uncle for the nephew, and friend for friend.
By this time most of the Chinese have abandoned the desire of resuming their mining work, but inasmuch as the riot has left them each with only the one or two torn articles of clothing they have on their persons, and as they have not a single cent in their pockets, it is a difficult matter for them to make any change in their location. Fortunately, the company promised to lend them clothing and provisions, and a number of wagons to sleep in. Although protected by Government troops, their sleep is disturbed by frightful dreams, and they cannot obtain peaceful rest.
Some of the rioters who killed the Chinese and who set fire to the house could be identified by the Chinese, and some not. Among them the two women heretofore mentioned, and who killed some Chinese, were specially recognized by many Chinese. Among the rioters who robbed and plundered were men, women, and children. Even the white woman who formerly taught English to the Chinese searched for and took handkerchiefs and other articles. The Chinese know that the white men who worked in Coal-pit No. 1 did not join the mob, and most of them did not stop work either. We heard that the coal company’s officers had taken a list of the names of the rioters who were particularly brutal and murderous, which list numbered forty or fifty.
From a survey of all the circumstances, several causes may be assigned for the killing and wounding of so many Chinese, and the destruction of so much property.
- The Chinese had been for a long time employed at the same work as the white men. While they knew that the white men entertained ill-feelings toward them, the Chinese did not take any precautions to guard against this sudden outbreak, inasmuch as at no time in the past had there been any quarrel or fighting between the races.
- On the 2d day of September, 1885, in Coal-pit No. 6, the white men attacked the Chinese. That place being quite a distance from Rock Springs, very few Chinese were there. As we did not think that the trouble would extend to Rock Springs, we did not warn each other to prepare for flight.
- Most of the Chinese living in Rock Springs worked during the daytime in the different coal mines, and consequently did not hear of the fight at Coal pit No. 6, nor did they know of the armed mob that had assembled in “Whitemen’s town.” When 12 o’clock came everybody returned home from his place of work to lunch. As yet the mob had not come to attack the Chinese; a great number of the latter were returning to work without any apprehension of danger.
- About 2 o’clock the mob suddenly made their appearance for the attack. The Chinese thought that they had only assembled to threaten, and that some of the company’s officers would of me to disperse them. Most of the Chinese, acting upon this view of the matter, did not gather up their money or clothing, and when the mob fired at them they fled precipitately. Those Chinese who were in the workshops, hearing of the riot, stopped work and fled in their working clothes, and did not have time enough [Page 130] to go home to change their clothes or to gather up their money. What they had left at home was either plundered or burned.
- None of the Chinese had fire-arms or any defensive weapons, nor was there any place that afforded an opportunity for the erection of a barricade that might impede the rioters in their attack. The Chinese were all like a herd of frightened deer that let the huntsmen surround and kill them.
- All the Chinese had on the 1st of September bought from the company a month’s supply of provision and the implements necessary for the mining of coal. This loss of property was therefore larger than it would be later in the month.
We never thought that the subjects of a nation entitled by treaty to the rights and privileges of the most favored nation could, in a country so highly civilized like this, so unexpectedly suffer the cruelty and wrong of being unjustly put to death, or of being wounded and left without the means of cure, or of being abandoned to poverty, hunger, and cold, and without the means to betake themselves elsewhere.
To the great President of the United States, who, hearing of the riot, sent troops to protect our lives, we are most sincerely thankful.
In behalf of those killed or wounded, or of those deprived of their property, we pray that the examining commission will ask our ministers to sympathize, and to endeavor to secure the punishment of the murderers, the relief of the wounded, and compensation for those despoiled of their property, so that the living and the relatives of the dead will be grateful, and never forget his kindness for generations.
Hereinabove we have made a brief recital of the facts of this riot, and pray your honor will take them into your kind consideration.
[Here follow the signatures of 559 Chinese laborers, resident at Rock Springs, Wyo.]
List of Killed.
[Investigation made by Huang Sih Chuan, Chinese consul at New York, of the Chinese examining commission of Chinese laborers killed at Hock Springs, Wyoming Territory, September 2, 1885.]
The said Huang Sih Chuan submitted the following report:
I examined the dead bodies of the following Chinese laborers killed at Rock Springs
- The dead body of Leo Sun Tsung, found in his own hut in the native settlement: was covered with many wounds. The left jaw-bone was broken, evidently by a bullet; The skin and bone of the right leg below the knee were injured. I also ascertained that the deceased was 51 years old, and had a mother, wife, and son living at home (in China) t
- The dead body of Leo Kow Boot was found between mines Nos. 3 and 4, at the foo of the mountain. The neck was shot through crosswise by a bullet, cutting the windt pipe in two. I also ascertained that the deceased was 24 years old. His family connecions have not yet been clearly made known.
- The dead body of Yii See Yen was found near the creek. The left temple was shot by a bullet, and the skull broken. The age of the deceased was 36 years. He had a mother living at home (in China).
- The dead body of Leo Dye Bah was found at the side of the bridge, near the creek, shot in the middle of the chest by a bullet, breaking the breast bone. I also ascertained that the deceased was 56 years old, and had a wife, son, and daughter at home.
- The dead body of Choo Bah Quot was found in the hut adjoining camp No. 34, together with the remains of Lor Han Lung. The front part of the body was not injured, but the flesh on the back was completely gone, and the bones were scorched; the hair was also burned off. I also ascertained that the deceased was 23 years old, and had parents living at home.
- The above five bodies were found more or less mutilated.
- A portion of the dead body of Sia Bun Ning was found in a pile of ashes in the hut near the Chinese temple. It consisted of the head; neck, and shoulders. The two hands, together with the rest of the body below the chest, were completely burned off. I also ascertained that the deceased was 37 years old, and had a mother, wife, son, and daughter living at home.
- A portion of the dead body of Leo Lung Hong was found in a pile of ashes in hut adjoining camp No. 27. It consisted of the head, neck, and breast. The two hands, together with rest of the body below the waist, were burned off completely. I also ascertained that deceased was 45 years old, and had a wife and three sons living at home.
- A portion of the dead body of Leo Chin Ming was found in a pile of ashes in the hut of the deceased, near the temple where the remains of Liang Tsum Bong and Hsu Ah Cheong were found. It consisted of the head and chest. The hands, together with the rest of the body below the waist, were burned off completely. I also ascertained that deceased was 49 years old, and had a mother, wife, and son living at home; also another son working with him in the coal mines.
- A portion of the dead body of Liang Tsun Bong was found in a pile of ashes in the hut near the temple where the deceased, together with Leo Chih Ming and Hsu Ah Cheong had lived. It consisted of the head, shoulders, and hands. The rest of the body below the chest was burned off completely. The age of the deceased was 42 years. He had a wife and two sons living at home.
- A portion of the dead body of Hsu Ah Cheong was found in a pile of ashes in the hut near the temple where the deceased, together with Leo Chih Ming and Liang Tsun Bong, had lived. It consisted of the skull bone, the upper and lower jaw bones, and teeth. I also ascertained that the deceased was 32 years old, and had parents, wife, and son living at home.
- A portion of the dead body of Lor Han Lung was found in the hut adjoining No. 34, where the remains of Choo Bah Quot was also found. It consisted of the sole and heel of the left foot. The rest of the body was completely burned. I also ascertained that the deceased was 32 years old, and had a mother, wife, son, and daughter all living at home.
- A portion of the dead body of Hoo Ah Nii was found in a pile of ashes in his own hut. It consisted of the right half of a head and the backbone. The rest of the body was completely burned. I also ascertained that the deceased was 43 years old, and had a wife living at home.
- A portion of the dead body of Leo Tse Wing was found in a pile of ashes in the hut adjoining camp No. 14. It consisted of the bones of the lower half of the body, extending from hip to foot. The rest of the body was burned off completely. I also ascertained that the deceased was 39 years old. His family connection has not yet been clearly made known.
The last-named eight dead bodies were found partly destroyed by fire.
The following fifteen persons were killed: Leo Jew Foo, Leo Tim Kwong, Hung Q wan Chuen, Tom He Yew, Mar Tse Choy, Leo Lung Siang, Yip Ah Marn, Leo Lung Hon, Leo Lung Hor, Leo Ah Tsun, Leang Ding, Leo Hoy Yat, Yuen Chin Sing, Hsu Ah Tseng, and Chun Quan Sing. Twelve fragments of bones, belonging to twelve of the above-named persons, were found in twelve different places in the Chinese settlement. No trace of the remaining three persons was found.
I also ascertained that the age of Leo Jew Foo was 35 years; he had a mother at home. Leo Tim Kwong was 31 years; family connection not known. Hung Quan Chuen was 42 years; he had a father at home. Tom He Yew was 34 years; he had a mother, wife, and daughter at home. Mar Tse Choy was 34 years; he had parents, wife, and daughter at home. Leo Lung Slang was 38 years; he had a wife at home. Yip Hor Marn was 38 years; he had a father, wife, son, and daughter at home. Leo Lung Hon was 41 years; he had a wife, son, and daughter at home. Leo Lung Hor was 44 years; he had a wife and two sons at home. Leo Ah Tsun was 36 years; he had a mother at home. Liang Ding was 41 years; family connection not yet known. Leo Hoy Yat was 25 years; he had parents at home. Yuen Chun Sing was 36 years; he had a mother at home. Hsu Ah Tseng was 26 years; he had a mother at home. Chun Quan Sing was 39 years; he had a mother at home. Total number of killed, twenty-eight.
List of wounded.
[Investigation made by Huang Sih Chun, consul at New York, of the Chinese examining commission of Chinese laborers wounded at Rock Springs, Wyoming Territory, September 2, 1885.]
The said Huang Sih Chun reported as follows: On the 19th and 20th of September, 1885, I investigated and found the following Chinese laborers wounded at Rock Springs, W. T.:
- Leo Kwong Ning was wounded in the back below his right shoulder by a bullet, causing a deep, wide wound. The bullet could not be extracted. Fatal result is feared.
- Lee Sing Yip was wounded in the back on the right shoulder by a bullet, piercing through from the back to the front, below the shoulder. The shoulder bone was broken and the wound badly inflamed. Fatal result is feared.
- Lee Ah Hok was wounded in the upper part of his right leg by a bullet piercing through from back to front. The bone was broken, the wound deep and wide, badly inflamed, and difficult to be healed. He was unable to stand up and the loss of the entire use of his right leg is feared.
- Won Yin Sung was wounded below his left knee by a bullet piercing through from back to front, breaking the bone. The wound was badly inflamed and difficult to be healed. He could not walk, the left leg being entirely useless to him.
- Lee Hok Sing was wounded in the upper part of his right leg by a bullet piercing through from right to left. The bone of the leg was fractured; the wound deep and wide, hard to be healed. The loss of the entire use of the leg is feared.
- Lor Hung Hoon was wounded in the upper part of the left arm by a bullet piercing through from right to left. The bone was broken, the wound badly inflamed, and [Page 132] difficult to be healed. He was unable to move his left arm. The loss of the use of it is feared.
- Lor Sun Kit was wounded in the right side of his backbone by a bullet piercing from the back through the right side. The right arm was also wounded. The bullet was extracted by a native doctor. These two wounds were not yet healed, but badly inflamed.
- Leo Duck Yun was wounded in the right leg by a gunshot. The bullet could not be extracted.
- Leo Yip Sun was wounded in the right shoulder by a bullet piercing through from the back to the front below the shoulder. The wound was not yet healed.
- Leo Mun Yip was shot through in the palm of his right hand by a bullet. The wound was not yet healed.
- Lor See Duck was wounded in the spine below the waist by a gunshot. The bullet was extracted, but the wound not yet healed.
- Leo Lung Ming was wounded in the scalp, both sides of the forehead, the right temple, the right and left sides below the nipples, and the part below the right knee. These wounds were deep, with bones exposed. He also received a wound on the left cheek-bone and one on the right thumb. All the above wounds appear to have been inflicted by iron implements. They were all being slowly healed, with the exception of the right knee, which was very seriously injured.
- Leo Kung Kwong was wounded in the right temple by iron implements. The bone was exposed, but the wound was gradually being healed.
- Leo Gar Kwong was wounded in the left forehead, apparently by a wooden cane. The wound was slowly being healed.
- Leo Ah Go was wounded in the left cheek-bone and the part below the left eye by stones. The wounds were already healed.
Estimate of property losses, made by the commission, sustained by the Chinese residents in their respective camps at Bock Springs. Wyoming Territory, September 2, 1885.
|Camp No. 2.||Camp No. 4.|
|Estimated loss.||Estimated loss.|
|1.||Lin Pah Cheong||$25 00||23.||Leo Quan Kwong||$223 40|
|2.||Chang Foo Mow||47 00||24.||Leo Hung Hoo||101 50|
|3.||Chang Chay Sing||38 00||25.||Leo Win Kwong||178 15|
|4.||Tung Gar Jok||43 75||26.||Leo Ah See||51 25|
|5.||Tom Tin Ting||34 75||27.||Leo Ah Hor||28 50|
|6.||Leo Ah Cheong||17 00||28.||Leo Kwong Hoo||126 45|
|7.||Hung Quan Chuen (killed)||532 25||29.||Wong Foo Teen||211 50|
|8.||Tom Hee Yow||423 70||30.||Leo Sun King||61 00|
|9.||Mar Tse Choy||115 75||31.||Leo Hin Ying||194 05|
|10.||Liang Tung||220 00||32.||Leo Kwang Sung||42 45|
|11.||Property owned in common by persons in Camp No. 2||268 95||33.||Leo Won Yit||85 20|
|Total||1,766 15||34.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 4||277 40|
|Camp No. 3.||Camp No. 5.|
|12.||Leo Lung Hop||196 00||35.||Liang Ah Bing||212 65|
|13.||Leo Lung Yu||133 50||36.||Liang Ah Yun||91 35|
|14.||Leo Kwong Yit||139 00||37.||Liang Ah Whay||97 20|
|15.||Leo Ying Sing||114 50||38.||Liang Ah Choy||67 25|
|16.||Leo Ah Sow||120 25||39.||Oh Ah Yii||72 25|
|17.||Leo Hin Wing||133 50||40.||Woo Ah Dye||55 75|
|18.||Leo Lung Hong (killed)||200 00||41.||Liang Ah Nung||80 50|
|19.||Leo Lune Ming (wounded)||243 50||42.||Liang Day Ying||117 00|
|20.||Leo Gar Kwong (wounded)||180 70||43.||Liang Ah Yik||72 00|
|21.||Leo Kwong Ning (wounded)||119 00||44.||Liang Ah Hoon||92 85|
|22.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 3||219 40||45.||Low Hing Kwang||109 75|
|Total||1,799 35||46.||Cheng Ah Sum||101 50|
|47.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 5||221 85|
|Camp No. 6.||Camp No. 10.|
|48.||Leo Sun Lung||$46 50||88.||Lee Fow||$59 25|
|49.||Leo Kway Wah||73 50||89.||Chang Hoh Ching||61 25|
|50.||Leo Yen Yung||212 15||90.||Lee Wah Yun||44 25|
|51.||Leo Sing He||34 50||91.||Lee Ah Sin||39 00|
|52.||Leo Ying Lung||251 50||92.||Jang Kin Tsung||74 50|
|53.||Leo Lung He||198 50||93.||Lee Yu||62 30|
|54.||Leo Lin Ngok||80 50||94.||Lee Bah Nii||53 50|
|55.||Leo Tsing Lung||50 00||95.||Jang Lan Yoke||74 50|
|56.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 6||187 00||96.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 10||199 80|
|Total||1,134 15||Total||668 35|
|Camp No. 7.||Camp No. 11.|
|57.||Leo Chee Boo||387 80||97.||Leo Wing Yee||177 70|
|58.||Bab Ah Wong||129 50||98.||Leo Ing Mow||93 00|
|59.||Leo Wing Sung||758 80||99.||Leo Wing Siahg||67 10|
|60.||Leo Duck Yun (wounded)||82 00||100.||Leo Sun Gok||144 91|
|61.||Leo Sun Oy||384 10||101.||Leo Yu Choy||117 90|
|62.||Leo Sun Tu||168 75||102.||Leo Chung Sun||115 45|
|63.||Leo Chong Kwun||114 20||103.||Leo Wing Kiong||114 80|
|64.||Leo Bong Duck||227 70||104.||Leo Ing Ngok||86 00|
|65.||Low Kwong Ming||160 25||105.||Leo Tun Tse||236 20|
|66.||Low Chay Heong||123 00||106.||Chun Hook||305 50|
|67.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 7||258 20||107.||Leo Goon Nii||236 20|
|Total||2,794 30||108.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 11||174 80|
|Camp No. 8.||Camp No. 12.|
|68.||Leo Jun Kwong||207 25||109.||Chang Chung Lien||95 00|
|69.||Leo Kwong Ho||244 25||110.||Chang Kway Tse||109 75|
|70.||Leo Tsun Sung||193 45||111.||Chang Bing Nging||67 50|
|71.||Leo Hin Sow||144 20||112.||Chun Hoon Wah||244 90|
|72.||Leo Liang Ning||112 50||113.||Chun Sum||190 60|
|73.||Leo Kwong Kun||265 50||114.||Chun Gok Ying||80 65|
|74.||Kwong Kin||572 70||115.||Chun Ping On||51 30|
|75.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 8||272 10||116.||Lum Yeen Kwong||48 00|
|Total||2,011 95||117.||Low Hok See||131 50|
|Camp No. 9||118.||Chang Bing Tse||131 50|
|76.||Leo Kwong Heung||241 50||119.||Chang Pahn Kway||67 75|
|77.||Leo Kwong Chow||94 00||120.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 12||175 00|
|78.||Leo Wah Choy||343 75||Total||1,393 45|
|79.||Leo Choy Shui||64 00||Camp No. 13.|
|80.||Leo Sih Hin||289 50||121.||Wong Chung Young||145 00|
|81.||Leo Tse Nung||90 50||122.||Leo Jik Hing||164 00|
|82.||Leo Kwung Yee||120 00||123.||Chung Yung Yik||135 75|
|83.||Leo Joke Yow||104 70||124.||Hor Ah Chi||117 95|
|84.||Leo Ah But||377 55||125.||Wong Chiu Jan||238 50|
|85.||Leo Tung Sing||386 00||126.||Chun Sing Yik||221 10|
|86.||Choo Hon Dye||285 25||127.||Tung Cheong Wah||90 25|
|87.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 9||195 70||128.||Chun Teen Wah||94 35|
|129.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 13||208 15|
|Total||2,594 85||Total.||1,415 05|
|Camp No. 14.||Camp No. 17–continued.|
|130.||Wong Hoo Yen||$157 00||175.||Chun Ah Ngok||$57 50|
|131.||Wong Chip||85 40||176.||Leo Joo Siu||307 00|
|132.||Wong On||69 00||177.||Leo Jew Hing||187 00|
|133.||Wong Hing||87 40||178.||Leo Lung Hing||59 00|
|134.||Wong King Kwun||245 20||179.||Leo Wah Sin||127 00|
|135.||Wong Cheong Duck||111 50||180.||Leo Loy Cheong||63 00|
|136.||Won Mun On||127 50||181.||Sia Bun Ning (killed)||410 00|
|137.||Wong Ho||96 80||182.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 17||393 30|
|138.||Leo Sit Kwong||117 60||Total||1,727 80|
|139.||Chun Ah Yong||88 00||Camp No. 18.|
|140.||Chun Sung Leong||172 50||183.||Leo Buck Tsun||190 50|
|141.||Leo Lung Kin||465 85||184.||Leo Go||235 25|
|142.||Chung Lin Poon||222 95||185.||Leo Wing Chow||63 00|
|143.||Wong Yip Tsun||987 75||186.||Leo Yew Sung||115 50|
|144.||Wong Ah Yee||123 25||187.||Leo Lung Tok||224 75|
|145.||Lor Chay Tsung||61 50||188.||Leo Yim Ming||83 25|
|Total||3,221 20||189.||Leo Lung Ming||90 90|
|Camp No. 15.||190.||Chun Loy Wor||66 50|
|146.||Leo Bah Ho||75 85||191.||Leo Nii On||113 00|
|147.||Leo She Kwong||268 45||192.||Leo Tsun Lung||139 50|
|148.||Leo Seh Tsun||123 75||193.||Leo Bong Nin||33 65|
|149.||Leo Chee Nii||106 50||194.||Lor Joo Kway||59 70|
|150.||Leo Se Kwong||257 50||195.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 18||263 90|
|151.||Leon Hoon Duck||217 00||Total||1,679 40|
|152.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 15||119 40|
|Camp No. 16.||Camp No. 19.|
|153.||Hung Sam Ngok||105 00||196.||Hsu Cheong Yow||60 50|
|154.||Leo Seh Chun||266 50||197.||Hsu She Bing||51 00|
|155.||Leo Seh Lum||266 85||198.||Hsu Cheong Yich||41 25|
|156.||Leo Kwun Kwong||97 00||199.||Hsu Jay Yoke||131 45|
|157.||Leo Seh Sow||59 50||200.||Ng Ah E||52 25|
|158.||Leo Wai Nii||110 00||201.||Hsu Jay Heong||90 25|
|159.||Leo Chin Fong||130 00||202.||Asu Jay Cow||48 25|
|160.||Loui Ah Sun||80 75||203.||Hsu Ah Hoo||60 75|
|161.||Leo Ah Yin||118 85||204.||Chan Ah Hop||44 00|
|162.||Leo She Yik||326 80||205.||Hsu Sing Nii||73 00|
|163.||Leo Sam Choy||122 95||206.||Hsu An Mow||45 50|
|164.||Leo Seh Chow||70 75||207.||Hsu Cheong Hook||331 10|
|165.||Leo Wing Choy||382 15||208.||Hsu Siang Wood||48 00|
|166.||Leo Yum Yong||121 75||209.||Hsu Cheong Way||50 00|
|167.||Leo Jew Foo (killed)||60 00||210.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 19||253 25|
|168.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 16||365 30||Total||1,380 55|
|Total||2,693 15||Camp No. 20.|
|Camp No. 17.||211.||Wong Ing Yin||50 25|
|169.||Leo Min Nii||36 00||212.||Chun Lin Duck||177 60|
|170.||Leo Boo Nii||61 00||213.||Moy Hung Marn||108 75|
|171.||Leo Yin Choy||106 00||214.||Leo Sing Cheong||189 00|
|172.||Leo Loy Hing||72 00||215.||Chun Loy Hook||113 50|
|173.||Leo Ah Ing||32 25||216.||Chun Leong Chii||106 30|
|174.||Leo Joo Yow||16 75||217.||Chun See Jan||68 25|
|Camp No. 20–continued.||Camp No. 23–continued.|
|218.||Chun Yin E||$59 50||261.||Lor Lun Tse||$55 25|
|219.||Lee King Nin||46 25||262.||Leo Sun Jim||360 50|
|220.||Ngok Nam Cheong||48 50||263.||Leo Sun Hung||79 50|
|221.||Hor Ah Yim||64 00||264.||Yip Ah Marn (killed)||270 00|
|222.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 20||338 25||265.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 23||256 10|
|Total||1,369 65||Total||1,336 95|
|Camp No. 21.||Camp No. 24.|
|223.||Woo Choy Koon||76 25||266.||Lee Ah Hoon||31 25|
|224.||Hsu Ah Kin||83 20||267.||Lee Sun Yow||83 65|
|225.||Hsu Yak Kok||54 30||268.||Loc Yee Lunn||62 50|
|226.||Hsu Say Kong||188 75||269.||Lee Lay Kii||67 70|
|227.||Hsu Bing Hoon||74 30||270.||Yii See Yeu (killed)||224 70|
|228.||Hsu Yee Yet||161 25||271.||Lee Sing Yip (wounded)||127 25|
|229.||Hsu Ah Tse||54 00||272.||Ng Ngii Sing||55 50|
|230.||Low Tsung||78 45||273.||Lee Ceong Sing||76 45|
|231.||Mac Kow||100 55||274.||Lee Pah Choy||48 75|
|232.||Hsu Jay Lung||51 75||275.||Lee Sing Yik||61 25|
|233.||Leo Ing Lee||136 00||276.||Wong Jan Hin||45 00|
|234.||Tom Bee Ling||91 60||277.||Tom Cow Tsun||77 75|
|235.||Leo Sing Hook||208 75||278.||Lee Hung Sing.||77 75|
|236.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 21||228 25||279.||Ngay Yow Yang||104 65|
|Total||1,527 40||280.||Lee Sing Tsun||77 50|
|Camp No. 22.||281.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 24||459 85|
|237.||Tom Ah Hoon||58 00||Total||1,681 50|
|238.||Chun Sing Wah||206 50||Camp No. 282.|
|239.||Lor Kuay Hin||121 45||282.||Ng Gee Hok||147 75|
|240.||Lor Chay Hing||61 75||283.||Wong Lin Sing||85 65|
|241.||Lor Chay Chii||109 45||284.||Tsung Shii Chew||46 40|
|242.||Lor Chung Lum||83 50||285.||Wong Nam||109 30|
|243.||Chan Sin Lung||93 50||286.||Leo Hung Chat||100 00|
|244.||Lor Chay Shui||70 45||287.||Ng Siang Yee||84 35|
|245.||Lor Hin Mook||88 25||288.||Ng Dye Hook||99 50|
|246.||Lor Tsii Lun||103 25||289.||Ng Sam Hing||69 85|
|247.||Lor Hin||63 50||290.||Wong Hook Sow||95 85|
|248.||Lor Kuay Yun||89 00||291.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 25||252 45|
|249.||Won Hook Yan||90 40||Total.||1,091 10|
|250.||Lor Goon Hoo||117 05||Camp No. 26.|
|251.||Lor Bah Tse||146 30||292.||Lee Chay Hien.||30 60|
|252.||Lor Loy||74 70||293.||Lee Teen Sik||89 95|
|253.||Tom Sam Chay||95 90||294.||Pang Gar Hoo||76 50|
|254.||Lor Won Kay||89 45||295.||Lee Bing Yen||74 50|
|255.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 22||131 10||296.||Lee Ah Hor||81 50|
|Total||1,893 50||297.||Lee Ah Goon||52 25|
|Camp No. 23.||298.||Lee Gut Hing||72 00|
|256.||Lor Ngau Jay||46 50||299.||Lee Tsun Inn||84 50|
|257.||Ngan Chung Gum||44 55||300.||Yii On||26 00|
|258.||Leo Yun Choy||83 85||301.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 26.||447 25|
|259.||Leo Tse Yew||51 75||Total||1,034 85|
|260.||Leo Gum Kwong||88 95|
|Camp No. 27.||Camp No. 30.|
|302.||Leo Lee Hop||$50 25||346.||Lor Chung Hing||$110 00|
|303.||Leo Liang Kwong||85 25||347.||Soo Yew||62 50|
|304.||Leo Ah Boh||66 25||348.||Cho Ah Tsung||142 00|
|305.||Leo Mun Sing||250 00||349.||Yang Hoo||134 10|
|306.||Leo Hung Yim||141 00||350.||Kom Say||135 05|
|307.||Leo Kwong Kin||199 50||351.||Lye Duck||99 75|
|308.||Leo Lung Bah||196 50||352.||Chun Gun||73 00|
|309.||Leo Hoo Kwong||115 00||353.||Lor Sun Bo||151 10|
|310.||Leo Kee Tsun||123 25||354.||Lor Hin Ik||114 80|
|311.||Leo Tseng Kwong||174 00||355.||Sum Sing Hook||88 90|
|312.||Leo Fu Sing.||106 00||356.||Lor Chay Inn||171 00|
|313.||Leo Lung Jan.||236 00||357.||Lor Chay Bun||224 60|
|314.||Leo Hin Niin||96 00||358.||Lor Yew Chun||104 50|
|315.||Leo Ah Tse||58 50||359.||Lor See Duck (wounded)||95 00|
|316.||Leo Ah Tse||46 00||360.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 30||165 90|
|317.||Choy Kih Tong||45 25||Total||1,870 20|
|318.||Leo Lung Bee||31 00||Camp No. 32.|
|319.||Leo Sin Hin||31 00||361.||Tom Kung Cheong||80 00|
|320.||Leo Sun Juk||47 00||362.||Tom Pung Yew||50 00|
|321.||Leo Kwong Chart||72 50||363.||Tom See Sum||116 00|
|322.||Leo Hop Sun (wounded)||150 00||364.||Ng Hung Kwong||120 00|
|323.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 27||167 25||365.||Tom Mun Gum||90 00|
|Total||2,489 50||366.||Tom Mun Niin||136 00|
|Camp No. 28.||367.||Tom Mun Poon||122 00|
|324.||Tseng Bah Cheong||59 35||368.||Yan Won Tsing||130 00|
|325.||Liang Ah Ho||58 25||369.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 32||200 00|
|326.||Chew Sung||34 50||Total||1,044 00|
|327.||Low Ah Way||75 50||Camp No. 33.|
|328.||Lie Ah Ing||48 85||370.||Loui Way Gook||133 20|
|329.||Hoo Woor Sien||76 70||371.||Loui Ngee Tsun||151 00|
|330.||Hoo Ah Kun||105 80||372.||Loui Way Yoke||123 25|
|331.||Hoo Wor Jay||148 00||373.||Loui Ah Ing||75 00|
|332.||Hoo Ah Jing||101 00||374.||Loui Hok Lim||76 75|
|333.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 28||254 90||375.||Kwong Ah Hook||42 50|
|Total||962 85||376.||Loui Jan Hok||157 00|
|Camp No. 29.||377.||Lum Ah Nap||44 50|
|334.||Yang Chay Yeong||71 00||378.||Ng Tse Go||58 50|
|335.||Ow Ah Cheong||135 50||379.||Kwong Duck Poon||53 00|
|336.||Yang Pin Won||48 75||380.||Loui Ah Sing||72 50|
|337.||Choo Kin Hung||190 45||381.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 33||229 80|
|338.||Ng Sing Nung||86 00||Total||1,217 00|
|339.||Ng Cheong Dye||56 50||Camp No. 34.|
|340.||Ng She Keong||40 25||382.||Chun Ah Bo||85 00|
|341.||Ng E. Hing||38 40||383.||Moy Ah Choy||104 00|
|342.||Chun Sing||44 00||384.||Choo Tswo||825 00|
|343.||Choo Tsun Mun||98 95||385.||Choo Kwong Tim||113 00|
|344.||Choo Lin For||93 65||386.||Lum Lup Lin||50 75|
|345.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 29||378 55|
|Camp No. 34–continued.||Camp No. 40–continued.|
|387.||Lor Wor Hing||$107 45||432.||Lee Lin Hook||$138 35|
|388.||Choo Hoon||53 75||433.||Lee Hoon Yin||141 20|
|389.||Lor Poon Cheong||119 50||434.||Lee Bo Hoo||109 75|
|390.||Tsung Gun Chung||117 30||435.||Lum Chee Ngok||84 80|
|391.||Lor Wah Et||55 80||436.||Lee Tseng Yin||137 00|
|392.||Leo Chee Day||94 15||437.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 40||380 25|
|393.||Lor Hong Hoon (wounded)||67 50||Total||2,178 80|
|394.||Choo Yai Duck||212 20||Camp No. 41.|
|395.||Wong Chung||109 45||438.||Lee Hung Yow||149 00|
|396.||Choo Nung Shui||133 20||439.||Lee Nging||213 75|
|397.||Choo Kin Hung||41 25||440.||Won Yin Sung (wounded)||174 50|
|398.||Lee Cheong Lin||48 00||441.||Won Tun Kwong||112 10|
|399.||Lum Wing||33 50||442.||Won Hok Sum||519 70|
|400.||Way Ing||139 85||443.||Leo Bing Lung||187 40|
|401.||Tom Hing||145 45||444.||Leo Sun Boo||137 00|
|402.||Chun Sang Wah||157 50||445.||Ching Loy Hin||135 50|
|Total||2,814 40||446.||Leo Yim Kwong||353 50|
|Camp No. 35.||447.||Property owned of common by persons of Camp No. 41||207 45|
|403.||Hsu Chee Pie||160 75||Total||2,189 90|
|404.||Hsu Chee Moon||152 00||Camp No. 43.|
|405.||Hsu Ah Kum||99 75||448.||Lee Kung Won||67 00|
|406.||Hsu Sum Jay||103 20||449.||Leo Mun Wing||71 10|
|407.||Hsu Ah Tsun||52 00||450.||Leo Lung Cheong||259 75|
|408.||Hsu Ah Sut||199 75||451.||Leo Chay Wah||98 60|
|409.||Low Hok Jan||69 50||452.||Leo Seh Ho||53 50|
|410.||Hsu Seh Poo||107 75||453.||Cho Cheong Tsung||75 80|
|411.||Tung Lung||105 20||454.||Leo Kow Boot (killed)||764 00|
|412.||Low Chow||74 25||455.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 43||244 70|
|413.||Property owned in common by persons in Camp No. 35||295 10|
|Total||1,419 45||Total||1,634 45|
|Camp No. 36.||Camp No. 47.|
|414.||Mac Hoy Kum||157 25||456.||Lor Hing See||$63 50|
|415.||Gok Ah Mong||54 75||457.||Wong Chay Heong||63 25|
|416.||Lee Won Inn||135 55||458.||Lee Wor Yin||108 00|
|417.||Ng Ah Sik||82 15||459.||Kwan Kok Gin||162 75|
|418.||Le Ah Chii||98 75||460.||Chang Chay Ngok||49 00|
|419.||Le Ah Seang||55 75||461.||Chan Gung Yow||100 75|
|420.||Wong Ah Chow||80 25||462.||Wong Ah Gow||77 25|
|421.||Kwong See Dick||63 25||463.||Fong Sung Duck||102 75|
|422.||Chun Quan Sing (killed)||135 00||464.||Fong Sow Siang||61 00|
|423.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 36||230 64||465.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 47||318 50|
|Total||1,093 34||Total||1,106 75|
|Camp No. 40.||Camp No. 52.|
|424.||Lee Yow Sung||177 80||466.||Choy Bew Yik||88 00|
|425.||Lee Seh Chung||155 50||467.||Sit Yii Yin||24 00|
|426.||Lee Mun Poy||133 25||468.||Choy Ing Yii||$26 00|
|427.||Lee Yick Sow||153 85||469.||Loui Kwun||26 00|
|428.||Lee Chay Nii||127 50||470.||Loui Way Git||72 50|
|429.||Sun Ng Choy||151 80||471.||Hsu Choc Yii||66 75|
|430.||Ip Nii Im||86 50||472.||Chung Yin Yun||45 55|
|431.||Lee Say Fat||101 25||473.||Chan Ah Sow||81 75|
|Camp No. 52–continued.||Camp No. 46–continued.|
|474.||Loui Ah Hok||35 00||490.||Choo Hook Chew||$100 40|
|475.||Choy Hong Yik||44 75||491.||Choo To Sing||70 60|
|476.||Choy Poy Sing||61 75||492.||Won Tsun Ik||79 00|
|477.||Choy Yang Ming||96 75||493.||Choo Buck Kwong||131 00|
|478.||Choy Ing Sum||123 50||494.||Choo Shii Gun||117 30|
|479.||Hsu Ah Tsing (killed)||450 00||495.||Choo Kwong Hin||124 70|
|480.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 52||354 45||496.||Choo Kung Sun||133 75|
|Total||1,596 75||497.||Choo Yong||62 50|
|Camp No. 54.||498.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 56||247 25|
|481.||Chun Ah Sow||133 90||Total||1,066 50|
|482.||Low Jan Kwong||73 00||Camp No. 58.|
|483.||Lor Ah Wor||40 80||499.||Leo Lung Ing||264 65|
|484.||Chan Ah Sing||60 75||500.||Chew Nung||84 75|
|485.||Chang Ah Bing||162 75||501.||Lee Gut Cheong||402 65|
|486.||Choo Bah Dat||141 25||502.||Leo Ah Sam||109 70|
|487.||Choo Yip Hway||106 00||503.||Yuen Chun Sung (killed).||150 00|
|488.||Choo Bah Quot (kilied)||380 00||505.||Leo Lung Cho||125 30|
|489.||Property owned in common by persons of Camp No. 54||258 30||505.||Leo Chung Wor||114 75|
|Total||1,356 75||506.||Leo Sun Gok||114 25|
|507.||Leo Kin Lung||147 30|
|508.||Property owned in common by persons in Camp No. 58||259 15|
|Grand total||69,380 55|
Estimate of losses sustained by Chinese residents in their respective huts at Rock Springs Wyoming Territory September 2, 1885.
|Estimated loss.||Estimated loss.|
|509.||Loui Yee Tsun||$133 50||534.||Loui Seh Bong||$60 00|
|510.||Leo Chung Teen||66 90||535.||Ngan Chee||139 65|
|511.||Choo Kaw Yii||50 00||536.||Leo Kwong Hoon||197 75|
|512.||Tom Jik||139 35||537.||Lor Say Ho||94 00|
|513.||Leo Seh Hoo||448 50||538.||Low Chay Won||666 50|
|514.||Hsu Cheong Yet||67 40||539.||Low Sow Ping||225 75|
|515.||Hsu Kin||35 70||540.||Leo Lung Teen||80 00|
|516.||Tom Kun Tse||277 75||541.||Leo Lung Kway||146 00|
|517.||Leo Shui He||182 30||542.||Leo Hin Nung||183 50|
|518.||Loui Hok Lim||77 00||543.||Leo Ah Chay||64 25|
|519.||Leo Kwong Lun||234 45||544.||Leo Chay Geen||35 50|
|520.||Leo Lung Yun||348 00||545.||Leo Kwong Yong||2,122 10|
|521.||Leo Oy Yii||311 00||546.||Leo Tim Tsung||39 00|
|522.||Leo Gut Yii||369 40||547.||Leo Sing Gut||144 30|
|523.||Leo Wong Kee||370 00||548.||Leo Chun Kwong||563 10|
|524.||Leo Kwon Yun||537 00||549.||Leo Wing Sung||447 70|
|525.||Yong Yun||243 00||550.||Leo Tse||476 85|
|526.||Chum Sing Ip||154 50||551.||Leo Nip Sun||2,325 15|
|527.||Leo Lung Kwong and Leo Wah Kum, partners||1,874 70||552.||Leo Buck Way||509 05|
|528.||Leo Hook Quan||1,891 10||553.||Leo Bing Gee||448 50|
|529.||Hsu Lin Sam||89 00||554.||Leo Lung Ngan||515 10|
|530.||Ng Kwun Sing||68 00||555.||Chow Yow Yen||336 25|
|531.||Tong Ah Cheong||191 80||556.||Leo Kin Lung and Chow Yow Yen, partners||1,349 70|
|532.||Leo Sun Yip||171 25||557.||Wong Lin Gok||149 85|
|533.||Leo Kwong Teen||330 45||558.||Leo Way Sun||1,048 50|
|559.||Leo Sik Lung||$616 50||625.||Leo Seh Kin||$110 00|
|560.||Lum Dii Tsing||701 00||626.||Leo Seh Dat||43 75|
|561.||Leo Tsock Yen.||989 50||627.||Leo Seh Tim||123 75|
|562.||Leo Yew Lung||1,821 10||628.||Choo Ngok Yun||107 70|
|563.||Leo Yii Sing||161 75||629.||Chung Hook Tse||143 35|
|564.||Leo Lung King||2,934 10||630.||Low Ting But||152 75|
|565.||Liang Sing Hee||1,344 25||631.||Low Way Chee||60 75|
|566.||Leo Hin Yong||1,319 25||632.||Low Yip||43 00|
|567.||Chun Chin Cheong||62 50||633.||Leo Sing Yong||870 00|
|568.||Leo Yik Tse||1,204 85||634.||Tong He||105 50|
|569.||Low Chung||81 50||635.||Leo Chung Nii||64 00|
|570.||Leo Yun Kwong||414 75||636.||Leo Kwan Cheong||307 80|
|571.||Leo Wing Sun||137 00||637.||Leo Kwong Sye||108 70|
|572.||Low Lung||134 10||638.||Leo Sun Hon||175 10|
|573.||Leo Me Kwong||73 80||639.||Tong Chee Heong||86 25|
|574.||Leo Chay Ng||428 70||640.||Lum Wor||138 25|
|575.||Leo Zay Choo||138 50||641.||Tong Ding Poon||147 40|
|576.||Hsu Zay Choo||46 00||642.||Choo Ah Wor||56 50|
|577.||Leo Wing You||575 50||643.||Leo Ah Sow||877 25|
|578.||Leo Kew Lung||170 44||644.||Tong Ding Yew||120 60|
|579.||Leo Yet Sun||396 00||645.||Leo Kung Ho||169 00|
|580.||Leo Yit Lung||90 25||646.||Tong Ah Lum||101 50|
|581.||Leo Kwong Nom||177 20||647.||Liang Sing||68 00|
|582.||Leo Ting Kwong||355 50||648.||Ng Lin Tin||142 60|
|583.||Leo Lung Gut||55 50||649.||Tong Seh Kum||72 45|
|584.||Lum Wing Gut||108 50||650.||Mac Wing Yum||183 00|
|585.||Low Ng||35 00||651.||Leo Kwung Sik||179 20|
|586.||Leo Chee Bong||181 50||652.||Tong He Ngok||75 00|
|587.||Leo Sun Soy||343 60||653.||Loui Ho||80 80|
|588.||Lee Sing||66 50||654.||Leo Yii Lup||62 15|
|589.||Leo Sing Gee||91 25||655.||Choo Ngar Cheong||250 95|
|590.||Leo Sung Sai||60 35||656.||Tong Kee Yong||112 50|
|591.||Leo Cong Kwong||154 50||657.||Lee Sin Yeong||279 00|
|592.||Leo Wing Joke||189 80||658.||Leo Kwan Bo||265 50|
|593.||Leo Wing Chang||313 00||659.||Ng Ling Cheong||25 80|
|594.||Leo Wing Chee||238 00||660.||Choy Hoy Chee||86 75|
|595.||Leo Wing Liang||428 50||661.||Leo Sing Lung||128 55|
|596.||Leo Kum Yen||172 00||662.||Leo Wing Ngoon||86 00|
|597.||Leo Bah Lum||296 00||663.||Chan Lung Yik||80 00|
|598.||Leo Kwong Ning||257 40||664.||Leo Yun Tse||375 30|
|599.||Leo Kwong Book||120 50||665.||Ng Low Yow||161 00|
|600.||Leo Quan Ding||69 50||666.||Chun Tse Lin||91 50|
|601.||Leo Quong Bo||148 00||667.||Leo Ah Kii||209 45|
|602.||Leo Jup Hok||93 75||668.||Ng Tse Chang||145 60|
|603.||Leo Qwong Sum||86 25||669.||Leo Fong Wah||167 75|
|604.||Leo Wing Kwong||38 75||670.||Leo Kwong Kien||164 75|
|605.||Soo Ah Jik||42 00||671.||Leo Wah Siang||394 50|
|606.||Lee Chew Nan||48 50||672.||Chan Way||83 75|
|607.||Leo Kwong Fat||970 50||673.||Ngog Kin Sing||185 00|
|608.||Loui Cheong Dye||29 00||674.||Leo Sun Sing||96 00|
|609.||Leo Nom Sow||117 25||675.||Leo Hoy Ming||305 10|
|610.||Kwong Yin Hin||36 50||676.||Tong Kay Jock||11 25|
|611.||Hsu Jay Chee||89 50||677.||Leo Sun Lee||430 75|
|612.||Hsu Ah Ing||51 25||678.||Leo Hin Wing.||300 00|
|613.||Look Ah Tsung||233 50||679.||Leo Chay Hoon||264 50|
|614.||Mar Moy||164 85||680.||Leo My||107 70|
|615.||Low Wong Hok||176 05||681.||Leo Mun Fat||79 15|
|616.||Leo Chum See||208 25||682.||Leo Mun Sing||59 85|
|617.||Choo Chay Sing||257 75||683.||Leo King Lung||308 75|
|618.||Leo Yin On||47 50||684.||Tom Won||71 50|
|619.||Choo Ping Cheong||116 40||685.||Leo Teen Siang||367 25|
|620.||Tung Seh Sun||251 50||686.||Chun Hoy Gock||144 75|
|621.||Leo Fan Lee||187 45||687.||Low Chee Sing||208 80|
|622.||Leo Mun Gwin||145 75||688.||Leo Kwong Ing||85 50|
|623.||Leo Lung Jik||402 75||689.||Leo Lit Kwong||144 40|
|624.||Leo Ting Yew||117 35||690.||Leo Tsun Lung||259 95|
|691.||Leo Lung Kwong||$64 00||732.||Leo Sun Tsung (killed)||$1,140 00|
|692.||Hung Ah Hin||134 00||733.||Lor Hung Lung (killed)||210 00|
|693.||Leo Hoo Sun||351 50||734.||Leo Tim Kwong (killed)||113 00|
|694.||Leo Tsun Kwong||209 25||735.||Leo Lung Siang (killed)||550 00|
|695.||Low Ah Wood||533 45||736.||Ah Lee Hok (wounded||93 65|
|696.||Leo Joo Hing||123 50||737.||Lee Hook Sing (wounded)||79 10|
|697.||Leo Wing Moon||1,771 95||738.||Leo Kung Kwong (wounded)||72 25|
|698.||Tom Sun||219 55||739.||Leo Ah Go (wounded)||235 25|
|699.||Ng Yow||168 50||740.||Lor Sun Kit (wounded)||343 60|
|700.||Tom See Cheong||92 95||741.||Chow Choy||317 35|
|701.||Leo Chang Lup||852 70||742.||Yuen Sing Hoo||130 95|
|702.||Leo Yet Sum||148 40||743.||Chun Go||112 15|
|703.||Chun Lor Fong||79 75||744.||Chow Hook||111 10|
|704.||Chun Linn Hoo||154 95||745.||Chun Yee Gow||315 10|
|705.||Led Fong Nim||162 50||746.||Leo Lung Oy||294 75|
|706.||Tom Hoy Yen.||43 00||747.||Yip Ah Mow||57 50|
|707.||Yii Day On||95 30||748.||Leo Wor Shui||180 55|
|708.||Choo Yun Yee||67 00||749.||Leo Seh Ying||80 35|
|709.||Leo Yut Cheong||170 00||750.||Leo Wing Ngoon||33 25|
|710.||Leo Seh Jay||300 00||751.||Leo Hoy Kee||30 50|
|711.||Leo Kwun||3,317 50||752.||Leo Lung Hoy||56 50|
|712.||Leo Sow Kway||433 10||753.||Chum Norn Gok||78 58|
|713.||Wong Woon Ho (woman).||150 50||754.||Leo Ah Hing||301 00|
|714.||Leo Gok Kwong||394 50||755.||Leo Kwong Oy||118 75|
|715.||Leo Sing Lit||532 00||756.||Leo Ow Kwong||230 85|
|716.||Leo Yoke Kwong||732 50||757.||Leo Lung Way||49 50|
|717.||Leo Loy Kiang||246 70||758.||Leo Yuk Kwong||212 50|
|718.||Leo Kwong Cheong||217 25||759.||Leo Wing Bing||43 95|
|719.||Leo Hin Yin||114 50||760.||Leo Tse Wing (killed)||472 00|
|720.||Won Sum||346 10||761.||Leo Chik Ming (killed)||800 00|
|721.||Leo Kwong Wing||209 00||762.||Liang Tsun Bong (killed)||180 00|
|722.||Yii Cheong||34 00||763.||Hsu Ah Cheong (killed)||240 00|
|723.||Leo Sun Hung||126 20||764.||Hoo Ah Nii (killed)||400 00|
|724.||Leo Hung Kum||534 80|
|725.||Leo Duck Sun||432 50|
|726.||Leo Tsing Yin||180 00||Residents in huts, total||78,368 19|
|727.||Leo Ah Tsun (killed)||500 00||Residents in camps, total||69,380 55|
|728.||Leo Dye Bah (killed)||670 00|
|729.||Leo Lung Hon (killed)||770 00||Grand final total||147,748 74|
|730.||Leo Lung Hon (killed)||580 00|
|731.||Leo Hoy Yat (killed)||240 00|
Consul at New York.
The Chinese indemnity claims.
In 1858 a convention was agreed upon for the adjustment of the claims of American citizens against China. The claims are described by the United States minister, Mr. Reed, as of two kinds: first, those “dating as far back as 1847 and having no relation “to the war which for two years had been carried on by Great Britain and France against China; and, second, “those originating in the pending warfare,” the latter embracing much the larger amount of the claims. In describing these, Mr. Reed, in a dispatch to the Secretary of State, says: “Those arising out of the British bombardment in October do not seem to me to be strong as against the Chinese, who were the party assailed and not the assailants; and I indulge in the hope that some remuneration may be made by the British authorities. The property burned in the factories constituted a more meritorious class as against the Chinese. That they had a perfect right by any means to dislodge a hostile force, and in doing so to destroy the buildings occupied, is very clear. It is equally so that they were not bound to abstain from this mode of annoyance because neutral property stored there might be endangered or destroyed; but if that property is destroyed in order to make defense effectual, the innocent sufferers must look somewhere.” (S. Ex. Doc. 30, 36th Cong., 1st sess., p. 193.)[Page 141]
Mr. Cass, Secretary of State, instructed Mr. Reed to press the claim upon the Chinese Government for indemnification. The minister reports that “in the early part of the negotiations here the Chinese persevered in denying not only all responsibility on the part of the Imperial Government, but all power or inclination to control the local authorities at Canton.” (Ib., p. 371.) But the English and French having dictated terms of peace, which included the recognition of their claims, Mr. Reed insisted that “if the claims for private pecuniary injury done to English or French be admitted to be binding on the Imperial Government, and not those of the United States, it will be a great wrong to those who have been friends of China.” (Ib., p. 373.) Under these circumstances the convention was signed and $735,258.97 were paid over by the Chinese Government to the American minister, upon the faith of his representation that injuries to that amount had been suffered by citizens of the United States. A proposition to place a Chinese on the Claims Commission was rejected (Ib., pp. 520–1), and no opportunity appears to have been afforded that Government to examine the evidence upon which the claims were based.
The subsequent proceedings are stated by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to be as follows: “Under the provisions of an act of Congress two commissioners, citizens of the United States, were appointed to adjust the claims and award such sums as might be found to be justly due; their decisions to be final. The commissioners appointed, were both at the time residents of China, and familiar with all the circumstances under which the claims arose. They met at Macao, in China, November 18, 1859, and concluded their labors on the 13th day of January, 1860. Upon examination all the claims were found to be more or less exaggerated, and some to be entirely groundless; while others were presented by persons not citizens of the United States. After paying all the claims to the apparent satisfaction of the claimants—no protest being filed in any case—with interest for five years at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum, there remained a surplus of more than one-third of the gross sum received from China.” (House Report No. 970, 48th Cong., 1st sess.)
This surplus was transferred from China to the United States and invested by the Secretary of State in Government bonds. While in the hands of the Secretary, Congress and the Executive authorized the payment of $154,299.64 to individuals whose claims had been rejected by the commission as invalid and without merit. The balance was finally returned to China, by virtue of the act of Congress of March 3, 1885.
the character of the claims.
The commission appointed to adjust the claims made a full report of their proceedings, including a list of awards and the evidence upon which they were made. (House Ex. Doc. No. 29, 40th Cong., 3d sess.) The following is a copy of the statement of claims allowed:[Page 142]
Class I.—Statement of claims allowed in full.
|No.||Name of claimant.||Residence.||Nature of claim.||Amount claimed.||Time of interest.||Amount of interest at 12 per cent.||Total amount allowed.|
|1.||I. J. Roberts||Canton||House pillaged by mob; damaged in 1847 at $1,400||$2,800 00||12½|
|House again pillaged in 1857 by Chinese soldiers: damages $1,400.||213 46||3||82,604 00||$5,404 00|
|2||R. S. Maclay et al||Foocho||Loss of advances paid to landlord by Chinese official interference at Foochoo, in 1852.||213 46||7||179 30||392 76|
|3||S. Drinker, dec’d, estate of||Macao||Balance of award by arbitrators for services to Chinese Government officers in 1856.||1,281 21||4||614 98||1,896 19|
|4||D. Ball||Canton||Furniture and books burned at the bombardment of Canton, Oct. 29, 1856.||409 50||3||147 42||556 92|
|5||J. B. French, dec’d, estate of||do||do||1,800 00||3||648 00||2,448 00|
|6||C. F. Preston.||do||do||775 00||3||279 00||1,054 00|
|7||A. P. Happer||do||do||1,315 25||3||473 49||1,788 74|
|8||American Board of Presbyterian Missions.||do||do||2,472 00||3||889 92||3,361 92|
|9||O. H. Perry||do||Furniture and silverware lost by burning of the foreign factories at Canton, Dec. 14, 1856.||971 00||3||349 56||1,320 56|
|10||American Board of Commissioners of Foreign Missions.||do||Printing office, type, presses, books, &c., lost by burning of the foreign factories at Canton. Dec. 14.1856.||14,000 75||3||5,040 27||19,041 02|
|11||Medical Missionary Society||do||Furniture lost by burning of the foreign factories at Canton, Dec. 14, 1856.||267 00||3||96 12||363 12|
|12||S. W. Williams||do||Type, furniture, books, &c., lost by burning of foreign lactones at Canton, Dec. 14, 1856.||7,550 00||3||2,718 00||10,268 00|
|13||W. W. Cryder||do||Furniture, &c., lost by burning of the foreign factories at Canton, Dec. 14, 1856.||895 54||3||322 39||1,217 93|
|14||S. Robertson||do||do||638 50||3||229 86||868 36|
|15||A. J. Case||do||Ladies’ clothing and jewelry lost by burning of the foreign factories at Canton. Dec. 14, 1856.||1,000 00||3||360 00||1,860 00|
|16||J. R. Smith||do||Furniture and books lost by burning of the foreign factories at Canton, Dec. 14, 1856||1,650 00||3||594 00||2,244 00|
|17||H. S. Grew||do||do||460 00||3||144 00||544 00|
|18||George Tyson||do||do||510 00||3||183 60||693 60|
|19||C. W. Gaillard||do||do||140 00||3||50 40||190 40|
|20||Southern Baptist Mission||do||House and library lost by burning of the foreign factories at Canton, Dec. 14, 1856.||1,184 44||3||426 39||1,610 83|
|21||D. Vrooman||do||Furniture and books lost by burning of the foreign factories at Canton. Dec. 14. 1856.||200 00||3||72 00||272 00|
|22||P. Parker||Chinese books lost by burning of the foreign factories at Canton, Dec. 14, 1856.||300 00||3||108 00||408 00|
|23||P. L. Everett||Furniture, &c., lost by burning of the foreign factories at Canton Dec, 14, 1856.||279 00||3||100 44||379 44|
|24||G. Nye, jr||do||855 06||3||307 82||1,162 88|
|25||A. Heard, jr.||do||1,029 00||3||370 44||1,399 44|
|26||E. F. Parker||Furniture, &c., lost by burning of the foreign factories at Canton, Dec. 14, 1856.||$1,000 00||3||$360 00||81,360 00|
|27||W. T. Hunter(in re S. Drinker, No. 3).||Balance of award by arbitrators, for services to Chinese Government officers in 1856.||621 30||4||298 22||919 52|
|28||Seamen’s Floating Bethel, trustees of.||Loss of floating chapel, furniture, &c., by Chinese troops at Whampoa, in Jan. 1857.||7,000 00||3||2,520 00||9,520 00|
|29||C. T. Smith||Furniture lost by burning of foreign factories at Canton, Dec. 14, 1856.||200 00||3||72 00||272 00|
|30||United States consulate||Flag-staff, stays, &c., lost by burning of foreign factories at Canton, Dfee.14, 1856.||1,000 00||3||360 00||1,360 00|
|31||S. E. Burrows & Sons||Loss of eight iron water tanks, by Chinese troops at Whampoa, Jan., 1857.||1,000 00||3||360 00||1,360 00|
|32||J. G. Purdon||One bowling alley share (building and furniture destroyed at Canton. Dec 14, 1856.)||95 00||3||34 20||129 20|
|33||J. C. Beecher||Furniture in seamen’s bethel (private) destroyed by Chinese troops at Whampoa, Jan., 1857.||250 00||8||90 00||340 00|
|54,103 01||21,403 82||75,506 83|
Class II.—Statement of claims allowed in part.
|No.||Name of claimant.||Residence.||Nature of claim.||Amount claimed.||Amount disallowed or withdrawn.||Amount allowed.||Time of interest.||Interest on sum allowed at 12 per cent.||Total allowed.|
|34||O. H. Perry, assignee of Wetmore & Co.||Canton||Loss of goods and furniture and expenses removal, caused by burning of factories at Canton, December 14, 1856.||$2,248 42||$1,938 92||$309 50||3||$111 42||$420 92|
|35||W. P. Blanchard, receiver o: King & Co., insolvent.||do||Loss of furniture, damages in removal, Chinese debtors, &c, at Canton, December 14, 1856.||37,391 10||35,391 10||2,000 00||3||720 00||2,720 00|
|36||Augustine Heard & Co||do||Loss of furniture, rents, prospective profits, demurrage, &c.||93,452 15||850,305 00||8,419 10||3||3,030 87||11,449 97|
|37||Russell & Co.||do||Loss of furniture, demurrage, goods of aliens. &c.||81,100 00||79,100 00||2,000 00||3||710 00||2,720 00|
|38||Thomas Welsh||do||Loss of furniture, goods, expenses, loss of contracts, &c.||62,141 72||58,115 85||4,026 37||3||1,449 49||5,475 86|
|39||Union Billiard Club, by George Tyson secretary.||do||Eleven American shares, at $55.50 each(club-house. &c. destroyed).||1,110 00||499 50||610 50||3||219 78||830 28|
|40||W. C. Hunter.||do||Furniture, books, &c., property of aliens, demurrage, &c.||7,179 95||5,165 95||2,015 00||3||725 04||2,739 04|
|41||Alvord & Co||do||Furniture, &c., anticipated profits, property of Chinese comprador.||30,674 00||24,710 00||5,964 00||3||2,147 04||8,111 04|
|42||J. Purdon & Co.||do||Furniture, merchandise, clothing, rents, commissions not earned. Chinese Property. &c.||423,179 64||312,004 79||111,174.85||3||40,022 95||151,197 80|
|43||Humphrey Marshall, by W. C. Hunter, agent.||Kentucky.||Furniture and Chinaware||800 00||294 00||506 00||3||182 16||688 16|
|44||Thomas Hut & Co||Whampoa||Docks, buildings, and materials, chops, &c., tonnage, depreciation, loss of revenue, caused by Chinede troops, January, 1857.||290,067 51||192,199 32||97,868 19||3||35,232 55||133,100 74|
|45||J. B. Endicott||Macao||Steam boilers, chains, anchors and kingposts at Whampoa, January, 1857.||1,400 00||100 00||1,300 00||3||468 00||1,768 00|
|46||A. P. Edwards.||New Haven||False imprisonment and severe corporal injury by Chinese officers at Canton, 1841.||50,000 00||40,000 00||10,000 00||18||21,600 00||31,600 00|
|47||F. Cady, deceased, estate of||Whampoa||Loss of furniture, boats, merchandise, &c., by Chinese troops at Whampoa, Jan., 1857.||19,817 00||14,817 00||5,000 00||3||1,800 00||6,800 00|
|48.||Russell & Co., agents for underwriters and H. W. Hubbell.||New York, &c.||Piracy on ship and cargo, October, 1854, Caldera claims.||74,285 36||44,571 22||29,714 14||5||17,828 48||47,542 62|
|49||Alvord & Co.||Canton||do||10,974 24||6,584 54||4,389 70||5||2,633 82||7,023 52|
|Total||1,185,821 09||900,524 74||285,296 35||128,891 60||414,187 95|
United States Board of Claims, Macao, January 13, 1860.[Page 145]
By a reference to the foregoing statement and the evidence before the Commission in each case, it will be seen that all the claims are embraced in the following classes:
|Damages resulting from the operations of the British forces against Canton and its vicinity in 1856 and 1857, which include 41 out of the 48 awards, and for which there were allowed||$397,618 17|
|Mob violence and robbery, claims Nos. 1, 2, and 48, allowed||57,660 00|
|Contract for war aid, claims Nos. 3 and 27, allowed||2,815 71|
|Arrest and cruel treatment, claim No. 46, allowed||31,600 00|
War damages.—The losses and injuries sustained under this first class by American citizens, and for which they were awarded indemnification by the Commission, resulted from the bombardment of Canton by the British forces, the burning of the factories during the military operations in 1856, the movements of the fleets in that vicinity in 1857 (Whampoa), and the indiscriminate pillage which attended these operations.
The Government of the United States from its foundation has uniformly maintained that neither according to the principles of international nor domestic law could it be required, either by foreign Governments or individuals, to indemnify them for damages resulting from the war operations of its own troops or those of foreign nations or rebels, or from their pillage. Secretary Seward stated this position at some length in rejecting a claim for damages occasioned by the bombardment of Grey town in 1854. (Letter Feb’y 26, 1868.) Quoting this letter, the United States Court of Claims adopted “these views as a correct exposition of the laws and usages of nations upon this subject” (4 C. C., 549). See also President’s Messages, Feb’y 12 and June 1, 1873; 20 Opinions Judge-Advocates, 525; 26 Ib., 242, 247; Law of Claims against Governments, Chaps. 3 to 6, H. R. 134 43d Cong., 2d sess.; Whiting’s War Powers, ed. 1871, 340.) The same position has been taken by all the recent claims commissions or tribunals in which the United States has participated. Hon. R. S. Hale, counsel of the United States before the British and American Commission, in his final report, says: “Claims for injuries by bombardment, the passage of armies, * * * the incidental destruction of innocent property involved in the destruction of public stores, and the destruction of the enemy, * * * were all disallowed by the unanimous voice of the Commissioners. * * * Where property was in its nature not a proper subject of military use, or, being such, was not applied to military use, or where the taking appeared to be mere acts of unauthorized pillage or marauding, the claims were disallowed.” (Hale’s Report, pp. 44 and 50.) The same course was taken in a large number of cases by the American and Mexican Commission under the treaty of 1868. The French and American Commission, under the treaty of 1880, held, in various cases, that French citizens resident in the United States could not recover from the Government of the latter for damages occasioned, during the rebellion, by the operation of the United States Army in bombarding a town, in burning a town or property therein during battle or to prevent its being occupied or used by the enemy, or the unauthorized appropriation or pillage by soldiers. (Boutwell’s Report, French and American Commission, pp. 146–7, 157–8, 159–76.)
If the foregoing principles, maintained by the United States and sustained by all the claims commissions referred to, had been observed by the Chinese indemnity commission, forty-one out of forty-eight claims, on which $397,618.17 were allowed, would have been rejected.
Mob violence and robbery.—One-half of claim No. 1, and claims Nos. 2 and 48, upon which $57,660.90 were paid, were in compensation for damages arising from acts of mob violence or robbery by lawless bands. If “the principles of international law and the usages of national comity,” enunciated by Secretary Evarts in his note of December 30, 1880, to the Chinese minister, and affirmed by Secretary Blaine (Foreign Relations, 1881, pp. 319, 335), had been followed by the indemnity commission, all of these claims would also have been rejected.
Contract for war aid.—Two American citizens, Drinker and Hunter (claims Nos. 3 and 27), entered into an agreement, in 1855, with certain Chinese local authorities to aid them in an attack upon some rebel forts. Upon being informed of the facts, the United States minister, R. M. McLane, disapproved of the movement, and directed them to desist from it, and the United States naval officers “threatened the said Captain Drinker with severe penalties unless he abandoned the enterprise.” Drinker and Hunter made a demand upon the Chinese for money expended under the agreement. The dispute was submitted to two foreign residents of Canton for arbitration, and they awarded Drinker and Hunter $1,902.51. The Government of the United States has repeatedly held that where a citizen voluntarily enters into a contract with a foreign Government or its local authorities, he must look to that Government for the enforcement of his contracts, [Page 146] and that he has no right to call upon his own Government to protect his claim; and with much more reason, as in this case, when the American minister and authorities prohibited the transaction.
Arrest and cruel treatment.—A. P. Edwards, claim No. 46, with others, was arrested by Chinese soldiers, in 1841, during the hostilities between the British and Chinese, under the mistaken belief that he was a British subject; was placed in irons and otherwise cruelly treated; was taken the same day to Canton, when, on learning that he was an American, the Viceroy ordered his release, the imprisonment lasting less than a day. “The mandarins expressed their sorrow at the detention, saying it was a mistake, as they supposed them to be Englishmen.” (H. Ex. Doc. 29, 40th Cong., 3d sess., p. 102.) Of all the claims presented to the Commission, this appears to be the sole one which would stand the test of a strict interpretation of international law. Notwithstanding the prompt release and apology of the Chinese officials, Mr. Edwards was allowed $31,600.
Rejected claims paid.—On the 26th of January, 1860, Minister Ward transmitted to the Secretary of State the final report of the Commission, and said: “As far as I have been able to learn, every claimant is content with the amount awarded. Certainly such ought to be the fact, and yet the amount secured by the treaty will not be exhaused; but after paying every just demand against the Chinese Government, there will be a surplus of more than $200,000.” (Ib., p. 12.) And Minister Burlingame, in 1865, in reporting his settlement with the bankers having charge of the disbursement of the fund, wrote to the Secretary of State as follows: “There is no other demand that can ever come up for payment of this indemnity fund, which has not been examined and decided, and the act of Congress approved March 3, 1859, has been fully carried out in every particular.” (Foreign Relations, 1865, p. 442.) It appears, however, that after transmission of the surplus to Washington there has been paid to rejected claimants the sum of $151,259.64, being the Caldera claim, $113,017.11, and Nott & Co., $38,242.53. (Secretary Freling-huysen, May 16, 1884; S. R. 934, 48th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Caldera claim.—The Caldera was a Chilian vessel, but the claim was made by New York underwriters. The facts of the case are succintly stated by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, as follows:
“The bark encountered a severe typhoon on her first day out from Hong-Kong, bound for San Francisco with a cargo of tea; the sails were ‘torn into shreds,’ and the vessel was so severely strained by the force of the gale and the heavy sea that she leaked very badly, necessitating the constant working of the pumps to keep her free; that after driving before the gale for two days, she grounded while endeavoring to take shelter in a bay on the coast of the Five Islands, suffering considerable damage to her hull. After working off the bar upon which she had struck she anchored in the bay, the men being kept continually at work at the pumps to keep the water in the hold from gaining upon them; that while thus engaged the crew were surprised and overpowered by Chinese pirates, and the cargo plundered; that at that time there was 4 feet of water in the hold, immersing about one-third of the cargo; that the vessel proved a total loss, and a large part of the cargo was carried away by the pirates; that upon being informed of this outrage the Chinese Government sent several war junks, in conjunction with war vessels of foreign powers, and dispersed the pirates, recovering a small portion of the stolen property; that both the hull of the vessel and her cargo had been seriously damaged by the elements, and her rigging almost totally destroyed before she entered the harbor where the robbery was committed, is placed beyond all question by the testimony of the master of the Caldera and others.” (H. R. No. 970, 48th Cong., 1st sess.)
The total amount claimed before the commission was $89,727.09. The commissioners were divided in opinion, Dr. Bradley rejecting the claim in toto and Mr. Roberts allowing $54,566.14, which allowance was approved by Minister Ward and paid. Commissioner Bradley held that it was “clearly stipulated in Article XXVI (treaty of 1844) and of Article. XIII (1858) that ‘the Chinese Government will not make indemnity for the goods lost’ by piratical depredations on our commerce. * * * A decision in favor of the claimants would be unprecedented. * * * Numerous like instances have, within the last seventeen years, occurred in waters over which China exercises jurisdiction, for which neither British nor American underwriters have ever asked indemnity. * * * Piracy is one of the risks against which they insure; and it would be as reasonable to insist on a Chinese indemnity for losses by Chinese typhoons as for those by Chinese pirates.”
Notwithstanding the award and its payment, the underwriters resubmitted their claim in 1863 to Minister Burlingame, asking for the further sum of $68,078.67. Mr. Burlingame made an exhaustive review of the case, and transmitted it to the Secretary of State, with the following conclusions thereon: “From these facts it appears that the claim was fully considered and decided under the most favorable circumstances for the claimants, who received two-thirds of the sum originally claimed, When, it seems to me, they were not entitled to one farthing. I agree entirely with the able opinion of Dr. Bradley against the whole claim, and also with the antecedent opinion of Minister McLane, [Page 147] in November, 1854, in the same sense. * * * Alter this award, to learn that a still farther claim should be put forward fills me with amazement.” (For. Rel., 1865, pt. 2, p. 408.)
In 1862 two American vessels were wrecked and plundered by Chinese pirates or wreckers, under similar circumstances, and Mr. Burlingame decided that the sufferers had no claim to indemnity under the treaty. (For. Rel., 1864, pt. 3, p. 337.)
In spite of the foregoing facts, claimants’ succeeded in obtaining from Congress the passage of an act (June 19, 1879) by means of which they secured from the surplus fund the sum of $113,077.11, making a total payment on this claim of $170,683.25, upon which Minister Burlingame declared “they were not entitled to one farthing.”
The Knott & Co. claim.—The facts of the case, as stated by the claimants themselves, are as follows: “The Neva sailed at 3 p.m. on the 17th November, 1857. While at anchor the same evening * * * five Chinese came alongside, requesting passage to Foochoo, which was granted them; at about 11 p.m. they, with the assistance of the Chinese portion of the crew, took possession of the vessel, murdered the captain and some of the crew, and, after securing the remainder, the hold was broken open, and a large amount of treasure, of which four boxes, valued at $16, 197.60, were our property. * * * The Chinese escaped with their plunder, by boat, to the mainland.” (Report of Commission, p. 119.) The claim was rejected by the Commission as invalid. It appears, however, from the letter of Mr. Frelinghuysen of May 16, 1884, that the claimants finally secured from the State Department the payment from the surplus fund of $38,242.53 by virtue of the act of Congress of February 22, 1869.
It results that the total amount received by claimants out of the indemnity fund paid to the United States by China, by virtue of the claims convention of 1858, was $643,994.42; of which amount it is believed that at least $600,000 was not warranted under a strict application of international law, as interpreted by the Government of the United States, bat was conceded by China, as a mark of appreciation of the friendly attitude of the United States during the hostilities with Great Britain and France.
(“The whole international code is founded upon reciprocity.”—Wheaton, Lawr., 6th ed., p. 421.)
Protection of Americans and diplomatic intervention in China.
The policy of the United States.—Mr. Burlingame, while acting as minister of the United States in China, held an important interview with Prince Kung, in which he discussed with the Prince three points, stated by him as follows: “The sovereign right of the Chinese Government to legislate on its own domestic affairs, the importance of comity and generosity in international intercourse, and wisdom of dealing with individual peculiarities.” (For. Rel., 1865, p. 446.) In acknowledging Minister Burlingame’s dispatch transmitting the interview, Hon. William II. Seward, Secretary of State, says: “The President of the United States desires to make known his satisfaction with the very just, liberal, and friendly sentiments expressed by Prince Kung and his associates of the foreign board at these interviews. The Government of the United States is not disposed to be technical or exacting in its intercourse with the Chinese Government, but will deal with it with entire frankness, cordiality, and friendship. The United States desires neither to interfere with the distinct and ancient habits and customs of the Chinese people nor to embarrass the members of the foreign board in their difficult and responsible labors. While insisting always upon rights stipulated in solemn treaties, the wish of this Government is to promote that esteem which will conduce to the mutual advantage of both nations.” (For. Rel., 1865, p. 461.)
Soon after the visit of the Chinese embassy, headed by Mr. Burlingame, to the United States, in 1868, Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, sent a dispatch to Mr. Bancroft, American minister in Berlin, in which he used this language: “I propose to give briefly the views of the Department as to the policy to be pursued towards China. I am induced to do this mainly because the chargé d’affaires of North Germany has, under instructions of his Government, inquired of me whether the President still adheres to the principles established by the additional articles to the treaty of June 18, 1858, which were concluded July 28, 1868.* * * The great principle which underlies the article of July, 1868, is the recognition of the sovereign authority of the Imperial Government at Pekin over the people of the Chinese Empire, and over their social, commercial, and political relations with the western powers. Although it is true that many of the Christian governments, including the United States, had before then concluded treaties with the Imperial [Page 148] Government, yet it is scarcely exaggeration to say that their relations at that time were rather those of force than of amity. * * * Those treaties closed a war which resulted disastrously to China; before their ratification could be exchanged, another war became necessary to enforce them; the concessions they contained were forced from the Imperial Government.* * * The treaty negotiated by Mr. Burlingame and his colleagues was a long step in another direction. It came voluntarily from China, and placed that power in theory on the same diplomatic footing with the nations of the western world.* * * The apprehension has been expressed lest the operation of the eighth article of the treaty of July should put a stop to this co-operative policy (of the Christian powers), and I am bound to say that, so far as that policy was aggressive and attempted to force upon China measures which could not be enforced upon a European or American State by the rules of the equitable code which regulates the intercourse of civilized nations, in my judgment, that article may, when ratifications are Exchanged, prevent the United States from participating in such a policy.” (For. Rel., 1870, pp. 304–5.)
And a year later Secretary Fish, in requesting the Secretary of the Navy to send certain instructions to Admiral Rogers in Chinese waters, writes: “The present relations between the United States and China are unusually amicable. The policy inaugurated by Mr. Burlingame and Mr. Seward at Washington, whereby the Chinese Empire was placed on the footing of the civilized states of the west, and recognized as an organized central power, was essentially an American policy in its inception, and is so regarded in the Chinese mind. From the best information which this Department can obtain, this policy is one calculated to increase American influence and interests in China.” (For. Rel., 1870, p. 332.)
Judicial rights of Americans in China.—Attorney-General Cushing, who had himself been the diplomatic representative of the United States in China, after a personal conference with Messrs. McLane and Parker, two other ministers to that country, gave an elaborate opinion respecting judicial authority in China, in which he assumed the position that “in controversies between citizens of the United States and subjects of China the case is to be tried by the court of the defendant’s nation.” (Op. Att’y-General, Vol. VII, p. 496.) And again, “secondly, as to demands by an American against a Chinese, the former must, of necessity, be content with such judicial or executive action of the Chinese Government in the premises as appertains to their institutions, and as by special application in each case, or by general application, may be required on the part of the public officers of the United States.” (Ib., p. 517.) This opinion was transmitted to the consuls in China by the Department of State October 8, 1855, “for their instruction.”
In 1879 a conference of the diplomatic representatives of all the treaty powers was held at Peking to consider the judicial system, extraterritorial rights, and other subjects. Mr. G. F. Seward, minister of the United States, took a leading part in this conference, and submitted it to carefully-prepared memorandum, in which he considered the subject of the “administration of justice in cases in which Chinese are accused by our people of offenses and crimes against their persons or property, or in which reclamations are made of a civil nature.” In this paper all the treaty stipulations are quoted, and Attorney-General Cushing’s opinion, above cited, is accepted as to jurisdiction. As to criminal matters, he asserts that “no foreign government has questioned the principle that the Chinese remain completely subject to their own authority in criminal matters;” and that “civil matters between Chinese and foreigners must be tried in the court of the defendant.” Upon reporting his action and views to the Department of State, they were approved by Secretary Evarts. (For. Rel., 1880, pp. 148–153, and 214.)
These references are made to show that, although certain extraterritorial rights were conceded to American citizens by the treaties, which, in the language of Secretary Fish, “closed a war which resulted disastrously to China,” and whose stipulations were “forced from the Imperial Government,” these treaties have never been interpreted as taking away the “sovereign authority of the Imperial Government at Peking over the people of the Chinese Empire” in respect to remedies afforded American citizens for wrongs or injuries done by Chinese subjects to their personal or property interests; in other words, that as to these matters the Americans in China enjoy the same judicial and executive rights as Chinese enjoy in the United States—a free resort to the courts and authorities of the country of their residence.
American vs. Chinese justice.—In discussing the relative fair dealing of the American residents of Chinese ports, and Chinese merchants and people, and the impartiality and fidelity of consular and Chinese courts, Hon. C. W. Bradley, LL. D., United States: Claims Commissioner, long a resident of China, used the folio wing language in one of his decisions: “It is a mortifying fact that were a balance to be struck between the aggregate losses suffered by Americans from Chinese pirates, Chinese thieves, and Chinese debtors, on the one hand, and oh the other, the injuries inflicted on Chinese merchants, tradesmen, compradors, and citizens in the non-payment of debts honestly due them by [Page 149] American merchants, agents, shipmasters, mariners, &c., we should find that balance to our debt in a ratio of full 90 per cent. I speak advisedly.
“On the score, too, of official fidelity and punctuality in fairly carrying out their treaty obligations as against their own countrymen, I apprehend that the consular officers of America and Europe have been guilty of as many and as serious laches as can be produced against the native magistracy of China in their official shortcomings toward foreigners. Such, at least, is the result of my observation. Due provision is also made by the Chinese code of statutes and ordinances for the punishment of malfeasance on the part of officers.* * * These statutes cover the whole ground of official torts, and are frequently enforced with exemplary impartiality and rigor.” (H. Ex. Doc. 29, 40th Cong., 3d sess., p. 176.)
Indemnity for mobs and lawlessness.—The eleventh article of the treaty of 1858 only authorizes the intervention of the United States officials in the case of mobs or other lawlessness, to the extent of asking the punishment of the offenders according to Chinese law, but confers no authority upon them to demand indemnity for losses sustained by American residents. In this respect the latter are “placed on a common footing * * * with the subjects of China.”
But the official and published records of the Government of the United States show that, in the past thirty years, that Government has repeatedly intervened officially and demanded of the Chinese Government not only the punishment of rioters, robbers, and other lawless persons, who have destroyed or appropriated the property of American citizens in China, but has also asked the Imperial Government either to compel the outlaws or the local authorities to indemnify those citizens for the losses sustained, or has asked the Imperial. Government itsef to pay these losses. The most noted instance is that of the convention of 1858, when, at the close of the British and French hostilities against China, at the urgent instance of the Government of the United States, $735,258.97 were paid by China to satisfy the claims of American citizens, a large amount of which was for losses occasioned by mobs, robbery, and other lawless acts of individual Chinese subjects. For detailed information as to these claims, reference is made to inclosure No. 3.
Since that date the official publications disclose a number of cases, one of the most important being that of the Tien-Tsin riot in 1870, when the native population attacked the French Catholic mission in that city, destroyed the cathedral, the French consulate, and the establishment of the French Sisters of Mercy, and the mob resulted in the death of sixteen French subjects, including the consul, and three Russians. Although the riot was directed against the French Catholic missions, some property belonging to the American Board of Missions was destroyed or injured. The American minister, Mr. Low, very promptly united with the other members of the diplomatic corps in a joint note to Prince Kung, calling urgently upon the Imperial Government to take prompt measures to punish the rioters, in which they state that “it is indispensable that, as other countries hear the tidings of this crime, they should, at the same time, be informed that justice is being done.” (For. Rel., 1870, p. 359.)
Notwithstanding that Prince Kung had given assurance that measures had been taken “to execute upon the lawless-men the severest penalties of the laws,” and had notified the French minister that the guilty should be punished with death and other severe penalties, as soon as the investigation could be concluded, the American minister joined with his colleagues in a second note, saying: “We conceive it to be our duty, without loss of time, to state to your imperial highness that we regard the decision arrived at, after three months’ delay, as utterly unsatisfactory.” (For. Rel., 1871, p. 69.) The final results of the proceedings of the Chinese authorities was the execution of nineteen persons, and the sentence of twenty-six others to army service, indemnity for the property destroyed, and proper apologies to the French Government. Mr. Low reports to the Department of State that after having a careful estimate made of the damages suffered by the American missionaries, he directed the consul at Tien-Tsin to “present the claim to the local authorities; and a settlement was made by their agreeing to rebuild the rented premises in a manner satisfactory to the owner, and the payment in money of the claim for damages to the larger chapel. This has all been done to my entire satisfaction.* * * The settlement of this matter adjusts all legal and proper claims for losses or damages sustained by citizens of the United States in consequence of the riot at Tien-Tsin.” (For. Rel., 1871, p. 75.)
In 1872 several American missionaries who had, contrary to the treaties, established themselves at Hangchow, in the interior, 140 miles away from the open ports, were annoyed by the act of the local authorities in the arrest of the persons who had sold them the land upon which their chapels had been erected. Complaint was made to the nearest consul, and the latter went at once to Hangchow, remonstrated with the authorities, and insisted upon the release of the Chinese, and that ample assurances should be given of protection to the missionaries, and after some delay the request of the consul was complied [Page 150] with, notwithstanding Minister Low reported to the Secretary of State, “My opinion is clear and decided that missionaries have no right to reside permanently away from the open ports.” Secretary Fish commended the conduct of the consul, but directed the attention of the missionaries to “the embarrassment which follows the assumption of privileges which cannot be claimed or defended under the treaty.” (For. Rel. 1873, pp. 118, 135, and 137.)
Upon Minister Low’s retirement in 1872, the missionaries of the American Board tendered him their thanks “for the promptness and energy with which you (he) secured redress for violence done * * * by an angry mob in Tu-chen;” the representatives of the Methodist Episcopal Missions express their “deep obligations * * * for the prompt, able, and successful vindication of our right to hold chapel premises * * * in the face of determined hostility;” and the missionaries at Peking, as a body, congratulate him “on the happy adjustment of many difficult questions in regard to the work of missions.” (For. Rel., 1873, p. 201.)
A riot occurred at Shanghai in 1874, in which several Chinese were killed by the foreign police and residents, and some slight injury done to Americans by the natives. The consul-general, Mr. Seward, took an active part in suppressing the riot by calling upon the commander of an American naval vessel in the port to land a force of marines and in other ways. The United States minister, Dr. Williams, called upon the consul to send him the “particulars of the various claims for damages suffered by American citizens.” Consul Seward reports: “I have no further details about the injuries suffered by foreigners (Americans) than those stated in the inclosures. Mr. Fisher, with the modesty characteristic of many foreigners in such cases, values his bruised temple and two departed teeth at 10,000 taels, or $14,000. Rev. Mr. Allen and Mr. Haskell each lost a carriage.” (For. Rel., 1874, pp. 257–74.) Mr. Fisher’s claim was disallowed by the Department of State, on the ground that he carelessly exposed himself to the mob, and that his injuries were not severe; “but the other damages seem to have been satisfactorily adjusted.
Rev. H. Corbett, an American missionary, went with his family in 1873 to Chi-mi, 130 miles away from a treaty port, and established his work there. A few months after his arrival he began to feel the effects of the native opposition, being twice stoned and hooted out of the neighboring villages, and finally, fearing further bodily harm, fled from the place and returned to the treaty port whence he had come. Some lawless people, hearing he had gone, entered and sacked his house. Mr. Williams, the minister, as soon as he had intelligence of the event, asked the Imperial Government to take action, “so that the affair may be equitably judged and settled. This is highly important.” The nearest consul also intervened with the local authorities; but after some delay and unsatisfactory progress toward the settlement desired, Minister Williams directed Mr. Sheppard, consul at Tien-Tsin, to go in person to the port of Chefoo, “to bring the affair to a conclusion according to the obligation of the treaty and justice.
* * * In asking for redress, the arrest and punishment of the ringleaders should be demanded * * * A careful list of the property should be made out which was stolen or destroyed, with its actual value, and compensation made to Mr. Corbett for his losses. When these two points are obtained, the district magistrate may well be made to issue a proclamation setting forth the freedom guaranteed to Christians.”
Mr. Sheppard went to Chefoo, followed by an American naval vessel, which remained till the conclusion of the case. The consul reports that on the 4th of June, 1874, there was a “final and most satisfactory settlement”; that twenty-eight rioters were arrested, and with a number of witnesses, brought from the scene of the disturbance to Chefoo, a distance of 140 miles, where the trial took place, with the following result, as given by the consul: “1. Four men, convicted of having been prominently engaged in the two cases of stoning, to be beaten with the large bamboo; one of them eighty blows, two others sixty each, and one forty blows. The local constables to receive eighty blows each and be dismissed from office. 2. Mr. Corbett’s pecuniary losses, estimated at 380 taels, to be paid within fifteen days by the persons who entered his house, they to be imprisoned in the mean time, and the taotai to guarantee payment. 3. The remainder of the criminals to be pardoned at my special request. 4. All of the prisoners to enter into a bond to keep the peace and guarantee Mr. Corbett’s personal safety while he remains in Chi-mi. 5. The taotai to issue a stringent proclamation * * * threatening severe punishment * * * for similar outrages in the future. 6. When Mr. Corbett returns to Chi-mi the taotai is to furnish him with a special passport, and also a letter to the Chi-mi magistrate.” All the facts of the case, with a copy of the proceedings attending the trial and punishment, having been sent to Washington, Secretary Fish communicated to Minister Wiliams “the cordial approval of the Department.” (For. Rel., 1874, pp. 274–297 and 345.)
In 1875 the United States consul at Tien-Tsin united with his Christian colleagues in a joint note to the governor of the province, calling his attention to the fact that a picture [Page 151] representing the massacre of foreigners in 1870 was being publicly exhibited at a fair in the interior of the province, tending to excite the populace to violence, and asking the governor “to take steps to discover and punish the exhibitor and painter of this picture; also to cause a proclamation to be posted * * * stating why such punishment has been inflicted.” To this note the governor replied that he had, upon the first appearance of this picture in Tien-Tsin, the year before, given orders to seize and burn every copy, and destroy the block, and, that similar orders had been given respecting the interior, and steps taken to punish the possessors. This action of the consul having been reported to Secretary Fish, received the approval of the Department. (For. Rel., 1875, pp. 345, 400.)
Two cases of riotous assault were reported in 1875 on the Methodist missions at Shui Chang and Kin-Kiang. In the first case the consular agent promptly intervened, and asked the Chinese authorities for “reimbursement for their pecuniary losses, as follows: For riot of 1873, in which they lost money expended for chapel rent, furniture, wages of men, books, ready money, and traveling expenses, $200; and for the riot of 1874, in which were taken from the persons of their native assistants money and clothing to the amount of $40, besides traveling expenses, and other expenses to which the mission was subjected, the sum of $125; besides just compensation for personal injuries.” These demands were repeated by Minister Avery to Prince Kung. In the second case the mob destroyed the chapel and other buildings of the mission, and the consul asked the Taotai to “have the chapel and buildings connected with it repaired and put in the same condition as before the riot, and to make good all other losses sustained by the mission; and further, that you administer proper punishment to the ringleaders of the riot, as well as issue a proclamation,” &c. In the second case the local authorities promptly complied with the consul’s demands, and no appeal was necessaay to the Imperial authorities. Minister Avery, in commenting upon these affairs to the Secretary of State, says: “The outbreaks reported are quite sporadic, no more indicating a conspiracy against foreigners than the acts of ruffianism against Chinese, which occur more frequently in the United States, and none of which have been made the subject of diplomatic remonstrance.” (For. Rel., 1875, pp. 383–391 and 397.)
Rev. Mr. Sites, through the intervention of the American representative, brought a claim against the Chinese authorities for injuries received in an assault upon his chapel at Temping in 1879. The Chinese authorities offered a satisfactory amount of money in indemnification for his sufferings and losses, but declined to restore his chapel to him unless he agreed to carry on his religious services with certain restrictions deemed necessary by them. (S. R. 934, 48th Cong., 2d sess.)
Minister Angell, in 1881, reports a difficulty which occurred at the Presbyterian mission station near Peking, which, owing to his own prompt personal interposition with the Imperial Government, was suppressed before any serious damage was done. “Five men, who had been arrested and probably bambooed, were placed before the gate of the mission with cangues upon their necks. * * *The Tsung-li Yamên having shown a most commendable spirit in their treatment of this case.” Secretary Blaine sent his congratulations to the minister on the result. (For. Rel., 1881, pp. 265 and 278.)
In the same year Minister Angell reported that he had intervened to obtain from the Imperial Government the release of all Protestant converts, Chinese subjects, from taxation for the expense of idol worship. He recognized that it was an “extremely delicate matter to interpose ourselves in the least between Chinese subjects and their own Government.” But “the ministers at once expressed their willingness to have an order issued granting the wished for protection to Chinese converts.” Secretary Blaine again expressed his gratification, and added: “The Christian world cannot but be deeply impressed by this action of the Chinese Government.” (For. Rel., 1881, pp. 272 and 297.)
Various petty depredations and thefts had from time to time been committed on the American missionaries at Teng-Chow-Foo, amounting altogether to $73. Minister Angell considered this of sufficient importance to make it the subject of an official note to Prince Kung, asking “the local authorities to punish the thieves, to secure the return of the value of property taken, and to guard more vigilantly against such depredations, in the future.” Prince Kung accepted this intervention, and gave the desired orders to the local authorities. (For. Rel., 1881, p. 284.)
During the year 1881 two or more/disturbances arose out of the American missionaries going into the interior of China, or away from the treaty ports, and purchasing or leasing property for chapels and mission uses: At Tsinan-fu a mob destroyed the chapel and “threatened the lives of the missionaries and their families. * * * Happily the intervention of the authorities * * * soon secured safety from personal danger.” At Nan-chang-fu the acts of violence were confined to putting the native helper into a boat, with his effects, and sending him down the river. Mr. Angell, in reporting the cases to the Department of State, says it is the inclination of “the missionaries to suppose that our treaty rights are broader than they really are.* * * But I see no assurance [Page 152] in any treaty that the foreigner may rent or buy buildings in interior cities.” Notwithstanding, Minister Angell saw proper to intervene with the Imperial Government, and sent official notes to Prince Kung in both cases, asking the punishment of the instigators of the disturbances, “that the missionaries be allowed to have an eligible site on the main street,” and that the local authorities “be notified that proceedings like that now complained of shall not be repeated” Secretary Blaine, in approving this action, said: “It seems that the Chinese Government should, in a spirit of impartial justice, at once put a stop to these uncalled for and unprovoked annoyances by promptly punishing the offenders, and by affording our citizens every possible protection in the future.” (For Rel., 1881, pp. 286, 308, and 317.)
A further intervention of a similar kind was reported in relation to the property of the Southern Baptist mission in the vicinity of Canton, which was also approved by the Government at Washington. (For. Rel., 1881, pp. 282 and 316.)
Minister Young reported to the Department, in 1883, the occurrence of riots in Canton, “arising out of the folly of some Europeans, which unhappily led to loss of life “of Chinese subjects, and the joint intervention of the consular corps. Mr. Young takes occasion “to note the forbearance shown by the Chinese authorities, and the promptitude with which the viceroy intervened to preserve order and secure the interests and safety of the foreign settlement.” (For. Rel., 1883, p. 209.) In the riots considerable property of foreigners was burned or destroyed, but at the request of the consul the local authorities made to the American sufferers full money compensation for all their losses.
The New Orleans and Spanish indemnity.
In the month of August, 1851, an expedition which left the territory of the United States to aid in the attempted insurrection in Cuba was captured by the Spanish authorities, and fifty persons shot, many of them being American citizens. When the news reached the United States it created intense excitement, which at New Orleans and Key West culminated in mob violence against the Spanish subjects, who, it was alleged, had manifested exultation over the execution of the Americans in Cuba. In New Orleans the Spanish consulate was entered and plundered, as also the office of the Spanish newspaper, “La Union,” and several coffee-houses and three tobacco stores were more or less injured. The public sentiment was so strong that the grand jury failed to indict the rioters, and no punishment followed the lawless acts of the mob. Soon after the events, Mr. Calderon, the Spanish minister in Washington, made a demand on the Secretary of State “for just satisfaction for the above-mentioned insults and acts of hostility, with a corresponding indemnification for the damages and injuries inflicted upon her Catholic Majesty’s subjects.” (S. Ex. Doc. No. 1, 32d Cong., 1st sess., p. 44.) And on the 14th of October, 1851, he again addressed the Secretary of State as follows: “Apprised of all the facts, Her Majesty’s Government has ordered the undersigned to persist in asking, as he again asks, in the name of said Government, for full satisfaction for the aggravated insults committed upon the Spanish flag and upon Her Majesty’s consul at New Orleans, and also that the Spaniards residing in that city shall be indemnified for the losses they have sustained at the hands of an infuriated and licentious mob.” (Ib., p. 60.)
To this communication Mr. Webster, Secretary, of State, replied, November 13, 1851, that “the Executive Government of the United States regards these outrages not only as unjustifiable, but as disgraceful acts, and as a flagrant breach of duty and propriety, and that it disapproves them as seriously, and regrets them as deeply, as either Mr. Calderon or his Government can possibly do. * * * But the outrage, nevertheless, was one perpetrated by a mob, composed of irresponsible persons, the names of none of whom are known to this Government; * * * that neither any officer or agent of the Government of the United States, high or low, nor any officer of the State of Louisiana, high or low, or of the municipal government of the city of New Orleans, took any part in the proceedings, so far as appears, or gave it any degree of countenance whatever. On the contrary, all these officers and agents * * * did all which the suddenness of the occasion would allow to prevent it. * * * The rights of the Span-his consul, a public officer residing here under the protection of the United States Government, are quite different from those of the Spanish subjects, who have come into the country to mingle with our own citizens, and here to pursue their private business and objects. The former may claim special indemnity; the latter are entitled to such protection as is offered to our own citizens. While, therefore, the losses of individuals, private Spanish subjects, are greatly to be regretted, yet it is understood that many [Page 153] American citizens suffered equal losses from the same cause. And these private individuals, subjects of her Catholic Majesty, coming voluntarily to reside in the United States, have certainly no cause of complaint, if they are protected by the same law and the same administration of law as native-born citizens of this country.” (Ib., p. 65.)
In accordance with this assurance given in Mr. Webster’s note, the President, in his annual message to Congress, December, 1851, recommended that body to “make provision for such indemnity to him (the Spanish consul) as a just regard for the honor of the nation and the respect which is due to a friendly power might, in your judgment, seem to require.” (Ib., p. 7.)
On the 10th of May, 1882, no action having as yet been taken upon the recommendation of the President, Senator Mallory, of Florida, introduced a resolution instructing the Committee on Foreign Relations “to have investigations made whether any Spanish subjects, not citizens of the United States, have sustained damage, by loss of property or otherwise, in consequence of public outbreak or violence in the State of Louisiana * * * and into the propriety of authorizing the President to make indemnity to the Spanish Government for such Spanish subjects for said damages.” In support of the resolution the Senator, after referring to the alleged outrages, said:
“We are all familiar with the maxim that there is no wrong without a remedy; and, if a class of American citizens had thus been dealt with by Spain or her colonies, I presume there is not an American who would not immediately respond that a stern demand upon the Spanish Government, supported by all our force, and a strict indemnity for the losses sustained, could be the only mode, the only measure of redress. I concede, as it has been held, that the municipal authorities of the place at which the property was destroyed are primarily liable, and may be justly held accountable for the damages sustained; but it is evident that while this liability offers the shadow of a remedy, it affords no substantial redress whatever; it but holds ‘a promise to the ear to break it to the hope;’ it is making the mode and measure of redress dependent upon the party legally bound to make it. It is, therefore, as wrong in principle as it is in policy to turn parties, who have thus been injured, over to the local or municipal authorities of the place where the wrong was committed. I think, sir, of course that Governments are no less bound by the rules of strict morality in this case than individuals; and that our Government, depending as it does on the will of the people, and representing in the aggregate the virtue of the people, has always manifested in its foreign relations, and is bound to manifest frankness and exact justice, and, in this case, if the assumptions I have made be correct, exact justice is no less dictated by a sound morality than by expediency, policy, and a far-seeing political forecast. Why, sir, foreign nations do not understand the workings of our political system. They do not understand that politically and socially our States are ‘as distinct as the waves,’ whilst in our foreign policy we are ‘one, as the sea.’ We have dealt with Spain as with the rest of mankind—as a unit; and if it be conceded that the subjects of Spain, whose property was destroyed, are entitled to indemnity, it will be difficult to make her understand why this indemnity should be sought from a single municipality or State of whose very existence she may in some cases be ignorant. It was not thus that we treated with a sister Republic. We did not condescend to deal with departments or States. Our merchants were deprived of their property, and in many instances of their liberty by departments or States; and we did not hold them responsible. We dealt with Mexico as a unit. We made our demands upon her, and surely we are bound to concede to Spain all that we asked from Mexico.” (Cong. Globe., Vol. XXIV, pt. 2, pp. 1301–2.)
After the Senator’s remarks the resolution was adopted without objection.
Meanwhile, the Spanish minister, under instructions from his home Government, again addressed Secretary Webster on the subject of indemnifying the private subjects of Spain for their losses. He called attention to the fact that the grand jury at New Orleans had not been able to agree, and that no punishment had followed the riot of the August previous. He claimed that there was “a striking difference between the occurrences in question and ordinary individual wrong. * * * The damages have been occasioned by the people and citizens of the United States, in time of profound peace, not against this or that individual, but against a whole class of men, not in consequence of private wrongs, which are within the pale of the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals, but from deadly hatred against the nationality of the parties aggrieved.” In conclusion, the minister refers to the friendly relations existing between the two Governments, flatters himself that Mr. Webster “will find, in his equity and wisdom, the generous remedy that the condition to which several peaceful, industrious, and honorable Spaniards have been reduced by violence in New Orleans requires, * * * and cherishes the hope that his Excellency the President will be pleased to give his assistance by recommending to Congress the appropriation of the necessary funds for this purpose.” (H. Ex. Doc. No. 113, 32d Cong., 1st sess., pp. 3 and 4.)
This note was sent to the President by Secretary Webster, with the suggestion “that Congress be recommended to make provision for the reparation desired”; and the President [Page 154] transmitted the correspondence to Congress June 14, 1852, accompanied by a special message, in which he referred to the action of the Queen of Spain in pardoning certain American citizens who had participated in the invasion of Cuba, and expressed the belief that, without establishing a dangerous precedent, the indemnity asked for might be granted. Such an act, he said, “would tend to confirm the friendship which has so long existed between the two nations, and to perpetuate it as a blessing to both; and I therefore commend it to your favorable consideration.” (Ib., pp. 1 and 2.)
On the 23d of June, 1852, Senator Mason, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, made a report on this special message, accompanied by a joint resolution “for the relief of the Spanish consul and other subjects of Spain * * * by indemnity for losses occasioned by the violence of the mob in the year 1851.” Senator Mason, in his report, said:
“After a careful examination of the treaty of 1795, cited in the communication of the minister of Spain, the committe can find nothing, either in its letter or its spirit, which imposes on this Government the duty of providing the indemnity in question. Neither does the committee find any obligation on the United States, arising out of the good faith of nations to each other, to provide the indemnity asked for the losses sustained on the occasion inquired into. * * * The jurisdiction of the Government of the United States over the persons and property of those within its territory is strictly limited by the Constitution. There is no power conferred by that instrument to provide by law for the security either of private persons or their property within the States in time of peace, unless it may be by treaty stipulations; neither, if the laws of the States themselves are inadequate to afford such protection, is it competent to this Government to interfere or control the subject. * * * But although, in the opinion of the committee, there is no actual obligation on the Government of the United States to provide the indemnity claimed by Spain in this behalf, yet they are gratified to have it in their power to recommend it nevertheless, without risk of establishing an injurious precedent. In this view the committee fully adopt the sentiments of the President. * * * Under the peculiar circumstances of the case suchindemnity may, in the opinion of the committee, be quite as well considered as in the nature of awards for injuries to a friendly power, committed within the limits of the Unite States, as of compensation to individuals who suffered. * * * The occurrences at Key West were similar in character, it is believed, to those at New Orleans, and fall within the same reasoning. They report, therefore, a joint resolution to cover both.” (Cong. Globe, vol. 24, pt. 2, p. 1599.)
With some unimportant verbal amendments, the joint resolution was passed by the Senate without objection July 14, 1852. (Ib., p. 1769.)
As the session drew near to its close, the joint resolution was substituted by a clause inserted in the diplomatic appropriation bill making an appropriation of $25,000 “to enable the President of the United States to make compensation to the Spanish consul and other subjects of Spain residing at New Orleans, and subjects of Spain at Key West for losses occasioned by violence in the year 1851.” And in this shape the President’s recommendation was adopted and the appropriation made by Congress. (Ib., pp. 2474–7.)
The Secretary of State thereupon caused an examination of the claims for damages to be made, and as it resulted that the appropriation of $25,000 would not cover all the losses occasioned by the mobs at New Orleans and Key West, Congress was called upon, at the next session, to make another appropriation, or confer upon the Executive further powers, and on the 3d of March, 1853, a joint resolution was passed in the same terms as the former act, and providing that the losses, when examined and proved to the satisfaction of the President, should be paid “out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.” (10 U. S. Statutes, p. 262.)
By virtue of the two acts of Congress there was paid out of the United States Treasury to the Spanish consul at New Orleans $12,682.05, and to twenty-two private individuals the sum of $71, 131.65, making a total payment to Spanish subjects, on account of damages caused by the riots of New Orleans and Key West, of $83,813.70.
- This paper is the organ of the white miners.↩