No. 159.
Mr. Denby
to Mr. Bayard.
[Extract.]
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, December 20, 1887.
(Received February 24, 1888.)
No. 529.]
Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith a
communication lately sent by me to the Tsung-li Yamen. It involves a
missionary trouble similar to others which are always pending in China.
The facts are briefly that the Presbyterian missionaries at Chi Nan Fu,
during last September, October, and November, endeavored to secure a
perpetual lease of land for hospital purposes. They claimed that the
governor, in 1884, agreed that they might purchase additional land for
residential purposes. That, unfortunately, is a mistake.
An examination of the records here discloses that the governor refused to
make any such agreement. Acting on this alleged promise and on certain oral
statements made by the officials, the missionaries secured a perpetual lease
of a lot. They took the lease to the officials to be stamped. They were put
off on various pleas and finally notified that, owing to the opposition of
the people, the transaction should be considered off. Mr. Reid, representing
the mission, then took possession of the premises. He alleges that the
family of the lessor consented to this occupation $ but the lessor himself
was in jail and could not consent.
The twelfth article of the treaty of 1858 requires that “the legal fees to
the officers for applying their seal shall be paid.” It requires, also, that
particular spots shall not be unreasonably insisted on. It is needless to
say that it confines renting and hiring to the treaty ports.
Mr. Reid was ejected and injured by a mob. He is now here demanding relief
and intimating an intention to demand personal damages.
[Page 239]
As I construe section 134, of the Diplomatic Instructions, I have no
authority to apply for compensation for him without specific instructions. I
judged it best to endeavor to settle the matter and to endeavor to secure
for them another tract of land in lieu of the one objected to by the
gentry.
The missionaries having demanded that their lease should be sealed and
protection accorded, should not, after a distinct notification that they
could not be permitted to occupy that particular lot, have taken the law in
their own hands by entering on the disputed premises. They excuse themselves
by saying that is Chinese law. But, whether it is Chinese law or not, they
are bound by the treaty, which requires payment of fees and sealing of the
lease preliminary to taking possession of leased land,
The missionaries claim, however, that under the twelfth article of the
British treaty of 1858, and the sixth article of the French treaty of
October 25, 1860, they, by virtue of the favored nation clause, can settle
and lease or buy property anywhere in China.
Diplomatic and consular officers in China are often put at a disadvantage.
Their fellow citizens can not be abandoned even if not always exactly in the
right. Hence there are always questions between the two Governments.
The Department has approved on divers occasions of the statement that the
treaties confer no legal right on Americans to secure property in the
interior. The Department has not, however, distinctly formulated in any
dispatch to this legation its views as to the rights of missionaries in the
interior of China. It is worthy of consideration by you whether specific
instructions, which might be authoritatively communicated to the
missionaries, and which might serve as an implicit guide for this legation,
should be prepared.
The twelfth article of the treaty of 1858 provides that citizens of the
United States may, at the open ports, “rent houses and places of business or
hire sites on which they can themselves build houses or hospitals, churches,
and cemeteries.”
By gradual encroachment this right has been extended to the interior, and
whether its exercise should be acknowledged and enforced or repudiated is
the chief question in China, and possibly will remain the leading and most
annoying question for all time to come.
My policy has been not to encourage adventurous locations in the interior, in
fact to announce distinctly that this legation does not construe the
treaties as granting unlimited right to buy or lease land in the interior.
But if the missionaries, with the consent of the local authorities, effected
a lodgment, they would be protected by this legation against any wrongs
subsequently perpetrated against them. This was the rationale of the Chung King case, I respectfully submit the whole
question to you.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure in No. 529.]
Mr. Denby to the
Tsung-li Yamên.
Peking, December 21,
1887.
No. 16.]
Your Imperial Highness and Your
Excellencies:
I have the honor to bring to the attention of your imperial highness and
your excellencies the circumstances of a late riot at Chi Nan Fu, in
which an American missionary was injured, also certain troubles now
existing in the locality with reference [Page 240] to the purchase by the missionaries of a lot of
ground. The missionaries, Messrs. Gilbert Reid, Paul D. Bergen, and
Robert Coltman, jr., have made the following representation to this
legation:
In an interview with the Taotai, in January, 1886, they sought the aid of
the officials in securing ground for a hospital. The governor, to whom
the matter was referred by the Taotai, replied that the officials could
neither purchase property for the missionaries nor compel the people to
sell, but if both parties mutually agreed to a purchase, the xmrchase
could be completed and if any opposition arose it would be suppressed.
In July of this year the matter of establishing a hospital was again
brought up and referred to the governor and he answered, as before, that
the purchase of laud might be made if the parties agreed, and that the
deeds could be presented to the local authorities to be stamped, and if
afterwards any opposition arose the local authorities must suppress
it.
In August last the missionaries took a perpetual lease of apiece of
property and took the deeds to the Taotai’s Yamên, on the 1st of
September, to be stamped. The Taotai, in the presence of all, ordered
the magistrate to stamp the deed in case there was no illegality in the
purchase. He also ordered that the landlord and middlemen should not be
annoyed, and that if the neighbors were summoned it should be to ask if
the property had been bought from the man as claimed by the
missionaries. The next day the landlord and middlemen and one of the
missionaries appeared before the magistrate and it was shown that the
lease was legal, and the landlord was ordered to vacate his house in two
months. The magistrate, however, refused to stamp the deed, saying that
he wished to report the case to the Taotai.
During the next few days the two neighbors were summoned, and both said
they did not wish the property and were willing that the foreigners
should have it. Still the deed was not stamped. Then the magistrate
inspected the property.
A petition was then presented alleging that the property was public
property, but it was not signed, and the officials refused to accept it.
The residents were then granted three days to present any reason why the
foreigners should not have the property, and if no such reason existed
the property should be taken by the missionaries. No reason was
presented in the time limited. Still the deed was not stamped. The deed
was therefore sent to the Taotai, but he ordered it taken to the
magistrate, which was done, accompanied by a request to stamp it. After
waiting three days one of the missionaries went in person to see the
magistrate, who excused himself from stamping the deed until the two
months should expire which had been allotted for the vacation of the
property. In this interview the missionaries requested that the
landlord, who had been imprisoned, should be released. The magistrate
declined to release him, stating that the man was not locked up, but
only summoned to be examined. Up to the present time he has not been
released. A few days before the expiration of the two months the gentry,
headed by Li Ching Ao, a previous governor of Ho-Nan, presented a
petition, objecting to the lease of this particular property as a
violation of the treaty and because it was objectionable to the people.
After several interviews with the officials the missionaries, at their
request, agreed to wait thirty days to allow the officials to procure
satisfactory property in exchange for the piece selected. But no offer
of exchange was ever made. One of the middlemen was sent to the Yamên
and confined in chains. A few days before the month expired a petition
was sent to the Taotai, citing the promises and orders previously given
and made and showing how they had all been disregarded by the magistrate
and asking him to decide justly and to order that, on the day fixed for
taking possession of the house, the deed should be stamped, protection
given, and the landlord and middlemen released. To this petition no
reply was vouchsafed.
Upon the landlord’s family having agreed that the missionaries might take
possession of the property, they notified the Taotai that the time
having expired one of them would go in the evening to the property and
take charge of it. He was requested to order the magistrate to protect
the occupant. In the evening of November 28 Rev. Gilbert Reid went to
the house. In about an hour’s time certain ringleaders entered the house
and ejected him. He re-entered the house; some thirty of the mob also
entered, and some picking up bricks, others sticks, and the strongest
seizing him, he was once more forcibly ejected, being thrown to the
ground with violence, receiving a severe contusion of the left temple,
besides having the skin torn from his hand and arms and suffering from
concussion and being hit by stones.
Panting and half unconscious he lay for more than an hour in the street,
the uproar continuing, when finally a constable appeared, assisted him
to rise and led him to an inn. One of the missionaries immediately went
to the Taotai’s Yamên, but in spite of his plea of the urgency of the
case no interview was granted. The magistrate’s Yamên was then visited.
The missionary was assured that the magistrate would go to the scene of
the disorder and was told to go on before. At the east gate the
guardians refused to open the gate. After repeated vain efforts to have
it opened, the missionary returned to the magistrate’s Yamên. The
magistrate did not goto the scene of the mob at all. It was only after a
few hours had elapsed, after the magistrate had been notified that any
news was received as to Mr. Reid’s condition.
[Page 241]
In the morning two of the missionaries went to the Taotai’s Yamên to gain
an interview, but were refused. Two deputies, however, appeared and told
the missionaries that the property could not be vacated for their
possession because the gentry were unwilling.
Later an interview was had with the Taotai. The Taotai then made the
plain statement that the opposing party was the gentry; that to suppress
them was impossible, and that all the missionaries could do would be to
accept back again their money which awaited them in the magistrate’s
Yamên. He also said the governor had no other mode of managing the
case.
The foregoing is a plain statement of facts as presented to me by the
missionaries, and I submit them for the consideration of your imperial
highness and your excellencies, that some remedy may be devised for the
wrongs and injuries inflicted.
I respectfully request that four things shall be ordered by your imperial
highness and your excellencies to be done:
- First. That the ringleaders in the assault on Mr. Reid be
punished.
- Second. That possession of the leased property be accorded to
the missionaries and protection in its occupancy be
assured.
- Third. That if it shall be held by your imperial highness and
your excellencies that it is more desirable to make an exchange
of property, and to give to the missionaries another tract in
lieu of the one that they have bought, that a suitable and
satisfactory tract of land be tendered to them. They desire
above all things peace and harmony.
- Fourth. That the landlord and middlemen be released. They are
evidently guilty of no wrongdoing, and it is a matter of deep
regret that they are made to suffer because of their connection
with this transaction.
I have, etc.,
