No. 220.
Mr. Bayard
to Mr. Denby.
Department
of State,
Washington, July 17,
1888.
No. 333.]
Sir: I inclose for your information a copy of a
letter from the Rev. Gilbert Reid, dated Chi-nan-fu, May 24, 1888, touching
the rights and privileges of American missionaries in China, and a copy of
my reply saying that you had already exerted yourself to obtain for those
excellent and self-sacrificing citizens the amplest measure of protection
and privilege, and would no doubt continue to do so.
I am, sir, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 333.]
Mr. Reid to Mr.
Bayard.
Chi-nan-fu, China,
May 24, 1888. (Received July
12.)
Dear Sir: I send by this mail a number of the
Daily News, in which a Chi-nan-fu correspondent argues the question of
the rights of missionaries in the interior of China. I send this number,
as I understand the question is being brought to the notice of the State
Department. In writing, I speak in behalf not only of all American
missionaries, but of all Protestant missionaries. It would be a severe
blow if the State Department and the United States minister should
advocate the side of no right under the treaty. Better would it be if
silence were adopted, in case a decision can not be rendered on the
other side. If rendered in favor of such a right, it by no means implies
that the rights is of such a nature as to be pressed in argument before
the Chinese Government. The American treaty has only the favored-nation
clause, but this along with the tacit and open consent of the Chinese
Government is sufficient. Just as the Chinese Government begins to put
the question beyond all dispute, and to grant favors to missionaries, it
would be a pity if a foreign government should be the cause of checking
the favor In a conversation I had with the German minister I learned
that he secured from the Tsung li Yamên (foreign office) a written
statement that all German missionaries in the interior could have the
same right as granted to Roman Catholic missionaries, viz, to purchase
property in the name of the church. The Chinese Government is inclined
to give toleration to Christianity and to missionaries, and it is to be
hoped that nothing shall be done by the American Government to injure
the efforts of missionaries merely because they are Americans.
Owing to the fact that favor is the chief feature,
the right of it, under the “favored-nation
clause” should be less pressed, perhaps, but not denied.
I thus write freely, as one interested in a question of vital
importance.
I believe, sir, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 333.]
Mr. Bayard to Mr.
Reid.
Department of State,
Washington, July 17,
1888.
Sir: Your letter of the 24th May last has been
received. The number of the Daily News to which you refer as containing
an article “in which a Chi-nan-fu correspondent argues the question of
the rights of missionaries in the interior of China “has not been
received, but its purport is sufficiently suggested by your
comments.
I am happy to inform you that you are incorrectly advised if, as would
seem, you infer that the United States minister in China is about to
“advocate the side of no right under the treaty.” Mr. Denby’s standing
instructions are to endeavor to obtain for our excellent and
self-sacrificing missionaries in China no less a measure of
[Page 326]
privilege than is granted by
treaty, conferred by favor, or procured through use and custom for the
missionaries of any other nation and creed, and a recent instruction has
emphasized the satisfaction this Government will feel at beholding the
safe and steady enlargement of the privileges which these estimable men
may, and doubtless will, obtain for their labors as China yields more
and more to influences of modern progress and realizes the determination
of the missionaries to abide by all forms of law and cultivate kindly
relations with the people among whom they cast their lot.
It is believed that our diplomatic representative in China, Mr. Denby,
has energetically and efficiently exerted himself in behalf of
missionary interests at all times and in all practicable ways. While
doing so it is quite probable that he may sometimes have cautioned
persons who were desirous of extending their privileges against the
impolicy of impatient action and unadvised aggressiveness in the
employment of privileges granted in excess of the letter of the treaties
and resting upon favor rather than strict right. It is the duty of a
diplomatic representative, while seeking to promote the attainment of
the commendable desires of his countrymen, to advise them as to the law
and treaties, in order that they may be duly informed of their rights,
and that his efforts in their behalf may not be impeded by inopportune
claims or demands. It is not doubted that Mr. Denby will always ask for
his countrymen as great a measure of favor as is granted to citizens of
any other power.
I am, sir, etc.,
