No. 226.
Mr. Denby
to Mr. Bayard.
Peking, August 3, 1888. (Received September 20.)
Sir: It is not within my province to comment on your official acts favorably or unfavorably; still you may not consider it improper for me to express my complete approval of the treaty with China lately negotiated by you.
Comment has been made here why the right of settling in the interior was not secured to Americans. The answer is plain. As long as the foreign powers conserve the right of exterritorial jurisdiction China can not, in its length and breadth, be safely thrown open to foreigners for permanent settlement. It is impossible to provide in the interior the machinery necessary to enforce the laws of the various nations of the world.
The necessity for legal tribunals to settle ever-recurring disputes in civil matters between the subjects of the various nationalities and between them and the Chinese is apparent. It is indispensable also that crime should be punished. Difficulties continually arise at the treaty ports touching the treatment of foreigners who are not represented by consuls. These difficulties would become insuperable if foreigners were permanently settled all over China.
The missionaries who have put into practice the assumed right of permanent settlement are not engaged in business and therefore rarely come in conflict with the Chinese.
It is worthy of remark that the only noticeable new clause in the Portuguese-Chinese treaty of December, 1887 (see Art. XVI), is this one:
It is understood, however, that the shops or warehouses above mentioned shall only be allowed at the ports open to trade, but not at any place in the interior.
The action of Australia antagonistic to the Chinese immigrants which followed the negotiation of the late treaty with the United States has also given rise to comment.
The condition touching Australia differs materially from that relative to the United States, under which that treaty was negotiated. China was not at all disinclined to agree to the provisions of exclusion therein [Page 342] incorporated. Her action was put on the basis of protection to her people, which could only be secured by their exclusion from the United States. But China covets Australia as a home for her emigrants. A late commission which visited that country made glowing reports as to the condition of the Chinese. It proposed to establish consulates in Australia. It made no serious objection as to the treatment of the Chinese. It merely suggested proceedings to secure the abolition of an obnoxious poll-tax on landing.
The object of China as to Australia was to facilitate emigration. Her object in dealing with us was to prohibit it. She now finds herself, to her surprise, confronted with the same active antagonism in Australia which meets her in our own Western States.
I have, etc.,