No. 236.
Mr. Denby
to Mr. Bayard.
Peking, September 17, 1888. (Received November 2.)
Sir: I have the honor to report that some days ago five ministers of the Yamên, to wit, Marquis Tseng, San Yü Wen, Hsu Yung-I, Liao Shou-Heng, and Hsi Chén sent cards asking for an interview to-day.
[Page 351]I, of course, assented. Four came to the legation at 3 o’clock and remained until after 5. They stated the object of their visit to be to learn whether I had any information as to the passage of a bill by Congress absolutely excluding all Chinese from the United States. They said that they had received a dispatch stating that Congress, being angry over the alleged rejection of the treaty, had resorted to this measure. I answered that I knew nothing about any bill having passed.
I said that China, and not the United States, had proposed the new treaty; that China had stated what should be the provisions thereof, and the views of China had been literally adopted by tube framers of the treaty; that the conduct of China in refusing to ratify the treaty was unjust and indefensible.
They said that China had not refused to ratify the treaty. She was simply considering the question. I said she had allowed it to go out to the world that she had rejected the treaty. It was so reported in the London papers, the Chinese papers, and everywhere in Peking. In thus acting China was going back on its own express orders and directions. That there was no cause whatever to justify the change of front. That the sole object of the treaty of 1880 was to exclude Chinese laborers. That the treaty of 1888 changed the word “suspend” to the word “prohibit,” and limited the effect of the treaty to twenty years. That this constituted the only difference between the treaties except so far as the latter favored China in other clauses. That China had known since 1880 that the influx of Chinese laborers would not be tolerated in the United States. That there was not the slightest use of endeavoring to cover up or disguise this plain question. That we were not acting like Australia and certain British provinces in America, levying a per capita tax on Chinese passengers in ships. But that we announced openly our policy to be that the immigration of Chinese laborers must stop, and departing laborers could not return except under the conditions stated in the new treaty.
I said that it was worthy of consideration whether the old treaty was not strong enough to support all necessary legislation, and, whether Congress had passed a new bill or not, it was probable that, if information reached that body that China had receded from her promises and pledges, the most stringent legislation would be enacted. I said the only thing to do was to immediately ratify the new treaty; that the new treaty was attacked at home as bitterly as in China; that a large part of the people in some States demanded absolute exclusion; that the Government had not favored that scheme; that it had in all things treated China fairly and honorably. I cited the passage of the opium bill and the payment of $453,400 in April, 1885, the payment of $147,748.74 in 1887, and the provision for the payment of $276,619.75 in the new treaty. I stated that, in spite of all these evidences of friendship, China now was, without any cause or reason whatever, declining to ratify its own work, and that delay in this matter was dangerous.
They protested that they had not rejected the treaty, but that they came to me for information on certain subjects.
They asked me if I would telegraph to inquire whether a bill had passed excluding all Chinese from entering the United States. I agreed to do that. They then asked me if I would telegraph to ask authority from you empowering me to consult with them as to new clauses. I said no, that this treaty had been made by the express orders of China, and did not contain a line except what she said she wanted, and if it were re-opened there would be great delays, and it [Page 352] would be altogether improper for me to ask authority to amend or alter its provisions.
I finally asked them what changes they proposed to make in the treaty. They said they could not, on the moment, state them.
I said to them that if they would in twenty-four hours send me a statement of any additions or alterations that they proposed to make in the treaty, I would wire the substance thereof to you; but I stated that there was no conceivably proper change that occurred to me.
They said that the bill as passed by Congress might have excluded all Chinese laborers now in China who had certificates. I said the express object of the treaty was to exclude absent laborers from returning. That our policy was to do away with the disgraceful frauds which had made certificates merchandise in Hong-Kong, and had introduced into the United States hordes of men who had never been there before, and that in their communication to me of August 3, 1886, now before them, they had agreed that this might be done.
They said that a general bill of exclusion would prevent laborers who had $1,000 worth of property in the United States, or who had families, from returning thither. I said of course it would, but if they had promptly ratified the treaty Congress would not perhaps have passed a law to change its provisions. If now, by their delay, trouble came they must take the consequences. They said that Congress ought not to have passed a bill prohibiting immigration before the treaty was ratified. I said the only bill I had seen was printed in a newspaper, and provided that it should not take effect until after the ratification of the treaty. Legislation was necessary in advance of the ratification because it might be delayed until after the adjournment. Our interview lasted more than two hours. It was participated in to a considerable extent by the Marquis Tsêng.
During the interview the Marquis did not take a prominent part in the discussion. He, however, was frequently appealed to by me on account of his supposed acquaintance with western methods of legislation. He usually corroborated my statements.
I have, etc.,