No. 238.
Mr. Denby
to Mr. Bayard.
[Extract.]
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, September 21, 1888.
(Received November 2.)
No. 704.]
Sir: I have the honor to confirm my telegram of
this day, which reads to the effect that the Chinese Government refuses to
ratify the treaty unless discussion be allowed with a view to shortening the
twenty years’ limit, to permitting the return of laborers now abroad owning
$1,000, and to providing for the return of laborers now absent who may own
less.
I inclose herewith a translation of the communication of the Yamên to me.
It will be seen that the demands made involve the making of a new treaty.
The first demand looks to the shortening of the period of limitation. I have
no comment to make on this clause except that it trifles with our just
rights.
They demand, secondly, that laborers who have returned to China previous to
the enforcement of the treaty, and who would have been qualified to secure a
certificate of return under Article II, shall be allowed to present a
petition to the Chinese consul, embodying the circumstances, and that a
certificate be granted them to return to the United States. Had the treaty
been ratified, and such a suggestion been made as to the provisions of the
laws which are intended to provide for its execution, this demand would have
been worthy of fair consideration. But, in my opinion, no authority to issue
certificates should, in any event, be given to a Chinese consul.
The third demand is, in its terms, indefinite. It proposes the discussion of
the question how the cases of Chinese laborers who are now abroad, and who
own less than $1,000, shall be dealt with. If this clause looks to a return
of this class it is inadmissible. It is settled by the treaty that such
persons can not return. Under Article II, the right to return is expressly
limited to a Chinese laborer who has “a lawful wife, child, or parent in the
United States, or property therein of the value of $1,000 or debts of like
amount due him and pending settlement.”
To make any provision whatever for the return of Chinese laborers who do not
fill these requirements, is simply to annul Article II altogether.
In view of the fact that I have no authority to discuss with the Yamên any
alterations in the treaty, I have sent to them the reply of which a copy is
inclosed.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 704.]
The Foreign Office to Mr.
Denby.
Peking, September 20,
1888.
No. 10.]
Your Excellency: Since the interview we had
with your excellency a few days ago, we have during the interval
considered the points in the new treaty that are still necessary to he
clearly discussed. They are arranged under three headings and we
[Page 355]
were preparing a memorandum of
them when we received your excellency’s dispatch of the 19th instant,
the contents of which we have duly perused.
It appears that on account of your Government having heard reports
published in the newspapers that China would not assent to the
ratification of the new treaty, both Houses of Congress have therefore
passed an act.
On the Yamên hearing of this report we were at first rather inclined to
disbelieve it, hence we (some of the ministers) proceeded to your
excellency’s legation to make inquiry. Your excellency was also certain
that there was no such thing; but on perusal of your excellency’s
communication we then knew that the reports were well founded.
We certainly had no idea or expected such a thing.
With regard to this matter, it concerns the establishment of a treaty
between the two countries, and we can not but be extra careful and
circumspect. It is right, therefore, to await until after your
excellency has taken up the three points submitted by the Yamên and
carefully and clearly considered them and sent us a communication in
reply, then we can present the new treaty in a memorial to the throne,
asking for ratification thereof.
If this matter can be expeditiously considered and decided upon the Yamên
will also be very much pleased. But we are of the opinion (that if) the
Government) of the United States has hitherto entertained thorough
friendly relations towards China (the President) will surely not assent
to the one-sided action of Congress in the passage of the new act,
pressing China and giving her very little time, thus making it difficult
for the Yamên to deal in the matter satisfactorily.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 704.]
memorandum submitted by the tsung-li yamên in
regard to the new exclusion treaty.
(1) In this treaty, although the purposes and intent of the contracting
parties are in general identical, still the people outside are very much
displeased with it. If the period of limitation can be discussed with a
view to reducing it, this will have the effect of tranquillizing their
feelings a little, and it will make matters much more convenient.
At the expiration of the changed period of limitation, if the two
countries do not consider it necessary to make any alteration, then
another period of limitation can be extended.
(2) In the second article of this treaty (after it takes effect) the
provisions governing the return of Chinese laborers to China and their
going to the United States are, on the whole or generally speaking,
satisfactory; but in regard to Chinese laborers who have returned to
China previous to the enforcement of this treaty, if they have property
in the United States they should be allowed to present a petition to the
Chinese consul embodying the circumstances, and a certificate be issued
granting them also in like manner the right to return to the United
States, thus manifesting a sense of justice.
(3) Chinese laborers who have returned to China, and who have property in
the United States not amounting to $1,000 in value. It is right that the
question as to how such cases should be dealt with should also be
discussed.
[Inclosure 3 in No. 704.]
Mr. Denby to the
Foreign Office.
Peking, September 21,
1888.
No. 15.]
Your Highness and Your
Excellencies:
I have received, to my very great regret, the communication of your
highness and your excellencies on the subject of the ratification of the
new treaty between the Imperial Government of China and the United
States.
Your action amounts simply to a rejection of the treaty.
Any change made in it now would involve the necessity of another
ratification by the Senate of the United States.
I have no authority to make a new treaty nor to discuss with your
highness and your excellencies the propriety of making any changes in
the treaty which is before you for ratification.
I have forwarded your communication to my Government and will await its
orders.
I have, etc.,
