Mr. Denby to Mr.
Blaine.
[Extract.]
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, November 19, 1889.
(Received January 16, 1890.)
No. 1005.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that I have
received from the members of the Presbyterian mission at Chi-nan-fu a
communication, of which I inclose a copy.
This communication contains the gratifying intelligence that the local
authorities have consented that the mission may take possession of a
valuable tract of land within 3 li of Chi-nan-fu and have sealed their
deeds.
The land is said to contain 7 English acres. I do not wish to magnify my
services, but, in view of the peculiar circumstances surrounding this case
and now confronting me, which will hereinafter appear, I [Page 149] feel justified in claiming that this result of
my efforts to secure land for my countrymen is a great and signal success.
In view of the irritation existing in China on account of the late act of
Congress, and of the deep-seated antagonism of the Chinese Government to the
permanent residence of foreigners in the interior, and of the annoyance,
trouble, and ill will that the Chi-nan-fu troubles have generated, I may
fairly claim some credit for having brought to a happy close efforts to
secure land which have been persistently and continously kept up for two
years. Yet it will be seen by the communication of the members of the
mission that they are not satisfied; that they profess to regard the country
tract of land as a different case from that of the lot originally contracted
for; and that they demand my interposition now to secure the original lot,
the same as if nothing had been accomplished. I have replied to them in a
communication, of which I inclose a copy, and I have refused to demand
possession of the lot originally contracted for on the ground that the
acceptance of the country tract must be regarded as a waiver of the right to
claim the original lot. It is known to the Department that the local
authorities objected to sealing the deed to the lot originally contracted
for, because it interfered with geomantic influences. This superstition
confronts me everywhere in China, notably at Foo-Chow.
It was judicially decided some years ago by an English judge, in a case heard
at Foo-Chow, that the missionaries, in efforts to secure land, must give
proper influence and weight to an objection on geomantic grounds; whether
diplomatic officers wish to or not, they are compelled to respect this
superstition. The missionaries say that they will accept another lot in lieu
of the lot contracted for. My answer is that this exchange has been
practically effected by the granting to them of a tract of land which they
themselves selected.
I submit the question to you on these two papers, the facts which appear in
your archives, and the answer to my communication to the missionaries, which
I will forward if they send one.
I have had in China infinite trouble and labor to regulate these questions
and keep in the bounds of prudence. But I rejoice that the great body of the
missionaries is composed of sensible men, who understand the difficulties
that confront this legation and usually support its honest efforts to secure
toleration, peace, and residence in the interior with marked kindness and
indorsement.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 1005.]
Mr. Reid to Mr.
Denby.
Chi-nan-fu, November 3,
1889.
Sir: Since I last reported to you under date of
October 17 a decided change has occurred for the better in our affairs.
Though the taotai failed to reply to ray letter or appoint an interview
(this being the second failure in this direction), the deputy called on
Dr. Coltman and informed him that the deed of his land was stamped. On
the 27th the doctor, accompanied by Rev. Mr. Sexen, went by invitation
to the magistrate’s yamên and received the deed. The legal fee was paid
the next day. The officials urged that no light building be erected, and
comforting words were spoken to them. On the 29th the members of our
mission had another conference and agreed on a letter to be addressed to
you. I informed them that I would take it in person and present it to
you. Any minor matters can better be considered in an informal
conversation, but the main sentiment of my colleagues, as well as of
myself, are carefully expressed in the following letter unitedly
presented for your consideration.
[Page 150]
“Honorable and Dear Sir: It is with pleasure
that we can now report to you the settlement of the case of the land
purchase by Dr. Coltman in the country west of the city. On the 27th of
October the deed as stamped was presented to him by the magistrate.
Though a delay of a year has been necessitated in the erection of
buildings, we can not but rejoice at the conclusion as at last reached,
and in bringing this about we fully recognize and appreciate the value
of your assistance. We beg you to accept our united expression of
gratitude and respect.
It is with regret, however, that we must at the same time state the
failure of the officials to effect, or apparently to attempt to effect,
a settlement of the original and remaining cases which have now
concerned us for the space of 2 years. After repeated failures of our
own efforts to bring about justice, we unreservedly sought the
interposition of our legation in December, 1887, requesting that we be
put in peaceable possession of the said property, or that a satisfactory
exchange be made, and also that the ringleaders of the riot be punished
and redress be given for injuries inflicted. While the matter of the
riot has been shamefully ignored by the officials, the matter of the
property has been referred to in an unsatisfactory way, the officials
only promising to restore half of the original price, and so make either
the original owner or the mission the loser of half. Certainly, on such
a basis we desire no exchange and insist on the actual property. We have
been grateful for your repeated dispatches to the Tsungli yamên, in
which you have demanded that these points be satisfactorily and justly
settled, and we are inclined to believe that by further action on your
part in our behalf a creditable settlement will be reached, as has now
been reached in the case of the property in the country. We see no
reason why these points should diminish in importance merely because the
officials have practiced such a full and wearisome degree of
dilatoriness and unconcern. It should be remembered that Chi-nan-fu is a
provincial capital, and, if justice fails to be given here under the
very eyes of the governor, it is only an impetus to similar injustice in
the surrounding districts. Other religions are permitted and protected
in this city to the fullest degree, even the Roman Catholic having
property in the city suburbs and surrounding country, and we see no
reason or right why the method of restriction should be practiced on
American citizens and Protestants. When an American is assaulted by a
mob, it seems to us imperative that at least the ringleaders should be
punished and proper redress be given. These points, however, have
already been frequently and fully reported to you. Leaving it with you
to decide as to the best way to gain success on these matters, and
thanking you for the assistance already given and the patience and
energy displayed,
“We remain, sir, yours, etc.”
On October 30 I sent another letter to the taotai, mentioning his failure
to give me any answer to the previous letter and stating that in the
fourth moon, in your dispatch to the Tsungli yamên, you had clearly
distinguished all the points, and therefore I requested his immediate
and equitable management. To-day I sent him another letter, answering
the argument of the local gentry against our purchase of the suburb
property and stating the real force of the twelfth article of the treaty
at this time.
On the 6th I am to send him one concerning the riot, this being the
second anniversary of the occurrence. I will state again the names of
the ringleaders and quote from the edicts. With these letters sent to
him, I will then wait till I return from Peking with your added
instructions and further aid.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 1005.]
Mr. Denby to the
members of the American Presbyterian mission at
Chi-nan-fu.
Legation of the United States,
Peking, November 19,
1889.
Misc. No. 68.]
Gentlemen: I have received at the hands of Rev.
Gilbert Reid an unsigned “copy” of a communication addressed to me by
you. I pass over the irregularity of sending to this legation a copy of
an important paper without signature, and, on the assurances of Mr. Reid
that the contents were approved by all of you, I treat it as if it were
original and duly signed.
You say:“It is with pleasure that we can now report to you the settlement
of the case of the land purchase by Dr. Coltman in the country west of
the city. On the 27th of October the deed as stamped was presented to
him by the magistrate. Though a delay of a year has been necessitated in
the erection of buildings, we can not but rejoice at the conclusion at
last reached.” You then express your regret that no settlement has been
made of the original case. You ask my assistance in the accomplishment
of three things, to wit: [Page 151]
- First. The assured possession of the property that was
originally contracted for or, in lieu thereof, the granting of
another house lot.
- Second. The punishment of the ringleaders in the riots which
occurred 2 years ago.
- Third. Redress to Mr. Reid for injuries inflicted on him by
the rioters.
I will take up these questions in the reverse order.
Redress to Mr. Reid.
You are no doubt aware that the Tsung-li yamên ordered a minute
examination to be made of the circumstances which occurred at
Chi-nan-fu, and in a communication to me of April 16, 1888, denied all
official liability and wound up by saying “there can be no need of
making it (the riot) the subject of an inquiry or further discussion.”
But this declaration need not prevent Mr. Reid from presenting his claim
specifically. I have not hitherto presented his claims in minute
particulars, though I have made a general demand for redress for him,
because I hoped that some general and final settlement would be arrived
at in Chi-nan-fu, wherein all the matters involved in this controversy
would be peacefully and justly arranged. But, leaving out of Mr. Reid’s
claim for compensation some items to which I have verbally called his
attention, and which are properly claims of the mission, and not of
himself personally, I will now, if Mr. Reid so desires, present his
claim, in substance as he has prepared it, to the Tsung-li, yamên.
The punishment of the ringleaders in the
riot.
I have no objection to again calling the attention of the Tsung-li yamên
to this subject, and demanding a further examination of the occurrence,
and that the persons found guilty be punished.
Possession of the house lot originally
contracted for or the granting of another lot in exchange.
The demand is made of me that I now insist that the mission shall have
possession of the house lot originally contracted for or the granting of
another lot in exchange. I invite your serious consideration of the
question, whether, taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of this case, I ought now to take up this matter anew, the
same as if nothing whatever had been accomplished in the 2 years that
have elapsed. It is known to you that the objection of the local
authorities to sealing the deed to the original lot was based on alleged
geomantic influences asserted by the gentry and others.
To meet this objection, you promptly offered to submit to an exchange of
this lot for another. The authorities took a month to consider the
question of exchange. In your first communication to me, which is not
dated, but was received in December, 1887, and is signed by Gilbert
Reid, Paul D. Bergen, and Robert Coltman, jr., you say: “The very last
day the magistrate and two special deputies sent their cards, saying
that the money would be returned to us and nothing more would be said
about the property. This was the result of the month’s opportunity to
effect an exchange.” In that communication you demand three things, the
second whereof is: “That we obtain possession of the present property,
or a satisfactory exchange.”
In presenting this case to the yamên I followed your suggestions, that
you would be content to receive another lot in exchange.
My first communication to the yamên contained this language:
“Third. That if it shall be held by Your 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.”
From that day to this, in every communication that I have sent to the
yamên, and they have been numerous, I have always presented the case as
being one in which locality was not material, the main object being that
you should be insured peaceful possession of sufficient property to
enable you to carry on satisfactorily your charitable and religious
work. If I erred in this view of the case, you yourselves are to blame
for the error. The action of Mr. Reid at the time that Dr. Coltman
proposed to buy the country property seemed to me to be conclusive.
November 13, 1888, Mr. Reid sent to me a communication addressed to me as
minister of the United States, wherein he says: “As the matters
pertaining to our property difficulties have not, as yet, gained
success, and other complications have unexpectedly arisen from
counteraction of my mission, I have deemed it best to retire from the
case, and accordingly my colleague, Robert Coltman, M. D., has been [Page 152]
appointed by the station to take my place in the general oversight;
therefore, if you have any communication to transmit on the property
case, please regard Dr. Coltman as the authorized agent.”
The first communication of Dr. Coltman bearing on this subject was dated
January 5, 1889. He says: “A new step having been taken by me in the
purchase of property, I desire to inform you of the result.” He goes on
to state that, “believing it impossible to make an exchange of the
property wherein Mr. Reid was mobbed for property in any of the
suburbs,” and for other reasons, he obtained permission from the
Shan-Tung mission to purchase a site for residence and hospital within a
limit of 3 lis from any suburb gate. He recites that he purchased such a
site on the north side of the great road to Chi-Ho. Dr. Coltman then
recites the difficulties and delays that he has encountered, and
requests my assistance in having the deeds to the country property
sealed. I therefore took up this new case and made urgent appeals to the
yamên that the purchase should be ratified and peaceful possession of
the new tract secured. I repeat, that if I erred in believing that the
possession of this new tract was to be in lieu of the original demand,
you yourselves are responsible for the misconception.
Mr. Reid himself took exactly the same view. He objected to the action of
the mission because it was an abandonment of the original claim; and
when Dr. Coltman secured the authority of the Chefoo conference to
purchase land within 3 lis of the suburb gate, Mr. Reid resigned his
position as manager of the affair and directed me to correspond with Dr.
Coltman. The impression made upon my mind by the whole correspondence
that I had with the mission was that the important thing to do was to
secure sufficient and suitable property for the mission, and that
whether such property was in the city or in one suburb or another, or in
the open country, was entirely immaterial. In view of the quotations
that I have made, particularly from the letter of Dr. Coltman, wherein
he states the impossibility of securing the original lot and his
consequent determination to buy other property, how could I arrive at
any other conclusion?
The yamên has unquestionably ordered the local authorities to ratify the
new purchase in the belief that the ratification was a settlement of the
whole land case. After 2 years’ strenuous endeavor the result has been
reached that your mission is in peaceable possession of 7 English acres
of valuable land within 3 lis of Chi-nan-fu. Yet we are now told that
nothing whatever has been accomplished, and that we are confronted by
the same condition of things which existed 2 years ago.
After having represented to the Chinese Government for 2 years
continuously that all that my countrymen wanted was a site on which they
might satisfactorily prosecute their charitable and religious work, and
after having secured a site which they selected, I can not, consistently
with fair dealing, now claim they are entitled to and must have the
original tract over which the trouble originally arose. The acceptance
of the country tract must, in my opinion, be taken as a waiver of the
right to claim the original lot.
If the mission absolutely requires other property in the city or the
suburbs, the acquisition thereof must be treated as a new question.
* * * * * * *
Since the above communication was written Rev. Gilbert Reid, without,
however, having seen it or having any knowlege of its contents, has
demanded of me that his personal claim be presented to the Government of
China, and I have replied to him that it will be presented as soon as it
can be translated.
I am, etc.,