Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.

[Extract.]
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.,

Charles Denby.
[Inclosure 1 in No. 1005.]

Mr. Reid to Mr. Denby.

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.,

Gilbert Reid.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 1005.]

Mr. Denby to the members of the American Presbyterian mission at Chi-nan-fu.

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.,

Charles Denby.