Mr. Denby to Mr.
Blaine.
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, December 30, 1889.
(Received February 18, 1890.)
No. 1018.]
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that I have
received from Consul Crowell, at Amoy, a dispatch relating to the issuing by
him of a travel certificate to one Chun Arfat, a Chinaman who claims to be a
naturalized citizen of the United States. In this case the taotai indorsed
on the certificate these words: “Chun Arfat, whose native country is Tong An
district, was born in a foreign country and has changed his style of dress.
His passport being issued to him, he can only have protection in traveling,
but is not allowed in the inland to purchase real estate, build house,
establish firm, transit goods, or evade duty. Should he transgress, he would
be arrested and investigated.” Mr. Crowell objected to this interpellation
and reported the whole matter to me. I have sent to Mr. Crowell a
communication of which a copy is herewith inclosed.
As Chun Arfat has never applied to this legation for a passport, I find no
difficulty in holding that he is not entitled to a travel certificate. But I
bring the matter to your attention for reasons that will hereinafter
appear.
I call attention to dispatch No. 379 of January 19, 1885, Mr. Frelinghuysen
to Mr. Young, on the subject of travel certificates. The Honorable
Secretary, in my opinion, correctly states the rules that should govern the
issue of travel certificates. He directs that such certificates should be
limited to a particular journey and time, and should thenceforth have no
validity. But Mr. Smithers, in dispatch No. 22 of May 15, 1885, he then
being in charge of this legation, recommended that such certificates be
issued for a year. Mr. Bayard, in his dispatch No. 448 of July 15, 1885, to
Mr. Smithers, approves of this recommendation, with the suggestion that the
matter be called to my attention that I might “report whether it (the
system) proves entirely satisfactory or needs changing in any particular.”
By virtue of these instructions, a circular and blank forms for travel
certificates were sent to the consuls September 26, 1885. Until the matter
of Chun Arfat came before me, I have had no occasion to examine into the
subject. Under our passport system I doubt the propriety of allowing the
consuls to issue travel certificates to run 1 year. I think they should be
confined to particular trips. It will sometimes, of course, happen that a
traveler desires to make a journey into the interior and, without great
inconvenience, can not wait until his application for a passport has been
sent to this legation and the passport has been issued, sealed by the yamên,
and returned to him. In such cases travel certificates are proper. Different
questions might arise when the travel certificate was demanded by a merchant
resident in China who desired its protection to enable him to do business in
the interior, more especially if such merchant were a Chinaman, either
native to China or to one of the British or other foreign possessions. I
advise no distinction whatever between native and naturalized citizens, but
I recommend that hereafter travel certificates be issued for the proposed
trip, and not for a year. There would generally be no hardship in requiring
an American merchant residing in China to take out a passport before making
a trip into the interior. Difficulty and bad feeling existing locally would
then be avoided. The local authorities would ordinarily have no cognizance
of the matter at all,
[Page 154]
and the
holder of the passport would look to the Imperial Government for his
protection. In all respects, except as to the term of 1 year, during which
travel certificates run, the existing rules are good. The inclosed copy of
my dispatch to Mr. Crowell will sufficiently indicate what my action will be
when the case of Chun Arfat comes properly before me.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure in No. 1018.]
Mr. Denby to Mr.
Crowell.
Legation of the United States,
Peking, December 29,
1889.
No. 93.]
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your dispatch No. 116 of the 22d ultimo, relating to the
travel certificate issued by you to Chun Arfat and the restrictive
conditions indorsed thereon by the taotai.
Consuls can not issue passports; but they may, under section 138 of the
Consular Regulations of 1888, issue travel certificates in those
countries where the deposit of a passport, during the temporary sojourn
of a traveler, is required by local law. That section concludes with
this language: “Certificates in the nature of passports, and to be used
as such, are wholly unauthorized.” In China this legation and the
consuls are controlled on this subject by special instructions issued by
the Secretary of State January 19, 1885, afterwards confirmed by
Secretary Bayard, and communicated to the consuls by a circular from
this legation September 26, 1885. A form of travel certificate in
Chinese and English accompanied this circular.
The language of Secretary Frelinghuysen is this: “The true solution would
seem to be to provide for the issuance by the consuls of limited
certificates, but only on a presentation of a passport previously issued
by the legation, or upon filing a duly attested application for a
passport, with evidence of citizenship, accompanied by the legal
fee.”
As passports of travelers are not retained by the local authorities in
China, it would seem that the only case in which the consuls have
authority to issue a travel certificate is when a native or naturalized
citizen applies for a passport, executes all the necessary papers, and
represents that there is some necessity for the issuing of a travel
certificate before the passport can be issued.
Mr. Frelinghuysen instructed this legation that such certificate should
be temporary and local, and should be limited to the particular journey
to be undertaken and to a particular time, and after the journey was
accomplished, or the time had expired, they should have no validity. But
Mr. Bayard, on the representation of Mr. Smithers, then in charge of the
legation, consented that such certificates should run during 1 year,
subject to any modification that might thereafter be suggested by
me.
I should agree with you on a proper case made that the taotais have no
authority, except in rare cases such as you have cited, to attach
special and restrictive conditions to a travel certificate.
Such certificates derive their validity from the joint issuance by the
consul, and the local Chinese authority, but the initiation in issuing
them belongs to the consul, and the Chinese can not refuse to
countersign them.
From what has been said it may readily be concluded that I would
willingly bring this subject to the attention of the Tsung-li yamên and
demand proper instructions to the taotai at Amoy if your statement of
the case showed that Chun Arfat was in a position to demand a travel
certificate. No passport has ever been issued to this gentleman, and he
has never made any application for one. Until he makes proper
application for a passport, I can not take up the question, because,
under the rules cited above, you have no authority to issue a travel
certificate to him. The certificate issued should be canceled.
If Chun Arfat makes application to this legation for a passport, and if
it be necessary for him to make a trip into the interior before the
passport can reach him, and the taotai persists in the alleged right to
introduce conditions into his act of countersigning, let the facts be
reported to me, and I will take immediate action.
In my opinion, it would be wise for Chun Arfat not to go into the
interior until he has received a passport or a travel certificate
properly countersigned.
Your travel certificate not sealed by the local authorities constitutes
no protection, and Chun Arfat had better delay his trip until the matter
is arranged.
I am, etc.,
