Mr. Blaine to Mr. Denby.
Washington, April 12, 1890.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 1045 of the 4th of February last, in relation to the Chi-nan-fu land case and transmitting copy of a communication to you from the Presbyterian mission on the same subject of January 10, 1890.
The letter from the mission is a somewhat exhaustive statement of the position of its members on the question of an implied relinquishment by them of their claim to the original suburban house lot bought by Mr. Reid, and as such casts new light upon the general subject. Their understanding appears to have been sufficiently clear that the purchase of the country tract by Dr. Coltman and the ratification of its sale by the Chinese authorities was entirely independent of the original land transaction in the suburbs. The idea that the tract secured by Dr. Coltman was to be taken in lieu of the lot contracted for by Mr. Reid would appear with some degree of probability to have originated in the minds of the members of the Tsung-li yamên, although the mission admits that several of its members feared or believed personally that such might be the final result of the second negotiation, as the simplest means at the command of the local authorities of allaying popular excitement.
So far as your misconception of the position of the mission as a body on this question is concerned, it is not at all plain that any blame therefor should attach either to you or to them in view of the fact that Mr. Reid and Dr. Coltman had intervened by personal letters for your information, and in consideration of the lines laid down by the Tsung-li yamên in its communications to you. At the same time, it would be hardly just that the mission should suffer in consequence of the separate and individual acts of one or two of its members not concurred in by all or by a majority.
Popular prejudice at Chi-nan-fu appears to render it impracticable for Mr. Reid to pursue further his claim upon his contract for the original suburban lot; but the claim that another house lot in another part of the suburbs should be procured in lieu of the original lot ought not to be lightly foregone if there seems to be any chance of its being successfully maintained without friction or unpleasant complications.
Your own suggestions, however, that the missionaries surrender the deed of the original lot, recover the purchase money, and undertake to secure another such lot as a movement entirely new and independent of the original contract is deemed preferable, as being in all probability the least open to objection by the local authorities, and provided, of course, the mission can be induced to accept that solution of the difficulty before any attempt is made to obtain an exchange at the hands of the yamên; and provided, further, that assurance can be obtained before the surrender of the old lot that no impediment will be thrown in the way of the acquisition of a new one of equivalent value.
[Page 180]In either event it is desired that you afford the mission such assistance as may be properly in your power to sustain the contention that the first land question is not to be considered as having been settled by the grant of the country tract per se, as assumed by the yamên, and that, using your discretion in the method of treating the matter, you endeavor to bring the views of the mission and your own on this subject into harmony, in order that you may proceed to a just termination of the existing differences between the mission and the authorities, under the provisions of the treaty of 1844 with China, as adverted to by text in my number 495 of January 31 last.
I am, etc.,