Mr. Chargé d’affaires: We have had the
honor to receive your note wherein you bring to our notice the
unlawful conduct of certain officials in the island of Hainan, with
reference to a piece of land belonging to the American Presbyterian
Mission, and you requested that proper measures be taken to have the
matter dealt with promptly, and in a spirit of justice.
With regard to this case, we may observe that in the years 1886–’87
His Excellency M. Coumany, Russian minister at that time, addressed
the Yamên in reference thereto, and the Yamên in turn wrote to the
viceroy at Canton to examine and deal with it accordingly.
Mr. Lin, magistrate of Chiung Shan district, presented a
petition to effect that in this case, on the 5th of May,
1886, the literati, Cheng Tien-chang and others, lodged a
joint complaint against Wang Ting-mu and others of having
privately sold to foreigners the piece of land, outside of
the west gate, known as Kan che Yuan, for the purpose of
erecting buildings thereon. The said land is close to the
city wall: it is on the west gate thoroughfare, where people
are living scattered about, and it would not be convenient
for foreigners to locate there, and the complainants,
therefore, begged that the matter be investigated.
The former magistrate, Chen, deputed policemen to arrest Wang
Ting-mu and the other men. Upon the 11th of May the
magistrate heard their evidence, which was to effect that
the piece of land outside of the west gate, known as the Kan
che Yuan, was bought by them in 1879. In 1891 or 1892 [this
is a mistake in the Chinese text. It was in 1886 or 1887] Wu
Tse-chun, alias Wu Hung-chun, alias Wu Cho-chi, residing at
the east gate of the prefectual city, suddenly appeared and
stated that Wang I-cheng and Wang Ting-cheng, of a place
called Fing An, wished to buy the land in question for the
purpose of establishing a bookstore there. The price fixed
upon was 600,000 cash, and they agreed to take the place.
Deeds were made out and the purchase money paid. Nothing was
said about the place being bought by foreigners. Cheng
Hsien-lien, a licentiate of Chiung Shan district, was
present and knows all about the proceedings. Wu Hsien-chi
made out the deeds. Suddenly there appeared a Dane, called
Yeh-Chi-shan (Jeremiassen), who falsely claimed that he had
purchased the property and was to erect a foreign building
on it. This led to the literati lodging a complaint and
asking their (Wang Ting-mu and others) arrest and
examination. Further, a dispatch was sent to the foreign
official concerned requesting him to look into the matter.
The men were willing to return the money and thus avoid
popular indignation among the people.
[Page 148]
After Mr. Magistrate Chen had vacated his office, his
successor, Magistrate Jao, had the parties to the case
brought before him. The acting British consul, Mr. Brown,
called on the Taotai and discussed the matter with him. He
set forth that Chiung Chow prefectural city was a treaty
port; that the position assumed by Mr. Chen, former
magistrate, in his communication that it was in the
interior, was inadmissible. At the time, the acting Taotai
issued instructions to have the boundaries surveyed, decide
the question upon treaty basis, and report. The magistrate,
Mr. Jao, had a survey made.
As to the treaty port of Chiung Chow, in the second moon of
the third year of Kuang Hsu (about the beginning of 1877),
the viceroy of Canton at that time ordered the taotai of
Lei-chou and Chiung Chow to confer with the acting British
consul, Mr. Bullock, and they agreed upon the following as
the boundaries of the port: East, to the Pai-sha village;
west, to the Yen-tsao village; south, to the Yieng-en
bridge; north, to the Pei-sha Chiang or creek on the
seacoast.
Land outside of the above boundaries is to be regarded as in
the interior. A plan was made out and submitted, to be
placed on file, and a communication, embodying the result of
the survey arrived at, was sent to the British consul and is
a matter of record.
After taking charge of his office, Magistrate Jao again had
Wu Cho-chi brought hefore him by his police and examined
him. He stated that, at the time when he was in league with
others to buy the Kan che garden, Wang Ting-cheng and Wang
I-cheng were not at all connected with the transaction. It
was a workman employed by the Danish Dr. Jeremiassen, named
Chen Pu-hsuan, who approached and consulted with him, as he
was afraid the owner would not like to sell the land to a
foreigner. Therefore the names of Wang Ting-cheng and Wang
I-cheng were falsely represented as the buyers and the names
of Wang Sheng-chi and others were falsely represented as the
sellers. The price, 600,000 cash, was agreed upon with Wang
Sheng-chi and others. But Chen Pu-hsuan misappropriated or
added for himself $200 and explained to the doctor that the
purchase money would be $800. In addition, Wu Cho-chi got
$50 as present money—making the total price of the land
$850.
Chen Chuan-yen’s name as writer of the deed was also a
counterfeit and fabrication, and the evidence produced went
to substantiate this fact.
At the time, a communication was sent to the British Consul,
requesting him to instruct Mr. Jeremiassen to send Chen
Pu-hsuan to court so that he could confront the other
witnesses in evidence. Further, a summons was issued for
Wang Sheng-chi to again appear in court for further
examination. He testified that at the time the said flower
garden was sold the transaction was in the hands of Wu
Cho-chi and the only thing represented was that the place
was sold to Wang Ting-cheng and Wang I-cheng for the purpose
of erecting buildings thereon. No mention was made that the
place was sold to a foreign doctor. Wu Cho-chi’s having
played a double part, a trick, in the transaction was not
known to him. Since there had been a treacherous scheme in
league with others to buy the land in question, he is
willing to refund the $800 and cancel the sale. The amount
received by Wu Cho-chi ($50) he is also willing to return
himself to the foreign missionaries and requests that Wu
cho-chi be incarcerated and steps be taken to recover the
said sum.
The evidence of the middle men, Cheng Chuan-yen and others,
coincided with the above.
It appears that foreigners have never been prohibited from
acquiring property at the treaty ports, but the land in
question is situate outside of the four boundaries of the
port originally agreed upon. It necessarily rests with the
owner of the land to say whether he is willing to part with
it or not. The middle man Wu-cho-chi knew well that Wang
Sheng-chi and others were not willing to sell the property
to the foreign doctor, and the names Wang Ting-cheng and
Wang Fcheng were a mere fabrication for the purpose of
accomplishing the fraudulent purchase of it.
According to Chinese law the money paid for land fraudulently
obtained should be confiscated, but considering that Mr.
Jeremiassen is a Danish doctor, it would not be convenient
to restrain him by this law.
Now, according to the representations of Wang Sheng-chi and
others, they are willing to return the purchase money, as
well as the money squeezed by Chen Pu-hsuan and the present
money of Wu Cho-chi, and thus settle the case and avoid
further litigation and trouble.
In accordance with their wish the deeds should be canceled,
the purchase money sent to the Taotai, to be temporarily
retained by him in his treasury until it can be handed over
to the foreigners and the property revert to the original
owners. The viceroy is requested to address the
Tsung-li-Yamên to have the case in question canceled, which
would be just and equitable.
The Yamên, having received the foregoing representations, would
observe that with reference to the said doctor, Yeh Chi Shan, in the
communication sent, he is styled Yeh-li-mi-sen, a Dane.
A workman in said doctor’s employ, one Chen Pu-hsuan, in league with
Wu Cho-chi, by the use of false names, fraudulently purchased the
land of Wang Ting-mu and others. The magistrate tried the case in
court and took the evidence of witnesses. He decided that the money
should be returned, the case brought to a close, and the property
revert to the original owner. The action thus taken is in accordance
with law. The said doctor did not actually come into full possession
of the property; hence how could he lease or sell property of
another man to the American Presbyterian Mission?
Further, the matter has been pending eight years, and if the case was
one bona fide in its nature how is it that
the missionaries formerly had nothing to say about it?
Further, it appears that in 1889 Minister Denby, on his return to
Peking from Canton, addressed the Yamên in regard to the American
missionary cases at Canton, in all five, requesting that no time be
lost in bringing them to a termination. Nothing was said about the
land question now under discussion. It would, therefore, seem that
the representations made by the missionaries are not real and well
founded. But as you have asked that the matter be looked into and
dealt with accordingly, the Yamên has addressed the viceroy at
Canton to clearly investigate it and transmit a report thereon, on
receipt of which we will communicate the same to you. In the
meantime we send this note for your information.
