Mr. Denby to Mr. Olney.
Peking, October 3, 1895. (Received Nov. 19.)
Sir: In your dispatch No. 1123, of August 24 last, you express the opinion that the demand made by the British minister and myself that the ex-Viceroy Liu Ping-chang should be ordered to Peking might have proved, if it had been acquiesced in, detrimental to the purpose in view; that is to say, to his punishment.
As he was not ordered to Peking, it is scarcely necessary to discuss [Page 156] what the effect might have been. Our main purpose was accomplished and that was to prevent his reaching his home in the province of Anhui until he had been judged and sentenced. He was ordered back to Chengtu and he has been degraded and rendered forever incapable of holding any office for the expressed and published offense of having failed to protect foreigners.
It is scarcely necessary at this late date to say that the newspaper report that the ex-viceroy was appointed “the chief commissioner of China to investigate the later massacre and looting at Kutien” is without the shadow of foundation in fact.
I have, etc.,