Mr. Denby to Mr.
Olney.
Legation of the United States,
Peking, October 25,
1895. (Received Dec. 5.)
No. 2407.]Sir: I have the honor to inclose a copy of a
telegram dated October 20, sent to me by Consul Hixson, relating to
matters at Kutien; also a copy of my telegram to the consul of October
21; also a copy of the telegram of the consul to me of October 21; also
a copy of my telegram to the consul of October 22; also a copy of a
telegram of the consul to me of October 23.
The “report” mentioned in the last telegram was one that was sent to me
by the Tsung-li Yamên, and if necessary further attention will be paid
to it after I have received Mr. Hixson’s report.
In explanation of my telegram of the 21st instant I have to say that I
did not deem it necessary that the American members of the commission
should remain at Kutien after the English members had left.
The injuries complained of had been chiefly done to British subjects, and
if the British Government was satisfied that the commission should
discontinue the investigation it did not seem incumbent on our
Government to continue it. I could not, however, concur in all that the
British consul had done, as Mr. Hixson had strenuous objections thereto.
Awaiting his report, I directed him to leave the question of concurrence
open, and to attempt no final settlement until instructions were
received from you.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No.
2407—Telegram.]
Mr. Hixson to
Mr. Denby.
Sui-chow,October 20,
1895.
British consul returned; says he agreed upon suggestion of viceroy
that fourteen more be executed Monday; that three leaders be sent
Wednesday Foochow for trial; that all remaining receive various
degrees of imprisonment or banishment; that arrests be continued,
and that future trials take place Foochow. Regard carrying out of
this as both surrender and concession to viceroy. We not consulted
before; still uncommitted. Shall we concur? Just received later date
dispatch from viceroy, making no mention of agreement, but asserting
rest of
[Page 167]
foregoing
stipulations. As his own decision of case Taotai announces future
arrested will be examined by Chinese deputies alone in villages, and
if found guilty be retried in Foochow before consuls. British party
evidently intend early return to Foochow. Unfortunate complications
would seem to render our efforts here worse than useless. Shall we
return to Foochow or not?
[Inclosure 2 in No.
2407.—Telegram.]
Mr. Denby to
Mr. Hixson.
Peking, October 21,
1895.
Return to Foochow if British commission leaves. Leave question of
concurrence open. Government will await your report before passing
on question of final settlement.
[Inclosure. 3 in No.
2407.—Telegram.]
Messrs. Hixson and
Newell to Mr. Denby.
Suichow, October 21,
1895.
British consul suddenly says return Foochow Thursday under Mr.
O’Conor’s orders received over week ago transferring whole case
Foochow. No other explanation made for his strange action in failing
to consult us concerning policy and changed base of operations. We
wait instructions.
[Inclosure 4 in No.
2407.—Telegram.]
Mr. Denby to
Mr. Hixson.
Peking, October 22,
1895.
Wired yesterday. Return to Foochow.
[Inclosure 5 in No.
2407.—Telegram.]
Messrs. Hixson and
Newell to Mr. Denby.
Suichow, October 23,
1895.
Part of report quoted inclosure your No. 97 is willfully misleading;
remainder false, as shown by documentary proof. It destroys all
faith in pretense of author to deal honestly with matters. Have full
records of trial proceeding. Preparing to leave here with British
consul in few days.
