Mr. Denby to Mr.
Olney.
Legation of the United States,
Peking, October 13,
1896. (Received Nov. 30.)
No. 2613.]
Sir: I have the honor to make the following
report touching the case of one Chiang Hsu-chu:
This man was one of the persons who was charged with exhuming a dead body
and reburying it in the American missionary premises at Kiangyin. This
act caused the riot at that place last spring.
The missionaries claim that Chiang is innocent, and that the confession
made by him of his guilt was wrested by torture, and individual
missionaries and the Presbyterian convention assembled at Shanghai have
asked this legation to intercede in the man’s favor.
His guilt or innocence has no particular bearing on the matter now
presented to your consideration, but it is proper to state that the
Chinese magistrate who tried Chiang denies utterly that he was tortured,
and reports officially that his confession was voluntary.
Chiang was tried at Kiangyin and found guilty and sentenced to be
strangled to death. The 4th instant I received from the consul-general
the following telegram:
Chiang (written Tsiang) now being held before criminal judge
Soochow, in my district. Should I ask to be present?
I answered as follows the 4th instant:
If Tsiang’s trial concerns outrage on American, attend it.
Subsequent telegrams from the consul-general asked that orders be issued
delaying the trial until he could arrive, and directing the provincial
judge to allow him to be present.
I addressed the Yamên in writing on the subject, and on the 9th instant
had a personal interview with them of nearly three hours’ duration, in
which the whole matter was discussed.
[Page 81]
I claimed that under the third clause of section 3 of the Chefoo
convention I had the right to be represented at the trial of Chiang.
This clause reads as follows:
It is agreed that whenever a crime is committed affecting the
person or property of a British subject, whether in the interior
or at the open ports, the British minister shall be free to send
officers to the spot to be present at the investigation.
The Yamên claimed that Chiang’s case went before the provincial judge for
revision simply; that from him it would go to the board of punishments
and thence to the Throne; that the “investigation” was had at Kiangyin;
that Chiang was tried for the commission of a crime against Chinese law,
and the Americans had no interest in the proposed revision; and they
refused to allow the consul-general to be present.
I inclose a translation of a communication presenting the views of the
Yamên more in detail. * * *
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure in No.
2613.—Translation.]
The Tsung-li Yamên to
Mr. Denby.
Peking, October 10,
1896.
Your Excellency: At the interview your
excellency had at the Yamên on the 8th instant, you stated that
under the Chefoo convention the United States consul-general had a
right to go to Soochow to be present at the trial of the Kiangyin
missionary case. The case was thoroughly discussed, but the Yamên
could not carry out your excellency’s views. Your excellency held to
the views you had expressed.
The Yamên now begs to explain to your excellency the reason why your
request can not be entertained.
The Chefoo convention reads:
It is further understood that so long as the laws of the two
countries differ from each other, there can be but one
principle to guide judicial proceedings in mixed cases in
China, namely, that the case is tried by the official of the
defendant’s nationality merely attending to watch the
proceedings in the interest of justice. If the officer so
attending be dissatisfied with the proceedings, it will be
in his power to protest against them in detail. The law
administered will be the law of the nationality of the
officer trying the case.
The intent of the above clause is to provide that in international
cases the officials of both the plain tiffs’ and defendants’
nationality may attend court to watch the proceedings; but in this
case Chiang Hsu-chu and the other criminals were guilty of exhuming
a corpse, which they buried in the missionary premises for the
purpose of causing trouble.
The local officials have pronounced judgment upon them in accordance
with the statutes of China, and have not shown any bias or been
ungrateful to the missionaries. The indemnity claimed has also been
paid and the missionaries have agreed that the case be closed. The
consul has also considered the case as settled and has made no
objection to the terms of the settlement.
It must be borne in mind that the judgment rendered has been in
accordance with the laws of China. The request of the missionaries
that clemency be shown to Mr. Chiang can not be entertained by the
Yamên. Mr. Chiang was a neighbor of the missionaries, and he, in
league with Huan Chi-yao, arranged the plot to exhume the corpse of
the female child of the family of Yuan and bury it in the rear
courtyard of Mr. Haden’s missionary premises, their idea being to
extort money from
[Page 82]
him. Their
action resulted in the plundering and destruction of the missionary
premises. It may be observed that there are cases of an
international nature where the punishment of criminals would have
been more severe, i. e., by decapitation. The local officials have
decided this case in accordance with the statutes of China.
According to the statutes of China, the principal offender guilty of
exhuming a corpse suffers the death penalty by decapitation; an
accessory by strangulation.
Chiang Hsu-chu admitted that he had arranged a plot to injure the
missionaries by burying the corpse in their compound, and the
punishment pronounced that he should suffer death by strangulation
is just and proper.
The missionaries now come forward and, relying upon one-sided
statements made by the women of Chiang’s family, say that the
magistrate had decided the case unjustly. The taotai at Chinkiang,
Mr. Lu, tried the case and the prisoner admitted his guilt, as he
did in the lower court. Judgment has therefore been pronounced upon
him, and the urgent request that the consul-general should attend
court and watch the proceedings is one which the Yamên can not
comply with. This case being sent to the provincial judge merely
means that that officer is to look over the evidence. It does not
necessarily mean that a new trial is to take place. It is for the
board of punishments to decide at the autumnal assize as to the real
facts of the case and as to whether there should be a postponement
of the execution. The provincial judge can not determine this
question.
It makes no difference what may be the nature of a Chinese case, it
must be determined by Chinese law, and there is no need for a consul
to watch the proceedings. There would be no advantage to be derived
from it. Hence, the Yamên sees no reason why the consul-general
should be present to watch the proceedings.
The Yamên would observe that the best relations have always existed
between the United States and China. The fourth article of the
supplemental treaty between the United States and China is clear and
explicit as to the question of mixed cases. It does not therefore
appear necessary to quote the treaty between China and Great
Britain.
The Yamên finds it difficult to comply with your excellency’s request
and begs that you will inform the consul-general and the
missionaries of its decision.
