Mr. Denby to Mr.
Sherman.
Legation of the United States,
Pekin, March 24, 1897.
(Received May 6.)
No. 2722.]Sir: In my dispatch No. 2707,1 of the 11th instant, I inclosed
a copy of a paper sent by me to the Tsung-li Yamên, embodying the
renewal of the demand heretofore made, that cognizance should be taken
of the conduct of certain officials relative to the antiforeign riots
which occurred at Kutien in August, 1895. I have now the honor to
inclose a translation of a communication from the Yamên of the 26th
instant in reply to the above-mentioned paper.
As is usual in Chinese state papers, the Yamên recapitulates the
substance of my communication. It then proceeds to observe that the
questions at issue concern both the British Government and our own; that
on the 22d of November, 1895, the viceroy at Foochow reported to the
Throne that the case had been settled on terms stated, involving the
decapitation of twenty and more persons, the punishment in other modes
of twenty and more others, and the degradation of three officials.
The Yamên proceeds to observe that the calamity which befell the English
missionaries was severe, and that we suffered very little, but,
nevertheless, the British representative made no objection to the
settlement of the case. It claims that justice has been
administered.
The action of the United States in the Rockspring case is adverted to by
way of comparison.
It is objected to holding the local officials responsible; that in all
cases it is first necessary to ascertain who is guilty, and that unless
officers have tailed to do their duty they should not be punished when a
riot occurs.
[Page 64]
The Yamên observes that offenders against foreigners are more severely
punished than in purely Chinese cases.
The Yamên repeats that it is difficult now to punish the officials
mentioned.
From this summary of the Yamên’s communication it is apparent that
considerable stress is placed on the fact that the British Government
has contented itself with the action taken by the Chinese Government,
although its subjects were almost the only sufferers. From reports that
have reached me, it appears that in the locality in which the massacre
occurred there has been a great Christian revival, which is ascribed to
the forbearance of Great Britain in not insisting on severer treatment
of the case, and in not demanding damages. This circumstance, taken in
connection with the length of time that has elapsed since the riot
occurred, and the great difficulty under the Chinese system of
government of opening up a matter which has been reported to the Throne
as settled, induces me to suggest that you reconsider the original
purpose to press for specific action against the accused officials as a
separate and distinct contention.
It is more important for us now to devise and put in force safe and
efficient means to prevent future riots than it is to secure the
punishment of officials who may have been negligent in the past.
We have pending a discussion with the Yamên on the means to be adopted by
China to prevent antiforeign riots. (See Department’s dispatch No. 1368,
of November 25, 1898, for the draft of our demands.)
I most respectfully submit for your consideration that the proposition to
secure the adoption of general preventive measures applicable to the
future, and the proposition to punish the Kutien officials might be
blended together in a discussion with the Yamên, and that I might be
authorized to accept as a final settlement the putting in execution of
the measures set out in the dispatch cited, or other measures analogous
thereto.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure in No. 2722.]
The Tsung-li Yamên to
Mr. Denby.
Pekin, March 20,
1897.
No. 8.]Your Excellency: On the 11th instant the
princes and ministers had the honor to receive a communication from
the minister of the United States stating that on the 23d of
November last he brought to the attention of the Yamên a demand on
the part of his Government that cognizance should be taken of the
conduct of certain officials, relating to the antiforeign riots
which occurred at Kutien, and that proper and suitable punishment be
decreed against them; that the princes and ministers sent an answer
to the above communication, wherein they stated that the viceroy at
Foochow had reported that twenty and more of the offenders had
suffered the death penalty by decapitation, and twenty and more
other offenders, whose offenses were not of so grave a character,
had also been punished; some to banishment to the frontier military
posts and others to imprisonment for life in the jails of various
magistrates; that Tang Yao-te, Wang Yu-lin, Wang Yu-yung, mentioned
in Commander Newell’s report, had been degraded; that a year had
elapsed since the case was settled and that “it is not convenient
now to pursue the matter any further;” that in regard to
[Page 65]
the claim of Miss Hartford
he had received information that it had been paid, and for the
promptness in discharging this liability he returned thanks.
The minister of the United States further stated that he transmitted
to the honorable Secretary of State a translation of the Yamên’s
previous communication and had received from him instructions to
insist by all proper methods on the punishment of the officials
mentioned in Commander Newell’s report; that it is not too late to
investigate the conduct of the delinquent officials and to punish
them for their connivance or negligence; that he could not too often
repeat that the only way to prevent the recurrence of antiforeign
riots in China is to hold the officials responsible for acts of
violence perpetrated in their respective jurisdictions, and what he
asks is simply to treat with the same rigor crimes against
foreigners as crimes against Chinese subjects are treated—a question
under the treaties foreigners have the right to demand it, etc.
In reply, the princes and ministers beg to observe that the case in
question concerns both the American and British Governments. On the
22d of November, 1895, a memorial from the viceroy at Fuchau was
received and presented to His Majesty the Emperor, stating that the
Kutien case had been settled, that twenty and more of the chief
offenders had suffered the death penalty by decapitation, and twenty
and more other offenders had been banished to the frontier military
posts and imprisoned for life in the jails of various magistrates,
and that Tang Yao-te, Wang Yu-lin, and Wang Yu-yung, mentioned in
Commander Newell’s report as being guilty of culpable neglect in the
discharge of their duty as local officials, have been denounced to
the Throne and degraded.
In viewing the circumstances connected with this case it may be
observed that the calamity which had befallen the English
missionaries was of a most violent nature. The Americans suffered a
very little.
After the memorial had been presented to the Throne announcing that
the case had been settled, the British charge d’affaires had no
objection to make. The case had been decided justly, and based upon
the true facts a proper punishment has been inflicted upon the
guilty. It is apparent throughout the whole case that no injustice
has been done or leniency shown. The honorable Secretary of State
insists that other officials mentioned by Commander Newell should be
punished for their neglect of duty. To this the princes and
ministers would beg to observe that as China has dealt fairly and
justly with the case in question she can not take further severe
action as requested.
It may be further observed that China has dealt with this case in a
more severe manner than the United States did in Rockspring and Huai
Hua-yuan cases. When these cases were settled there is ample
evidence to show that no local officer was punished. There is
decidedly a great difference in the manner in which these cases were
dealt with.
As to the remark that in order to prevent riots against foreigners
the only way is to hold the local authorities responsible, to this
remark it may be stated that it is necessary to first ascertain who
is guilty of neglect of duty. If the local officer is found to have
been negligent in the discharge of his duty he should be punished,
but in the case of an officer who has not failed to do his duty, and
if he is to be punished, when a riot occurs who is to suppress the
people and offer protection to the missionaries?
If severe punishment is to be inflicted on worthy officers who
perform their duties properly, then, in that case, loafers and bad
characters would
[Page 66]
cause more
trouble and defy the local authorities. This is very much to be
feared.
As to the question that under the treaties foreigners have the right
to demand the same treatment as Chinese, it may be observed that it
is well known among the officials and people of the provinces that
when crimes are committed against foreigners by Chinese the
offenders are more severely dealt with than in purely Chinese
cases.
In this case the Chinese offenders have been dealt with in this way;
no favor has been shown.
The request made that punishment should be inflicted on the other
officials mentioned is one which the princes and ministers find
difficult to comply with. They beg that the minister of the United
States will transmit this communication for the information of the
honorable Secretary of State.
