Mr. Martin’s appeal to the responsible authorities for the degradation
and adequate punishment of the chief of police, whose unjustifiable
action has brought discredit upon the good fame of Chinese authority,
appears to be so reasonable and just that it is not supposed that any
representations made by you to insure Fang’s chastisement, and to cause
such order to be given through the provincial viceroy as will cause the
local authorities to recognize the receipt of the consul to intervene
whenever charges may be laid against the dependents of an American
merchant would be without proper effect. Indeed, it is thought probable
that any suggestion you may make in the case will have been anticipated
by the voluntary action of the Chinese Government in spontaneously
reprobating the offense and visiting due penalty on the offender.
If this has not been done you will express your deep regret at being
obliged to reopen the matter by making a formal request for simple
justice.
[Inclosure.]
Mr. Martin to
Mr. Hill.
United States Consular Service,
Chinkiang, November 18, 1899.
No. 49.]Sir: I have to report that on October 23,
1899, Hon. E. H. Conger, United States minister to China, arrived at
this port in the gunboat Monocacy on his tour
of inspection. After spending some time in examining the manner in
which the records of this consulate are kept and consular work done,
I, at his request, started with him to visit Nankin and Wuhu, both
treaty ports in this consular district, in which are many American
missionaries.
Mr. R. Willis, Her British Majesty’s consul here, kindly took charge
of United States interests during my absence. While I was away from
Chinkiang, as above stated, a Chinese chief of police at this port
(who, though appointed here less than sixty days ago, had gained
before I left a reputation for being intensely antiforeign), went
into the “hong,” or place of business, of Mr. D. A. Emery, a United
States citizen, and took therefrom one of his shroffs and placed a
cangue on his neck. When Mr. Emery was informed he sent another of
his shroffs (or clerk), a man about 25 years old, with his Chinese
card to request the release of the man arrested, and to inform the
chief of police if he wanted any of his employees to get them
through the United States consul. On hearing this message from a
foreigner the chief of police ordered the messenger to be beaten
with bamboos. So outrageous was the order, his underlings (known as
runners) refused to do so. He himself then stepped out from his
desk, ordered him forced on his knees and bent over, his trousers
taken down, and across the back of his legs about 12 inches above
the knees he flogged him for some time, then again ordered his
runners to proceed, which they did until 1,300 blows were thus
given, causing the blood to run from both legs, and, as the blows
were continued within a radius of a few inches, it literally dug the
flesh out, leaving two holes. He then ordered a cangue put on his
neck, and after recovering from his faint forced him to march around
the city, led by a chain.
[Page 397]
No charge was or is preferred against this shroff; his sole crime
seems to have been that he would dare come to his police station
with a foreigner’s message and card. His action caused so much
excitement among, the Chinese in the Chinese city that late in the
evening a crowd estimated at about 2,000 gathered around the police
station and threatened to pull it down. For a time a serious riot
seemed imminent, and the danger was avoided only by the taotai of
the city sending for the two men thus illegally detained and
ill-treated, and turning them over to the prefect.
Mr. Willis, acting in United States interests, on hearing what had
occurred sent Wan Bing Chung, our interpreter, to the taotai with
his card to make inquiries. He returned to Mr. Willis and reported
that the taotai was extremely vexed about the matter, and had
already sent a telegram to the provincial judge at Soochow, who
appointed this chief of police to his position.
This outrage caused almost an entire suspension of business in
Chinkiang for two days, and has alarmed the foreigners of all
nationalities along the river ports contiguous to Chinkiang.
On my return to the consulate I at once investigated the matter,
finding it as above stated. Inclosures Nos. 355, 356, and 357 are
copies of the dispatches sent by Mr. Willis to the taotai concerning
the matter.
On Saturday, November 10, the next day after my return from Wuhu, I
had it made known verbally to the taotai he had better come to the
consulate. Monday, November 12, he appeared. On being questioned why
he allowed this man Yang Sze Chen, chief of police, to escape from
the city after his dismissal from office, he said this man was a man
of rank, holding the metropolitan degree, and therefore could not be
confined. Moreover, from a Chinese standpoint, he had committed no
crime.
Question. Do you mean to say a Chinese official can take an inno’cent
man charged with no crime and flog him almost to death, and not be
amenable to punishment?
Answer. Only removal from office for being guilty of a miscarriage of
justice.
Question. Do you mean to tell me a man holding a literary degree can
not be confined or punished for crime?
Answer. Not until he is degraded by taking his degree from him.
Question. This, then, is your excuse for not fulfilling your promise
to Consul Willis to keep him here until this matter is settled?
Answer. Yes.
He then said, “Consul, I have no excuse for this man doing as he has
done. I will do all I can to help you in this matter; do not make it
too hard for me. I went beyond my authority in dismissing him from
office before I received permission, he having been appointed by the
provincial judge.”
Question. But on receipt of your telegram the judge ordered you to
dismiss him, did he not?
Answer. Yes, and he ordered me to tell him to go to Soochow, where
the case would be investigated.
I then informed him I had no desire to embarrass him; I only wanted
justice done; but as this man could not be punished while holding a
literary degree, and that he ignored all officials in Chinkiang, I
must insist on his being returned to Chinkiang and his degree taken
from him, thus degrading him and rendering it impossible for him to
hold office again.
Answer. I will have him brought back.
Question. Who has authority to degrade him?
Answer. The governor of the province or the viceroy.
Then I informed him I would make the demand for his degradation to
the viceroy. He then requested, for his own sake, to be permitted to
telegraph my demand to the viceroy and governor, which he promised
to do that day. That was five days ago. He has not been returned to
Chinkiang yet.
I stated the matter verbally to Hon. E. H. Conger, United States
minister, during the few minutes the gunboat Monocaey was coaling at this port before proceeding on his
voyage to Shanghai.
I have, etc.,
[Subinclosure 1.]
Mr. Willis to
Mr. Taotai Chang.
Chinkiang, November 7,
1899.
No. 355.]Sir: Yesterday I received a serious
complaint from the United States merchant, D. A. Emery, stating that
on the 5th instant (Sunday) the Chinese chief of police, Yang Sze
Chen, at this port wanted to arrest one of his shroffs, Yang Kwei
Sam, without
[Page 398]
the usual
authority of the United States consul. The arrest was made under the
plea that this shroff enticed another man’s wife away from her
husband.
The chief of police, accompanied by several runners, went to the said
merchant’s hong and ordered the arrest of Yang Kwei Sam, who
happened to be away, and another shroff named Chang Chung Hsuan
spoke to the chief of police of Yang’s absence and, without any
cause, this man Chang Chung Hsuan was then and there arrested and
forthwith taken to the Pau Chia station. Without listening to any
reasoning a cangue was put on him with the order that he must
produce Yang Kwei Sam. While this was proceeding, D. A. Emery sent
his compradore’s son, named Yu Kai Ping, and his office boy, with
his card to tell the chief of police to release the shroff Chang
Chung Hsuan and to remind him that if he wished to arrest any of his
employees to apply for them in the usual way through the consul.
However, as soon as the chief of police saw that a foreigner sent
his men to ask for the release of Chang Chung Hsuan, he at once
stepped down from the tribunal and himself bambooed Yu Kai Ping
1,300 times, after which a cangue was placed on his neck, and he was
taken out on the West gate street for exposure.
The office boy ran away, and so escaped punishment.
The action of the chief of police is entirely unwarranted, both as
regards the manner of arrest and punishment meted out to the man
arrested. Neither of these two men had been guilty of any crime, and
even had they been, as they were in foreign employ they should not
have been seized without my consent.
The chief of police has by this action shown himself to be absolutely
unfitted for his position. I would accordingly request that you will
at once order his immediate dismissal from office, and that you will
see that he is not allowed to leave Chinkiang pending further
investigation.
Mr. Consul Martin and the American minister, Mr. Conger, are expected
here in a day or two, and I prefer to leave the ultimate settlement
of this case in their hands.
I am, etc.,
R. Willis,
In charge of American
interests.
