File No. 135/2–5.
Minister Rockhill
to the Secretary of State.
American Legation,
Peking,July 18,
1907.
No. 669.]
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of the department’s instructions No. 299, of May 31 last (File
No. 135–1), inclosing a dispatch from the American consul-general at
Tientsin on the subject of the stamping of deeds for real estate,
situate outside of treaty ports, purchased by missionaries, with the
characters “kung ch’an,” so as to prevent the alienation of such
foreign-owned lands and houses for other purposes.
Under date of May 17 last, the consul-general at Hankow reported that
certain property in the vicinity of Hankow had been purchased by
individual American missionaries and afterwards sold by them to
foreigners for purposes of summer residence, and that this had
occasioned a bitter dispute with the local officials, This circumstance,
in all probability, gave rise to the order of the Wai-wu Pu, mentioned
in Mr. Ragsdale’s dispatch. To this communication I replied, under date
of May 27, that the legation saw no reason for interfering in the
matter, which seemed to be one for local settlement. Since then there
has been no further report.
Later the legation received a communication dated June 19, from W. B.
Seabury of the Yale Mission at Changsha (copy inclosed), on the subject
of the stamping of mission deeds, but with the additional feature that
Changsha is an open port. Inasmuch as a similar case had been taken up
by the British legation with the Wai-wu Pu for a British missionary
society—located at Changsha—in which it was finally agreed that the deed
should be stamped by the local authorities with characters signifying
“This is mission property,” I advised Mr. Seabury to allow his mission
deeds to be stamped in the same manner, and that the question of the
mission’s right to alienate the property would be met when it arose, if
it ever should arise.
As stated in my letter to Mr. Seabury, I also see no particular objection
to stamping the deeds with characters indicating that the land be held
for mission purposes, and the character employed, viz, “kung ch’an,” may
be fairly held to indicate this.
“Kung ch’an “means public real property, but not
government property. Any piece of real estate
owned by an organization, such as a guild, company, community, church,
etc., is properly called “kung ch’an.” The missionaries should have the
property deeded to the missionary society or the native church, as they
prefer, and the words “kung ch’an” will then be clearly understood as
referring to the property of said society. The words used in the Chinese
text of our last treaty are “Wei chiao hui kung ch’an”—i. e., “as the
public property of the churches (church societies)” translated in the
English text, “as the property of such societies” (Art. XIV). The words
[Page 208]
in the English text “For
missionary purposes “are given in the Chinese text as “i pei ch’uan
chiao chih yung,” which is an excellent translation, and would be
applicable to purchases for mission purposes, whether made by missionary
societies or by an individual unaffiliated missionary.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1.]
Consul-General Martin to Minister Rockhill.
American Consulate-General,
Hankau,May 17,
1907.
Sir: I have the honor to call your
attention to a condition that exists here at present. About one year
before I came here as consul-general three missionaries, American
citizens of Norwegian birth, purchased in their own names a hill
known as “Chi Kung Shan,” located partly in Hupeh and partly in
Honan, and which is near the Hankau and Peking Railway station at
Sin Tien, about six hours from Hankau.
It appears that when the missionaries purchased the hill from the
owners the Chinese officials knew all about it, and after looking
over the title and measurement of the land stamped the deeds. The
said missionaries built one or two houses thereon and lived in them.
Nothing was said nor was any complaint made for a year or two. In
1906, some merchants of Hankau, finding that a cool place was so
advantageously situated, went up one after another to examine it,
with the result that the missionaries consented to sell them lots
and give them title when said merchants could get permission from
the Chinese Government to live there. Instead of waiting till the
permission was obtained, they began building at once. Last summer
the Chinese officials raised an objection to their building there,
and as almost all nationalities represented in Hankau were
interested there was a meeting of the consular body called and a
resolution passed requesting Mr. E. H. Eraser, the British
consul-general, to take up the matter, as the Doyen, with the
Chinese officials. This he did with the viceroy, who said that as
far as he was concerned arrangements might be made, but that it
would have to be taken up with the Wai-wu Pu, and promised to do
so.
A few months ago I received a communication from one taotai, Hsu,
stating that he had been sent by the governor of Honan to see me
about Chi Kung Shan. He insisted that the merchants had no right
there, and I told him I was well aware of it. He then accused the
missionaries of buying their land in an underhand way for the
purpose of selling it at a large profit. He therefore requested that
I at once command the missionaries to return the deeds and receive
the original price of the land. I informed him that the missionaries
purchased the land from the owners, and the Chinese official was
well acquainted with the fact at the time and stamped the deeds.
While the treaty says missionary societies may purchase land and
build thereon, it does not bar the Chinese officials from giving the
privilege to the individual missionary. If, however, they believed
that the American missionaries, with their stamped deeds, were
trespassing or breaking the treaty, the United States has created a
superior court, which will hold session in Hankow, before which said
missionaries could be tried, and if found guilty would be dealt with
by the court, but that they must formulate their charge. This they
declined to do, but insisted on my commanding them to get out. A few
days ago a proclamation was issued forbidding any contractors or
coolies to perform labor there under penalty of imprisonment. They
are now demanding that all the houses shall be torn down and the
land restored to the Chinese. A meeting of the consular body was
held on the 15th instant, when it was decided to have Consul-General
Fraser arrange, if possible, with the viceroy to take the houses at
cost and to rent them at a fixed percentage. I have so far refused
to acknowledge the invalidity of the missionaries’ deeds, because it
may jeopardize a large amount of property that in other years was
deeded to the individual missionary but is used by the society of
which he is a member. I fear that these missionaries bought the
property on Chi Kung Shan for the purpose of a summer resort, and
depended upon the consuls to get
[Page 209]
permission from the Chinese Government to
allow nonmissionaries to live there. There is no doubt that the land
was of little value and the people living about there very poor. If
a resort were established there it would be a great benefit, not
only to the natives who carry the loads and the farmers who grow the
vegetables, but it would put thousands of taels per year in the
coffers of the railway company and at the same time be a great
blessing to the families located in Hankow who could not, for
various reasons, go to a more distant resort. There is but one
American merchant who owns property there, and I have warned him
before he purchased it that he would have no redress whatever
happened. The viceroy seems inclined to be reasonable in the matter,
but the party who seems determined to make trouble is the governor
of Honan.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 2.]
Mr. Seabury to
Minister Rockhill.
The
Yale Mission,
Changsha,
Honan, June 19,
1907.
My Dear Sir: In view of certain differences
of opinion as regards foreigners holding land in this city, we wish
to write to you and secure instruction on this important
question.
Having secured property within the walled city of Changsha, we find
that the officials are unwilling to stamp our deeds without our
inserting the two characters “kung ch’an.” Believing at first that
it was an imposition upon us to urge this demand we have steadily
refused to comply, until we find recently considerably divergent
opinions on the propriety of this course.
Believing Changsha to be an open port, it appeared to us contrary to
treaty right to allow ourselves to be limited as holders of land
here. Mr. Giles, the former British consul here, strengthened us in
this opinion by writing: “I have at last wrung from the Chinese
authorities an explicit written statement to the effect that the
city is open to foreigners, whether merchants, missionaries, or
others, for trading and all other lawful purposes.”
Further reinforced by an interview with Mr. Coolidge, secretary of
legation at Peking, and Mr. Williams, Chinese secretary, and
following the advice of our consul-general at Hankow, Mr. William
Martin, we have not thus far yielded. But the British minister has
sent instructions to the British consul here that the two characters
may be written on the deeds of British subjects. It is also
acknowledged that the local officials have received instructions
from their superiors in Peking to require the insertion of the
expression in all deeds involving the holding of property by
foreigners.
We beg to be informed as to whether we shall follow the precedent
furnished by those who are having their deeds stamped with the
inclusion of these characters, or whether we shall suffer our deeds
to remain unstamped because we refuse to allow the expression to
appear.
Very respectfully,
[Inclosure 3.]
Minister Rockhill to Mr. Seabury.
American Legation.
Peking, June 21,
1907.
No. 717.]
Sir: Replying to your communication of the
19th instant on the subject of stamping by the Chinese authorities
of deeds for land purchased by your mission at Changsha, I have the
honor to inform you that this legation, after consultation with the
British legation, sees no reason to object to your deeds being
stamped in the same manner as was finally agreed upon in the case of
the British deeds, i. e., with the words “this is mission property.”
If in the future it should be desirable to dispose of the property
the legation will then take up the matter in your behalf, if
necessary. You should see to it that your deed is stamped in the
identic characters finally agreed upon to be employed in the case of
the British deeds for mission property.
I am, etc.,
