Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1923, Volume I
393.1123 Lincheng/257
The Minister in China (Schurman) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 26.]
Sir: With reference to my telegram No. 323 of September 25, 1923, 10 a.m.,15 regarding the receipt of the reply to the note addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Diplomatic Body regarding the Lincheng incident, I have the honor to transmit herewith a translation of the note in question from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.16
I have [etc.]
The Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs (Wellington Koo) to the American Minister (Schurman)
M. le Ministre: With reference to the Note of the Diplomatic Body of August 10th17 last relative to the Lincheng incident which Your Excellency handed to me on the same day and of which an acknowledgment was made in due course, I have the honour to inform Your Excellency that the Chinese Government have given their most careful consideration to the contents of the said communication. The fact that it is a collective Note signed by all the Chiefs of Missions of the Diplomatic Body including those Powers whose nationals were happily not found among the victims of the unfortunate incident has impressed them with a sense of its added importance.
The deplorable incident resulted from the attack of a large body of brigands during the night of the 5th–6th May, 1923, upon an express train of the Tientsin-Pukow line near Lincheng on the border of Shantung Province. According to the findings of the Chinese and foreign mixed commission appointed for the purpose it appears that the bandits had clandestinely removed the fishplates off certain rails near the scene of the incident, caused the train to be derailed about 2:50 a.m. May 6th, indiscriminately plundered passengers and train employees alike, killed one foreign national, and carried a number of other foreigners along with more than a hundred Chinese into captivity.
The very occurrence of the incident cannot be deprecated too strongly. My Government felt as much indignation as could possibly be felt by Your Excellency or the other Members of the Diplomatic Body. The killing of a British subject and the suffering and indignities sustained by other peaceful travellers in the night of the attack and during the subsequent period of captivity have justly called forth a general expression of sympathy and regret. Although several months have elapsed since the incident took place time has not mitigated the sense of outrage with which the Chinese Government review it.
It is, however, reassuring to observe that the incident under consideration, deplorable as it was, was not a case of anti-foreign demonstration nor did it betray any symptom of special animosity against foreigners as such. It arose simply from an act of lawlessness committed by brigands whose object was robbery and capture of innocent passengers as hostages to compel the raising of the siege by [Page 697] Government troops of the bandit stronghold of Pao-Tse-Ko. The united voice with which the Government and people of China condemned this incident, the more vehemently because the nationals of foreign Powers too were included, as well as the vigorous measure[s] which [were] taken to pursue the bandits and the several expeditions organized by private and official bodies to render succour and relief to the victims, has given renewed proof of the spirit of friendliness with [sic] which China entertains towards the foreign nationals within her territory.
Careful consideration of the facts of the case leads to the conclusion that no liability for damages can be predicated of the Chinese Government. In view, however, of the circumstances of their capture as well as the suffering and indignities sustained by them in consequence, I have the honour to inform you that the Chinese Government desire, of their accord, to do, in the fullest measure possible, what is equitable in the way of reparation for the foreign victims of this unfortunate incident. For this purpose they are ready to accept as the basis of classification and assessment the three categories of damages A. B. & C. outlined in Your Excellency’s Note under reply. The reason for the progressive increase in the amount of compensation from week to week for captives during the period of captivity, however, does not seem clear, since the delay in their release was due to the adoption of negotiation with the bandits as the safest means of effecting their release, a course which was followed in harmony with the express wishes of the Diplomatic Body.
As regards what is described in Your Excellency’s Note as “supplementary indemnities” for individual cases, they appear to be in the nature of indirect, remote or consequential damages and the Chinese Government do not feel themselves in a position to include them in the basis of assessment for the compensation which they propose to give to the foreign nationals justly entitled to it.
Reference is also made in Your Excellency’s Note to the claims for damages suffered by certain foreign nationals at the hands of brigands in Honan from June to December, 1922. It may be observed, however, that the Honan case is not closely connected with the incident now under consideration, nor were the circumstances quite similar. The questions of claims for compensation arising therefrom are now being dealt with locally between the Chinese authorities and the Consular representative concerned. The Chinese Government therefore hope that Your Excellency will have no objection to separating them from the discussion of the Lincheng incident.
As regards the “guarantees for the future” proposed in Your Excellency’s Note the Chinese Government find it difficult to give [Page 698] their concurrence and sincerely hope that the Diplomatic Body will reconsider its views. For one thing the final Protocol of 1901 does not appear entirely applicable. That instrument, as it will be recalled, was concluded in settlement of the “Boxer” trouble which had for its object the destruction of foreign life and property and in which there was evidence of connivance on the part of certain officials of the Central Government as well as of the Provinces. Article X and Annex 16 of the Protocol to which reference is made in your Note seems to be clearly intended to meet a situation which happily has not arisen since and which does not exist in the present case.
The attack of the bandits on the express train at Lincheng was directed against Chinese and foreign passengers without distinction. It was not anti-foreign in character nor has there been found any evidence of official connivance or complicity in it. On the contrary, it is an established fact that the military authorities of the Province had been operating against the bandits in the neighborhood of Lincheng and that it was with the object of compelling a relaxation of pressure as well as for the purpose of plunder that this outrageous act was clandestinely prepared and audaciously perpetrated by their fellow-bandits. As soon as the Provincial authorities learned of the occurrence, they spared no efforts to effect the early and safe release of all the foreign captives, which was happily achieved in the end. There was, in short, abundance of goodwill on the part of the officials of the Provinces towards the nationals of foreign Powers. While, therefore, wishing to do everything possible to prevent the recurrence in the future of such incident as that which took place in Lincheng, the Chinese Government believe that application of the Protocol of 1901 would not be an appropriate or necessary guarantee; and if it were insisted upon it might give rise to the just sensibilities of the Chinese people without countervailing advantage to the security of foreign lives and property.
The desire of the Diplomatic Body to see necessary reforms effected in the system of protection of the Chinese railways coincides with the policy of the Chinese Government who, in the earnest hope of effectively safeguarding travel on all the main lines, have made a careful study of the question and adopted measures designed to attain the object in view. The territory covered by the Peking-Hankow, Lung-Hai, Peking-Mukden, and Tientsin-Pukow railways is now divided into four principal districts, in each of which troops are stationed at strategic points along the railway for the purpose of affording protection. In addition, the Ministry of Communications has undertaken to reorganize the special railway police which has [Page 699] heretofore been established for each Government railway to maintain order on the train as well as at the stations; and in order to avail itself of the experience of other countries in this field of railway management it has decided to engage such foreign expert assistance as, in their opinion, may be necessary or desirable. For this purpose it has created a special department which directed and assisted by competent and experienced officers will have charge of the training of the men, the organization of new units for service, the distribution and inspection of all the forces under its control.
In conveying the above information to Your Excellency I hardly need state that the Chinese Government look upon the whole matter of railway policing and protection as an urgent problem of China’s internal administration, (of which they are fully conscious of their responsibility for a practical solution.)18 The Chinese Government, however, appreciate the interest which the Diplomatic Body takes in this problem and its readiness to collaborate; and while they do not feel free, in loyalty to their duty, to commit themselves to any scheme which the Diplomatic Body may desire to present, I wish to assure Your Excellency that in undertaking on their own initiative to improve the present system of protection of the railways, the Chinese Government will spare no effort to make it fruitful of the best results.
Under the heading of “Sanctions” the Diplomatic Body requests the Chinese Government to impose certain punishments and penalties upon a number of Chinese officials whose names were given in the Note under reply. The gravity of the incident undoubtedly calls for the most condign punishment upon all those responsible for it. If the Chinese Government do not see their way to accede to the request of the Diplomatic Body, it is only because they feel bound by the existing treaties under which the matter of the punishment of Chinese officials as well as of Chinese citizens in general is to be dealt with by China in accordance with Chinese law.
It is not the intention of the Chinese Government, however, either to refrain from punishing at all those who are responsible or from meting out such punishments as are commensurate with the degree of their delinquency. In fact, sincerely desirous of setting a deterring example to the future and stimulating greater vigilance henceforth on the part of all Provincial authorities, they have promptly punished or are already considering for punishment those to whom responsibility could justly be attributed for the incident. By a Presidential Mandate of May 9th, 1923, three days after the attack by the bandits took place, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry [Page 700] of War were ordered to consider the punishment for the Military Governor of Shantung, Tien Chung-yu; while the other civil and military officials were forthwith removed from office, pending investigation and further punishment. By a Mandate of June 26th, 1923, Ho Feng-yu, Defence Commissioner at Yanchowfou and Commander of the 6th Mixed Brigade of Shantung, was dismissed from his duties and ordered to await further investigation and punishment. General Chang Wen-tang, Commander of the Tientsin-Pukow railway police, and Chao Te-chao, the officer in command of the guard on the train which was attacked on May 6th, were summarily dismissed from their duties by the Ministry of Communications. Thus the four Chinese officials for whom punishment is requested by the Diplomatic Body have in fact already been punished, or are already under consideration for punishment in conformity with Chinese law.
Judging from the Lincheng incident if there is danger to foreign travellers in the interior of China it is mainly due to brigandage in certain inland districts. (Until the territory through which the Tientsin-Pukow railway runs)19 is cleared of the bandits who now infest it, such measures as the reorganization of the railway police cannot but be of limited value as a safeguard to the security of its passengers. Realizing the grave menace which brigandage would constitute to life and property in general, if allowed to develop unchecked, the authorities of the Provinces have been for some time directing their energies towards its suppression. With a view to the more effective prosecution of the campaign against the bandits, the Chinese Government have by a Mandate of August 30, 1923, appointed definite officers to undertake it and place select forces of the Provinces (of Shantung, Honan, Kiangsu and Anhui (in text given to press))20 under a unified command, so that bandits chased by troops in one Province could not escape by simply crossing its border. Considerable progress has since been achieved in this new campaign and it is believed that through this concerted action and persistent effort the evil of brigandage upon which the Note of the Diplomatic Body justly lays special stress may be speedily eliminated.
In closing this communication I wish again to assure Your Excellency that the safety of foreigners in the interior has always been a subject of the deepest solicitude on the part of the Chinese Government. If such untoward event as the Lincheng incident has [Page 701] nevertheless occurred, it has been due to circumstances which could not have been anticipated. It is, however, the firm intention of the Chinese Government that in the protection of foreign nationals in China no effort should be spared on the part of the Provincial authorities. With this object in view they have once more enjoined the military and civil authorities of the Provinces by a Mandate of August 29, 1923, to afford the fullest protection to all foreigners within their jurisdiction and declared their determination to hold them to a strict accountability in the performance of this essential duty on their part.
The Chinese Government trust that through the series of new measures which they have recently adopted relative to the reorganization of the railway police forces, the suppression of brigandage and the better protection of foreign nationals in the Provinces, the lives, the property, the rights and interests of foreigners in China will be able to enjoy added security throughout the country.
I have the honour to add that an identic communication is being addressed to the other Chiefs of Missions who are signatories of the Note under reply.
I avail myself [etc.]
- Not printed.↩
- The Department received a summary of this note from the Associated Press on Sept. 26 and a copy of the text from the Chinese Legation on Sept. 28.↩
- Ante, p. 682.↩
- Notation on margin of file copy: “Chinese text ‘which they have “not disclaimed.”’”↩
- Notation on margin of file copy: “Chinese text does not specify the T.-P. Ry. but appears to refer to Rys. in general.”↩
- Notation on margin of file copy: “Chinese text does not mention names of provinces.”↩