393.1163 Am 3/116
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Hornbeck) of a Conversation With the Apostolic Delegate to China (Archbishop Celso Costantini)57
The Archbishop opened the conversation with a reference to the pleasant contacts which he has had with American Ministers to China, Mr. Schurman,58 Mr. MacMurray59 and Mr. Johnson. He said that he had friendly relations with a number of the Legations at Peiping but had always found it particularly satisfactory to talk matters over with the American Minister. He said that he was now again on his way out to China and would arrive there at the end of July.
The Archbishop said that there were now 102 Catholic mission stations in China, of which 10 are American. He said that missionaries have had unusual perplexities and troubles during the past few years. Among Catholic missionaries, some thirty have been killed during the past six years and among Protestant missionaries approximately an equal number. A good deal of mission property has been destroyed or appropriated by the Chinese to their own uses. He had heard recently that the Chinese Government has declared the treaties abolished and he inquired what assurances remained, if any, with regard to property rights. In reply to this inquiry, Mr. Hornbeck explained the nature of the action recently taken by the Chinese National Convention and the Chinese Government and gave a brief outline of the attempt which is being made in the negotiations on extraterritoriality to safeguard property rights.60
The Archbishop next spoke of the problem of the personal safety of missionaries. He said that the Catholic Church looked upon its missionaries as soldiers and that the missionaries so regarded themselves. He said that it was their policy where a menace to personal safety arises, to evacuate women and the majority of the men that are stationed but always to leave one or a few missionaries to take risks with and look after the local congregation of converts. If a missionary were killed, they regretted it, but they considered that he had fallen in action, in line of duty; he had become a martyr and they were not inclined to make a disturbance about it.
Mr. Hornbeck said that he would like briefly to indicate the reasoning of responsible Government officials with regard to that problem, but that first he would like to mention a small matter related thereto. He said that he feared that some missionaries, especially American [Page 966] missionaries, had a tendency to be indiscreet in public expressions of adversely critical opinion with regard sometimes to Chinese officialdom and sometimes to the Chinese in general. To illustrate, some missionaries sent telegrams over Chinese telegraph wires vigorously denouncing the very Chinese officials whom American consular officers would have to approach in the effort to induce official action for the protection of the missionaries in question. Inasmuch as these telegrams are very likely to be reported to Chinese officials, and as they are certain to be read by many Chinese along the line, it would be the better part of discretion and would be helpful if the authors could always have in mind the fact that expression of their personal feelings only makes more difficult the attainment of the objective which they have in mind. The Archbishop said that he appreciated that point of view, that he welcomed the suggestion, and that he would be able to convey it through various channels, mostly by word of mouth, with a note of caution.
Mr. Hornbeck then said that, with regard to the position of the missionary whose life, while he is at his post, is endangered, there must inevitably be a difference of viewpoint: the Church would see the problem from the point of view of the evangelical objective; the Government would see from the point of view of law and political and economic considerations (primarily). In any enterprise, the parties thereto take into consideration relative and comparative facts and factors of cost and profit or potential profit (or advantage). If a missionary is sent to a certain post and there undergoes hardships and danger and, when menaced, remains at his post, this doubtless has an effect on the thought of his constituents, both locally and at home. If he is killed, that too has its effect on their thought. Whether the martyrdom of a missionary tends to advance or to retard the cause for which he is working must depend to some extent on the circumstances of each case and the preconceptions of whatever person may be weighing that question. It may be assumed that from the point of view of the Church over a period of centuries, martyrdoms have been assumed to involve more of advantage than of disadvantage to the cause. But, from the point of view of agencies of government, there can be little doubt but that the Chinese Government would prefer that missionaries be not killed and that the foreign government of whom any particular missionary or any other person in China is a national, would prefer that their national be neither menaced nor killed in China. The death of a foreign national in China by violence at the hands of Chinese persons involves more often than not a good deal of difficulty both for that person’s own government and for the Chinese Government. It does not make for better understanding between Chinese people and the people of foreign countries; it tends rather toward the contrary. [Page 967] It has in recent years seemed to most foreign governments the better part of wisdom, in cases’ where their nationals are located in areas where a threat develops, to inform their nationals of the situation and ask their nationals to withdraw to places of safety. Foreign governments cannot send policemen or soldiers into the interior of China; and it is not at all times possible or convenient for the Chinese Government to send forces sufficient to ensure either order among and safety of their own people or the safety of foreigners. Looking upon the missionary in the sense in which the Archbishop has described him, as a soldier, the figure seems a fair one except perhaps in one particular: the soldier is sent to a particular place to fight against the military forces of a foreign people whom he encounters; whereas the missionary is sent to carry the message of good will and to work for the benefit of the people to whom and among whom he goes. As a soldier, it would seem that if the missionary has been warned to withdraw in the face of danger and if he elects not to withdraw he should be content to face the danger without subsequently calling upon the agency which had warned him for protection or rescue. In practice, even though we have warned an individual and our warning has been disregarded, it is our duty, and we endeavor to carry it out, to give such aid as may be possible. But, in many cases, the consequence of the determination of a missionary to remain at his post is embarrassment and trouble for his own government, for the Chinese Government, and for the Chinese people. This is particularly true if the missionary is killed. In any case, it frequently occasions a very considerable expenditure of time and money on the part of agencies other than the church: messages, telegrams, efforts to carry in ransom, relief expenditures, et cetera. In the case of a death, if a foreign government demands an indemnification, that means expense to the Chinese.
At that point, the Archbishop said that the Church no longer asks that indemnities be paid for destruction of life, but that it still does ask that payment be made in cases of destruction of property. Mr. Hornbeck said that he realized that such was the case, and that the American Government does not make it a practice to demand indemnities, but that some governments have even in recent years demanded them. The Archbishop said that this was true but that they applied the proceeds to philanthropic purposes. Mr. Hornbeck replied that this was on the theory of penalizing the wrongdoer but not capitalizing the offense to the profit of the injured party or his estate or his government; but that the effect, so far as the Chinese were concerned, was that if an indemnity was demanded and its payment by the Chinese Government was achieved, it was costly to the Chinese people. The Archbishop said that it was quite so.
Mr. Hornbeck then continued to the effect that where a foreign national, having been warned, withdrew, all this complication and [Page 968] effort and possibly unpleasant consequence was avoided. Thus, governments look at the matter from the point of view of international relations, and, realizing that by no process could we make prevail in China the standards with regard to such matters which are regarded as “normal” in most Occidental countries, take the view that evacuation is the most desirable procedure.
The Archbishop said that he quite concurred in the exposition of the difference in the viewpoint between the Church and the State but, he said, there is an additional factor to be considered: the missionary feels a special sense of obligation to his constituents and he feels that he must give no sign of apprehensiveness or fear. With regard to particular cases, such as that at Kanchow, the tradition has been established by the French missionaries that the missionary must stay at his post. And as a rule the French missionaries do stay. At Kanchow the Catholic mission was founded by the French and just a few years ago was taken over by the American personnel. The Americans feel that they must keep up the tradition established by the French. Mr. Hornbeck said that this was an interesting point and that he well realized that even without that factor the missionary would be inclined to consider the point of honor that he remain at his post.
The Archbishop said that in the locating of new missions, the effort is being made to avoid the less strategically located points in favor of the more strategically located points, from point of view both of possible effectiveness of missionary work and of safety and related considerations.
At intervals in the course of the above recorded conversation, Father Burke and Father Murphy and Mr. Montavon had supplemented statements which were being made either by the Archbishop or by Mr. Hornbeck. There appeared to be at the conclusion a consensus of view that the Church and the State understood and sympathized with each other’s responsibilities and opinions and objectives, and the Archbishop expressly stated that the thing most to be desired in all these matters was that they be approached and be dealt with by all parties concerned in the spirit of intelligent and sympathetic cooperation. To this, there was general assent. The Archbishop went right on to say that what was most needed now with regard to China was that everybody—Church, State, individuals, everybody—concentrate on the question of helping the Chinese to find themselves and make progress in the course of revolutionary evolution in which they are involved. He said that just as he was leaving China there was much talk of a great loan to be made by the American Government. He said that he believed that the United States had the attitude of helpfulness toward China. Mr. Hornbeck interrupted to say that both the American Government and the American people, having no selfish political objectives in reference to China, were in fact most eager to help China but were frankly at a [Page 969] loss as to ways and means; from time to time many suggestions are made, but each has to be considered on its merits and more often than not scrutiny leads to the conclusion that a particular line of action, if pursued, would be more of a hindrance than a help. The Archbishop said that he well realized that. Mr. Hornbeck said that we were on the lookout for opportunities and practical plans. Father Burke said that he had always found the Department of State responsive to every suggestion and request that he had made. Mr. Hornbeck said that he was sure that the Archbishop and the American Minister to China would find themselves able at all times to discuss problems frankly and with mutual confidence and in the fullest spirit of cooperation. The Archbishop said that this was correct and that he found that he could discuss any problem on that basis with Mr. Johnson.
With expressions of reciprocal felicitation, et cetera, the conversation there ended.