No. 85.
Mr. Low
to Mr. Fish.
Pelting, September 19, 1872. (Received November 23.)
Sir: The proper disposition of the surplus of the Chinese indemnity fund has been a topic of discussion, both in and out of Congress, for ten years or more. The dispatches of my predecessors in office and the President’s messages have contained earnest recommendations that this money should be devoted to the establishment and support of a school in China for the education of a certain number of our own citizens in the Chinese language and literature, and a corresponding number of Chinese in ours.
About a year ago I had the honor to address you upon the same subject, in which the plan referred to was respectfully urged upon the attention [Page 137] of the Department and Congress. (See Diplomatic Correspondence, 1871, pp. 226 and 227.) Since then memorials have, I observe, been addressed to Congress by colleges, societies, and committees of citizens in various sections of the United States, all, so far as I know, indorsing and advocating the same thing substantially.
Since the adjournment of the last session of Congress, I have been placed in possession of a copy of a bill (H. R. No. 2849) in which the disposal of this fund is provided for. It appears that the bill in question was, on May 20, 1872, reported to the House by its Committee on Foreign Affairs, ordered printed, and recommitted. It will, it may be presumed, come up for final action at the next session of Congress. Were the bill, in its present form, to become a law, it would not be likely to accomplish the result which those more immediately acquainted with the subject so earnestly desire. Were it permissible, I would not only suggest, but warmly recommend that the bill referred to be amended by striking out the first and second sections, and a portion of the third, down to and including the word “then” in the third line. Were this done, the bill would then provide for the disposition of the fund in a simple yet comprehensive manner, which could hardly fail to secure important advantages to China as well as the United States.
The reasons for this suggestion are:
- 1st.
- The absence of any valid reason for re-opening the “Caldera” case. That claim was properly adjudicated, with many others, and the award which was made was and is considered, by those most conversant with the facts, an extremely liberal one. The written opinions of the arbitrators, on file in the Department, and Mr. Burlingame’s dispatch of November 18, 1863, (see Diplomatic Correspondence, 1864, part 3, pp. 346, 347, 348,) contain what would appear to be conclusive evidence on this point; and besides, if this case be re-opened there is no apparent reason why all the claimants of indemnity may not with propriety make a similar demand. Were all these claims to be re-adjudicated, it may be doubted whether any surplus would be left.
- 2d.
- The Chinese government have no legal claim to the surplus in question. If an equitable claim exists, which I am quite free to admit is the case, the appropriation of the fund in the manner suggested will discharge the obligation better than it can be done in any other way. Were the offer made as provided for in the second section of the bill, it would, without doubt, be accepted.
- 3d.
- The need of competent interpreters and translators in the legation and the consulates grows more apparent. This subject has been brought to the attention of the Department and Congress by my predecessors and myself, and although these representations have been indorsed and commended to the favorable consideration of Congress by the Department and the President, they have failed to secure the much needed legislation. Unless the funds in question can be utilized in some manner such as has been proposed, it is not unlikely that the public interests will continue to suffer for some years from the lack of a competent staff in the legation and the consulates.
Even if Congress should make provision for the employment of additional interpreters, the difficulty will be to find persons fitted for such positions. Unless arrangements are made for educating our own citizens for the work we will be compelled to employ Europeans or Chinese, as is generally the case now. The objection to filling such responsible and confidential positions with aliens must be obvious to all who will give the subject a moment’s thought.
If the future trade of China and Japan is of prospective value sufficient [Page 138] to justify the Government of the United States in granting a mail subsidy of $1,000,000 annually, of which, no one acquainted with the subject can for a moment doubt, it would seem that the moderate additional expenditure necessary to put the legation and consulates in these countries upon a respectable footing ought not to be withheld.
To foster and extend commerce and trade, relations of amity, goodwill, and confidence should be cultivated with this government and people. No one thing would tend so much to promote this, and at the same time facilitate intercourse and advance material interests, as the education of a corps of interpreters. Were there reason to expect or even hope that this would be provided for by a direct appropriation, I should offer no objection to the return of the indemnity fund to the Chinese. In the absense of any reasonable ground of hope in this regard, I am anxious to see the fund applied as has been suggested. This whole subject has engaged my attention since the days I arrived in China my opinions are the result of experience, and are very decided; and if they are stated with unbecoming plainness and force, my apology must be in the fact that the needs of the service are too apparent to be overlooked by me while the remedy lies with Congress alone. The means are at hand to supply the want; all that is necessary is for Congress to apply them in the proper way.
I have, &c,