Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.
Peking, September 27, 1892. (Received November 15.)
Sir: I have the honor to send you the following abstract of a memorial to the Chinese Government from his excellency Mr. Tsui, Chinese minister at Washington, which lately appeared in the Chung Hsi Jih Pao, a newspaper published at Canton. A full translation thereof has been forwarded to the Department by the consul at Canton.
[Page 132]The memorialist alludes to riots recurring in China, and charges that they are due to the negligence of the local authorities. He says that there are sufficient troops on sea and land to prevent these outrages, if they were properly employed.
He refers to the antimissionary outbreaks of last year in Wuhu, and says that at the request of the Department he wired the Tsung-li Yamên asking protection for Americans, to which request a favorable reply was received.
He was afterwards informed by the yamên that England and France decided upon the plan of a joint naval demonstration. I remark that no such plan was even conceived at Peking. The foreign minister simply recommended that men-of-war should be stationed at certain ports in China and that China should be made to pay the increased cost of keeping them there. The memorialist proceeds to state that during the summer of 1891 he had five interviews with the Department, at which the Secretary stated that the United States would not coöperate with England and France, and that a telegram had been sent to me not to associate myself with such plans, and that, in dispatches, I was ordered not to take any share in the deliberations of the French and English. I remark that the telegram received by me simply directed me not to sign any joint paper until I had received instructions, and that no instructions were ever sent.
The memorialist takes credit to himself that by this action “the combination was dissolved and the ministers were unable to make extortionate claims.” I remark that the “combination” extended only to the signing of one paper, which is covered by my dispatch No. 1389, of September 17, 1891, and that there was never the least question mooted in the diplomatic body here as to making war on China.
Memorialist “humbly advances another idea.” I quote his language:
For the most part, in our foreign relations, no care has been exercised in advance and a legacy of evils has been bequeathed to later days. Had strict care been shown in the beginning the misfortunes of the future would have been avoided. The permission to foreigners to teach religious doctrines, granted in treaties executed in the past, is now difficult to withdraw. Hereafter this can not but be taken into seasonable consideration.
Memorialist observes that the treaty between China and the United States of the 7th Kuang Hsu (1880) has now been in operation ten years, yet, to private inquiries which he has made of officials and others of influence, all say that the matter of treaty renewal must still be postponed. Memorialist has carefully informed himself of the foreign relations of the United States and learns that since last spring there is being universally discussed a plan to prevent the coming of laborers of all European countries to the United States. Laws for this purpose have been already passed and officials have been appointed to gradually put them in operation. This, however, has not yet been accomplished. This is the cause of the procrastination in renewing the Chinese-American treaty and the reason why no replies have hitherto been made to our representations on the exclusion of laborers. If a treaty between the United States and the nations of Europe not allowing their laborers to come to the United States were made, this prohibition could easily be defended in argument; but, as to China, the United States have hitherto maintained the right of Chinese to go and come at their pleasure. A prohibition of them would savor of bad faith. The device is first to exclude Europeans, proceeding from the easy to the accomplishment of the difficult. When European exclusion is an accomplished fact, then the negotiation of a supplementary treaty with [Page 133] China will be undertaken. Memorialist is of opinion that this time is not far distant, and hence the manner in which we are to conduct ourselves towards the United States must be seasonably considered. Memorialist has recently received a dispatch from the yamên, with reference to two suggestions submitted by President Martin of the Tung Wen colleges, for memorialist’s information. First, that Chinese subjects having passports should be allowed to go to and fro at pleasure. Second, that those Chinese who suffer interference should be repaid their expenses.
“These propositions are equitable and just, and acceptable to the people; and, as the exclusion of Europeans is not accomplished, the American Government would have difficulty in rejecting them. This is one of the points we should take into timely consideration.
“The United States since its establishment as an independent government, has not hitherto been guilty of wrong dealing or corrupt practices. It seems that this characteristic might be availed of to our advantage.”
The memoralist goes on to state that Russia excludes missionaries from going into the interior, and Germany limits the number of chapels and missionaries. These facts may be brought forward, he says, should the treaty with America be renewed.
It should be agreed, he says, that hereafter only actual damages should be paid to missionaries. He says:
“Memorialist has quietly investigated what the occasion requires; he has maturely reflected on our relation to others; he has weighed the important and the trivial; he has distinguished the antecedent and the subsequent. Should negotiations of the above character be entered into with England and France, it would probably be difficult to gain their consent. Let these matters be first negotiated with the United States and she will agree. When the United States have acceded to our views let England and France be approached. First undertake the easy and proceed thence to the difficult.”
He states that chapels should not be scattered everywhere and missionary cases will not thereafter multiply.
The paper concludes with the expression of a reliance on China’s army and navy in the future, and with the injunction that the officials should use diligence and that cordial international relations should be cultivated.
Comment on the above is unnecessary. I submit it simply as a contribution to current history.
I have, etc.,