No. 583.] No. 151. Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, February 6, 1880. (Received April 26.) SIR: During the last few days public report has indicated that Chung How, the late ambassador to Russia, is really in serious danger of losing his life, and that the memorials to the throne in regard to his matter and the Russian treaty have indicated a spirit of much hostility to foreigners at large and outside of resentment against the Russians in particular. My colleagues and I have considered the situation as thus described, and, while very much in the dark as to the actual facts, we have felt that we cannot stand silent when what appears to be a grave wrong is on the eve of being perpetrated. We entertain no doubt whatever that the late embassador did his duty to the best of his ability, and that his return to China was nothing more than the natural consequence of the completion of his work. We know positively that a large part of his work was approved in advance of the close of his negotiations, and that his return could have been prevented if there had, at the moment, existed at the Tsung-li Yamên dissatisfaction with his treaty or a belief that the public interest required him to remain at his post. The circumstances, then, all point to the proposition that the late ambassador is being sacrificed because of the cry raised against him by officials who have no responsibility in foreign affairs, who know the least in the world about them, and who, as a consequence, belong to the reactionary party. The circumstances and various intimations which reach us point as well to the proposition that, while the discussion as to the Kuldja treaty had reference in the outset to its merits, they have latterly taken a line which must be considered unfavorable to foreign interests at large. My colleagues and I, the Russian chargé d'affaires of course excepted, in view of the considerations so stated, have decided to address to the foreign office communications intended to indicate that we are not regardless of what is passing, with a view, if possible, to save the life of the late ambassador, and to intimate that foreign powers cannot disregard the question of humanity which is involved and the effect of this or other hostile demonstrations upon our general interests. I inclose herewith a copy of the letter which I am writing to Prince Kung. My colleagues for England, Germany, and France, are sending in letters not identical with my own, but such as they have thought best suited to the occasion. Copies of their notes will be transmitted to you at a later moment. I am free to confess that I have been actuated more by a desire to do my duty in a humanitarian point of view than by considerations of danger to our interests. I believe that you and that every man in our land would have the right, if this matter of Chung How's should be carried to an extreme point, to ask whether I had done what I could to save an innocent man from death. But of course such interference subjects one to the danger of provoking resentment. It has been my effort, therefore, to speak, as it were, from the standpoint of the effect which the action proposed by the Chinese will have upon our relations. They cannot complain at all when one keeps within this rule and speaks justly, and I believe that I have done so. I respectfully ask your approval of the course which I have taken in this very difficult and delicate matter. I have, &c., [Inclosure in No. 586, 1 GEORGE F. SEWARD. Informal.] Mr. Seward to Prince Kung. FEBRUARY 6, 1880. The undersigned is constrained to inform your imperial highness that reports are current and have reached his ears indicating that the disposition of a large part of the high officials of this capital toward the late imperial ambassador, Chung How, is very hostile; it would seem even that fears are entertained for his life. Under any ordinary circumstances the undersigned, availing of his privilege as a foreign minister, would apply to your imperial highness for information, but it must be supposed that your imperial highness will not be prepared to make any statement whatever, so long as the matter referred to is under the examination of your government. The undersigned has no alternative, then, but to point out to your imperial highness in this way the fact that the arrest and degradation of a high official for no other offense than that of having returned to his own country after the completion of a special mission abroad, will seem to his government an extraordinary proceeding, the more so when the expectation of the given officer to so return had been announced from the very beginning of his mission, and had been declared to the foreign legations by the Yamên itself at a moment which would indicate that he might have been stopped if it were desired that he should remain at his post. The undersigned is aware that there may be other charges against the late ambassador, but his government will not think it strange that in speaking of the matter the undersigned should put forward with prominence the allegation made in two imperial decrees and the only one which has been made public. If it be true that dissatisfaction exists with the late ambassador in respect of the work done or left undone by him during his recent mission, neither will this appear in the eyes of his government an adequate ground for extreme measures. It is not to be presumed that a high functionary has not acted to the best of his judgment and ability, and with the disposition to do his duty. The case is not without concern to foreign governments when viewed from the one or the other standpoint. They have invited you to establish missions abroad because they have desired to avert the recurrence of difficulties and to draw more closely the bonds of friendship. But what high officer will care hereafter to go abroad when the duty before him is so perilous? What boldness or vigor can be expected of a minister who has to direct his steps to avert not only disaster from his state, but also disaster of the gravest sort from himself? It is the interest of your government and ours that able and experienced men shall fill your missions, and so far as the procedure pursued in the course of the late ambassador appears calculated to discredit such employment, so far it must be regretted by us. The undersigned is not disposed, either, tb pass by the fact that in recent years a better feeling has grown up between foreigners and the people of your empire, and that many of your officers have come to regard foreigners as actuated by generous sentiments and a right regard to justice. What then will be the effect upon the growth of this sentiment of the extreme measures with the late ambassador? Will it point every officer in the empire to the proposition that a special danger attends the conduct of international relations, and that their only safety lies in unreasoning opposition to foreigners? Will it lead the people to believe that the disasters which have befallen the imperial ambassador indicate a revival of the ancient hostility to foreigners? If so, will not the conduct of international affairs become more difficult in every way, and occasions for complaint be multiplied ? The undersigned does not at all magnify the importance of this case. The officer in question has served his government in distinguished ways, and, it must be presumed, acceptably. The matter has importance in this view, but it has a broader importance in view of the fact that his service has been largely in the unfrequented field of foreign intercourse. It is one, then, of unusual significance for your people and for ours, and it will be watched accordingly. The undersigned has hesitated to address your imperial highness in regard to the matter, but his sense of duty to his own government an 1 his friendliness to yours have left him no alternative but to do so. It remains only for him to express the hope that the considerations which he has put forward are receiving attention. The undersigned seizes the occasion to convey to your imperial highness the expressions of his highest consideration. GEORGE F. SEWARD. No. 591. No. 152. Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, February 10, 1880. (Received April 26.) SIR: I have the honor to inform you that the several representatives of foreign powers now present in this capital have considered Prince Kung's response to the collective note of November 10, and have agreed upon a second note asking that the request made in their earlier letter for a conference with the ministers of the Yamên be granted at such early moment as may be convenient. In writing to the Yamên we have indicated that the note of November 10 has been somewhat misunderstood by them, but we have not thought it necessary to speak with particularity upon the subject. My dispatch No. 510 will have shown you that I anticipated such an answer as we received, and that I pointed out the danger to my colleagues. For one reason or another they thought it inconvenient to move in such manner as to avoid this danger, and I yielded to them. You will remember that when the conferences of September-November last indicated a considerable divergence of opinion among the several representatives as to whether it is better to adhere to existing treaty stipulations, and, if not, as to the remedies which should be proposed, I suggested that we would do well to agree, first, upon a statement of grievances, and at a later moment return to the question of remedies, and that this view was assented to by the conference. Our statement of grievances, made in pursuance of the conclusion thus taken, has undoubtedly produced a great effect upon the Chinese. They have seen in it evidence of union among the foreign representatives, and they cannot feel entirely at ease in view of what must seem to them, and in fact is, a formal declaration that they have not executed the treaties in a just way. The primary object of a further conference with them will be to place before them proof of the facts alleged by us. It is necessary to do this for our own defense and in justice to them. But right here there arises a certain danger. The Chinese will advance against us at once the declaration that they read the treaties differently from our reading, and, while admitting our facts, urge that they do not prove a breach of treaty in this or that direction. For this attitude of the Chinese we must be prepared by reaching among ourselves, in advance, a thorough understanding as to the intent of the treaties. The statement of grievances was signed by all of us, and indicates a large measure of accord, but points will arise which may not be covered in this way. I have, therefore, urged upon my colleagues the wisdom of holding at once a further conference among ourselves in order to settle our conclusions as to the intent of the treaties, and to prepare our work for the conferences with the Chinese. My colleagues have assented to the justice of my arguments, but as yet we have held no meetings. It is my intention, when these meetings are called, to bring forward the further proposition, that the time has arrived when we should decide finally whether we will urge our governments to hold fast to existing treaty stipulations, or to seek a common standing ground with the Chinese in such modifications of the treaties as will more or less perfectly satisfy both sides. My earlier dispatches have shown that I am much indisposed to seek change of existing stipulations. It would appear to me, however, that the present moment is the most favorable one which we are likely to have, in which to enter upon the question, and that having emphasized our differences with the Chinese, we may well devote some time to the inquiry whether there is not some compromise to be found which will avert controversy, and secure a measure of advantage to all concerned. To be more definite, we claim, for instance, that all imports may be subjected only to an import duty of 5 per cent. about, and to transit duties when carried into the interior, which transit duties may be commuted by the payment of a half duty, or 2 per cent., in addition to the import duty. The Chinese claim that when our goods are in native hands, they have the right to tax them as they see fit, and they do so. The advantage of a treaty tariff under such circumstances is very problematical indeed. But the collection of duties upon our goods from Chinese is a matter of difficulty and expense. A large number of collectors must be sustained. They have to pitch upon the goods where they can find them, and in the midst of their difficulties and the difficulty of supervising them, all kinds of irregularities take place. The ready means of averting the irregularities so indicated would seem to lie in an agreement with the Chinese, under which our goods would pay all duties on importation. Our merchants, however, say that under such an agreement they would pay an increased duty at once to their certain cost, and that the stipulated freedom of the goods from further taxation would be delusive. This may be all true, but, nevertheless, the difficulties now met are so grave, and the chance of bringing about a better state of things under existing stipulations is so poor, that I am inclined to urge a trial of the remedy. This could be done by a convention with the Chinese, under which the new system would be put into effect for a period of, say, five years. We should thus yield nothing of our view of the intent of the treaties as they stand, and should be in no worse position than at present in case the new system should fail. If it should succeed, it would be of decided benefit to us and to the Chinese, and the principle could be extended to exports, which are also burdened with irregular taxes. I shall place these views before my colleagues whenever we meet. If they accept them, I shall, of course, advise you of the fact at once, and request your instructions. I have, &c., GEORGE F. SEWARD. [Inclosure in No. 591.1 Joint note to Prince Kung. PEKING, February 2, 1850. The undersigned have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the reply of the Prince of Kang, and the ministers of the Tsung-li Yamn, to the collective note regarding the taxation of foreign trale, addressed to his imperial highness and your eminent excellencies by the representatives of the treaty powers upon the 10th November last. In their collective note, the writers expressed a hope that they might be enabled in an early conference to discuss with the ministers of the Tsung-li Yamên, the various matters to which they had requested attention. From the tenor of the reply now received, the undersigned are under the impression that the note of the 10th November has been to a certain extent misunderstood. In order, therefore, to remove any possible misconstruction of their motives in writing it, as well as to secure the object for which it was originally written, the undersigned venture again to request that a time be named for a conference with the Yamên, and they trust that when the New-Year festivities are concluded it may be in the power of the ministers of the Yamên to meet them. The undersigned, &c., &c. THOMAS F. WADE. M. VON BRANDT. No. 596.] No. 153. Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, February 16, 1880. (Received April 26.) SIR: In September last I transmitted to our several consuls in this empire, through the consul-general, copies of the circular letter addressed in March, 1878, by the Tsung li Yamên to the ministers of China in foreign countries, and requested them to report to me their opinions upon its contents. I did this because I was desirous of bringing to their notice the positions taken up by the Chinese in regard to questions which are of daily interest at the ports, and because I was anxious to place before you evidence from divergent sources of the estimation in which the paper in question may be held. The responses which I have received have been less full than I expected. It is my intention to gather them together and send them to you when time will permit, but at the moment I can do no more than to forward the fullest and most careful which has come to hand, that of Dr. Lord, consul at Ningpo, the oldest and most experienced of our officers in China. The report of Dr. Lord has been written from his own standpoint, and with but little opportunity for any comparison of opinions with myself. It seems to me, however, to sustain perfectly the views upon the various questions involved which were long since embraced by me, and which the foreign representatives here, generally, have come to consider those entitled to support. It is a paper, therefore, to which I invite your especial attention." It would be tedious as well as unnecessary to review Dr. Lord's paper, but there are some points in it which need a word of explanation. He refers in sections 3 and 4 to the coast-trade duties, saying that they are not mentioned in the treaties. This is entirely true. The present system was devised after the treaties of 1858 were signed, and was intended to be an equitable arrangement of the matter. Foreign vessels had for a long time shared in the coast trade, paying at the ports of departure and arrival such duties as were demanded of them. Thereafter, however, they were to pay a full duty on all native goods carried out of a Chinese port, just as if the goods were being exported to a foreign |