nothing about. They object to lekin simply as applied to their own trade. And they object to it here not on the ground which the language of the note would seem to imply, namely, that the Chinese Government has not the same right that other nations have “in raising loans or increasing taxes," but on the ground that, in doing so, it has agreed, in the matter of foreign goods, to collect prescribed duties and to abstain from all others.

Again, as to this matter of lekin, objected to alike by foreign and Chinese merchants, it is said "that the government regards it only as a temporary expedient." What may have been or what may now be the intentions of the Chinese Government in this respect we need not discuss. It may, however, be in place to remark that this system of taxation, known as lekin, has been in operation now for many years, and, although the "troublous times" said to have made it a necessity, have long since ceased, the remedial measure has in no respect been laid aside. On the contrary, lekin is more of an institution now than it has been at any time before; and so strongly has it become intrenched in official greed, so closely is it watched, and so carefully is it guarded that the prospect of its being "only a temporary expedient" appears nnhopeful. However, so far it is only purely a Chinese matter, a war betwixt the people and their rulers, and we may stand aside and let them fight it out. This should and would have been our attitude had the Chinese Government permitted it. But its action in undertaking to lekin foreign goods as well as native has necessarily drawn us into the conflict. But in this conflict we are not allies, we stand simply in self-defense, and our war is not against lekin, but against lekin applied to us.

The Chinese Government undertakes to show the unreasonableness of foreigners in complaining of its action in this respect. "Independentpowers,” it says, “must be guided by national necessities in fixing their taxation. We maintain," it adds, that all such matters should be left to be determined by China herself, and that the foreigner has no more right to interfere with or object to them than China would have to interfere with or criticise the action of a foreign government in raising loans or increasing taxes."

In reply to these remarks one can hardly help an expression of surprise, that the Chinese Government should seem not to see that in the comparison here made, it calls things the same that are much unlike. If China has no right to criticise a foreign government for increasing its taxation on her goods, it is because that government has not agreed with China to abstain from doing so. On the other hand, if foreign governments complain of China for increasing her taxation on their goods, it is on the ground that she has agreed with them not to do it. And if the question be raised why foreign nations should ask of China what China does not ask of them, the answer is easy. In the former case there is a need, in the latter there is none. Let us look a little at the two cases.

In the United States, there are no lekin burdens, and no transit duty obstructions. When Chinese or other merchants land their goods at our ports and clear them of the customs duty, they are at liberty to take them to any place they like. No restriction is laid upon them or their goods. In like manner they may go to any part of the country and purchase goods. And when purchased they can take them to the ports and ship them without any government tax or official surveillance. Here, then, in the matter of trade, there is nothing to ask for. Every needed protection and every possible facility are afforded without asking. The state of things is very different in China. Here our merchants are under many restraints. If they go into the country they must go covered with passports. If they take goods with them their goods must be covered with transit certificates. These certificates must state precisely the kind and quantity of the goods, and the place to which they are destined. Then if the goods should stop short of the place specified, or go beyond it, or if any of them should be sold by the way, they are all to be confiscated. To begin with, there is the trouble of procuring transit certificates, and the expense of transit dues, which are supposed to exempt the goods from lekin charges, but which, as we shall yet see, only suspend them while in transit. Then en route both certificates and goods must be submitted for examination at all the barriers (lekin stations) passed. In this way time is lost, expenses are increased, misunderstandings arise, goods are seized, and litigations ensue. The same difficulties burden and obstruct our outward trade. Now, considering how reluctantly China opened to us her trade, and how many burdensome restrictions she has been inclined to force upon it, can it be very difficult to see how much need we had, in our negotiations relating to it, to ask of her what she had no need to ask of us, a prescribed method of taxation?

Having expressed surprise at the disposition of foreigners to complain of lekin charges, the circular note proceeds to add: “If foreign merchants desire to escape the lekin, they can escape it; all they have to do is to supply themselves with transit certificates when taking foreign goods into the interior or bringing native produce out of the interior." This remark, had it not been differently explained in another part of the paper, would lead us to suppose that goods having paid the prescribed duty and become covered by transit certificates, would thereafter be exempt from lekin charges.

But we have been told in paragraph 4, that the exemption lasts only while the goods are passing to their place of destination; that having "arrived there, the certificate becomes waste paper and the goods thereafter differ in no respect from ordinary uncertificated goods." Now, with this explanation of the language, we are at a loss to know what could have been its object here. It must have been known to the Chinese Government that the complaint of foreigners in the matter of lekin, is not against lekin as levied on their goods during transit, but against lekin as levied on their goods at all. How then, on the Chinese theory, could foreign merchants, by taking out transit certificates, escape lekin? Were the Chinese Government asked to answer this question, it could of course only repeat what we so often hear from its provincial and local officials, that the interest of the foreign merchant in his goods ceases on their arrival at their destination, and that whatever treatment they receive after passing into native hands, is a matter of no concern to him. It is difficult to understand how men of insight can seriously maintain a hypothesis like this. But on the supposition that they can, one is disposed to ask them one or two other questions. And first, suppose the Chinese Government or its provincial authorities were for some reason of their own to undertake to destroy all foreign goods so soon as they pass into native hands, would this be a matter of concern to the foreign merchant or one to be complained of as a breach of treaty stipulations? In this case, no doubt, the answer would be "Yes, for this would be equivalent to the prohibition of foreign trade, which of course the treaties would not permit." Well, now, suppose the procedure is not to destroy the goods but to tax them so as to produce the same result, how would the matter stand then? The reply would be, "In the same way, of course, for the destruction of trade is not permitted." It is admitted, then, that the foreign merchant has an interest in his goods, after passing into native hands, to the end that his trade may not be destroyed. Has he not the same interest in them to the end that his trade may not be injured? The foreign merchant knows, and it would seem that everybody must know, that whatever taxes are laid upon his goods are taxes upon his trade. Moreover, it must be known that when these taxes reach a certain limit his trade becomes unproductive, and that when this limit is passed his trade becomes impossible. The process of taxing goods may be as destructive to trade as the process of burning them, and it makes little difference to the merchant which process is used when the result is the same.

But to pass from principles to facts, what taxes are actually levied on foreign goods! First, of course, there is the import duty. Then, if the goods are sent into the inte rior, there is the transit duty. And then in all cases there is lekin. If goods are sold at the port, they must pay lekin at the port; if they are sent into the interior, they must, in addition to the transit duty, pay lekin in the interior. Whenever the goods are sold, be it at the port or in the interior, the lekin is rigidly exacted. The treaties presume that the foreign merchant importing goods and clearing them from the customs can take them to his godown and sell them, without their being subjected to further charges, to any one who will buy them. But, under present lekin regulalations, no native will buy them, no native would dare buy them, till they have paid the lekin charges and cleared from the lekin office, for if they should be found off the foreign merchant's premises and in the possession of natives without lekin receipts, they would be seized and confiscated. Who procures these receipts; and who pays for them? They are procured by the seller or the buyer as may be arranged by the parties themselves. But in either case it is the owner of the goods who is taxed. To illustrate, let us suppose a foreign merchant imports a lot of goods worth, in the absence of lekin, $10,000; but when he comes to sell them he finds them burdened with lekin claims amounting, we will suppose, to 5 per cent., or $500. The buyer says to the merchant, "I will take your goods at $10,000, you paying the lekin, or at $9,500, if I pay it." The sale is effected on these conditions, it being impossible to effect it on any other. The same thing happens if the merchant takes or sends his goods into the interior; they must pay lekin, and lekin is a tax on his trade. The statement, therefore, that "if foreign merchants desire to escape the lekin, they can escape it, all they have to do is to supply themselves with transit certificates," is misleading. There is really but one way to escape it, and that is to give up business. 7. The question of jurisdiction, i. e., extraterritoriality, is taken up in this section. The treaties, it is said, exempt foreigners from the jurisdiction of the Chinese authorities and place them under that of their own. "But," it is added, "foreigners claim much more than this; they interpret this extraterritorial privilege as meaning not only that Chinese officials are not to control them, but that they may disregard and violate Chinese regulations with impunity." This charge is doubtless inconsiderate. No such claim could have been made by intelligent and respectable foreigners; for amongst them there is no principle better understood or more firmly held than that one is bound to respect and observe the laws of the country, both of which he may be a cit izen and in which he may be a sojourner. If there has been any expression on this subject that could have given to the Chinese Government occasion for the complaint here made, it must have had reference not to what are commonly called the laws of

the country, but to some national or local usages which afford no benefit to society' and so have upon it no claim for observance. And this would seem to be indicated by the example used for illustration-the act of passing through a prohibited passage. An act of this kind might be wrong, but not necessarily so. The right or wrong could be determined only on knowing the circumstances. If, on knocking at a man's gate, we were told that entrance was prohibited on the ground that the proprietor was absent, or ill, or engaged, we should at once respect the prohibition as one of reason and obligation. But if, in passing along the highway, we were stopped in front of an image, a statue, or a temple, and asked to dismount from our horse or to descend from our chair, as it was forbidden to pass these objects except on foot, this would be a prohibition the reason for which many foreigners would not see, and one which it is quite possible they might hesitate to observe.

Again, in entering an official residence, a question might be raised as to the gate or passage by which the entrance should be made. Now, on the one hand, it is clear that the officer in charge of the residence has the right to control its gates and passages, and, if the foreigner enters, he must enter by the way that is open to him. But, on the other hand, the foreigner has rights as well as the officer, and if it should appear to him that the way which he is asked to enter indicates a want of that courtesy which a host should show to his visitor, he may reasonably decline to enter it; and the harm, if any should follow, will lie at the door of him who is really at fault. In this and in all such like cases both parties have rights, and neither is to trample upon those of the other.

With this disavowal of the charge that foreigners claim "that they may disregard and violate Chinese regulations with impunity," it may be only fair now to admit that there may have been instances, and possibly not a few, where Chinese regulations have been disregarded and where Chinese rights have been trampled upon by foreigners. But these are wrongs to be regretted. No right is or has been claimed to commit them. On the contrary, when committed, if brought to public notice they have been condemned, and if brought into foreign courts they have probably been punished. And if at any time they have been committed with impunity, it must have been owing to circumstances other than a wish or a willingness on the part of foreign governments or their officials to withhold redress.

The interpretation of the treaties here given on the matter discussed, that their meaning is, "not that a foreigner is at liberty to break Chinese laws, but that, if he offends, he shall be punished by his own national officials," will no doubt be accepted as correct, if the understanding be that these officials are to be the judges both of the offense committed and of the punishment to be awarded. And that such is the understanding seems probable from the remark, "If they commit an offense, their own authorities are to punish them, according to their own national laws." There would seem then to be little or no ground for misunderstandings on this matter. On the one hand, the Chinese Government maintains that foreigners, while residing in its country, are required to obey its laws; and the obligation to do so foreigners readily admit, understanding of course, by laws, the regulations needful to secure the peace and welfare of society. On the other hand, foreigners maintain that they are auswerable for all their real or supposed offenses only to their own officials; and this is readily admitted by the Chinese Government. What is there, then, to contend about? There is really nothing, unless it be supposed that something will be called laws on the one side which will not be regarded as such on the other. This may or may not happen, but, if it does, the Chinese Government must not overlook the fact that, in assenting to this extraterritorial arrangement, it has left the decision of these questions in the hands of the defendant's judge. If a foreigner offends, or is supposed to offend, against Chinese laws, he can be complained of to his consul; and it will be for his consul to ascertain what, if any, law he has violated, and what, if any, punishment he should suffer. But it is presumed that it would seldom, if ever, happen that the Chinese Government would be inclined to complain of foreigners for acts other than those forbidden and punishable by foreign laws as well as their own.

The matter taken up in the latter part of this section is one of great importance. "Seeing that China has agreed that judicial powers shall be exercised by foreign consuls within Chinese territory, foreign governments should on their side take care that none but good and reliable men are appointed to these posts." The matter here brought forward is not only important, but in place; and the position taken in regard to it is entirely correct. Indeed, it is a matter of wonder that the position of any foreign governments in reference to it should have been such as to have fairly subjected them to the reproof and the instruction here administered. The practice of making merchants consuls is objectionable, even in countries where they have no judicial functions, but to make them such in countries like this is so obviously unsuitable and so obviously wrong that no government should ever have done it, or even thought of doing it. It may be hoped that when attention is sufficiently drawn to this objectionable practice it will cease. If it should not, the Chinese Government would do well to refuse exequaturs to such consuls.

But the Chinese Government has reason to object not only to merchant consuls but to all consuls who are incompetent to perform their duties. So its remark is well put, that "Foreign governments should on their side take care that none but good and reliable men are appointed to these posts." It is much to be hoped that this remark will not only meet the eyes but sink deeply into the hearts of those whose duty it is to appoint consuls for this country. The Chinese Government of course cannot be an examining board, to put these officers on trial when they arrive and apply for their exequaturs; but as governments that send them expect them to be received and treated with respect, so both reason and justice would demand that they should send those worthy of such treatment.

8. This section discusses the meaning of the most-favored-nation clause of the treaties. I see nothing unfair in the views here expressed.

9. Our attention is here called to the "missionary question," and the attitude of the Chinese Government towards it, so far as it is stated here, seems to be in accordance with the treaties. It has by treaty assented to missionaries coming to teach their doctrines in China, and has also guaranteed protection to them and to their converts." "But," it is added, "among the missionaries are some who, exalting the importance of their office, arrogate to themselves an official status, and interfere so far as to transact business that ought properly to be dealt with by the Chinese local authorities; while among their converts are some who look upon their being Christians as protecting them from the consequences of breaking the laws of their own country, and refuse to observe the rules which are binding on their neighbors. This state of things China cannot tolerate or submit to. Chinese subjects, whether Christians or not, to be counted good subjects, must render an exact obedience to the laws of China; if any offend against those laws they must, one and all, Christians and non-Christians alike, submit to be dealt with by their own native authorities, and the foreign missionary cannot be permitted to usurp the right of shielding them from the consequences of their act." The right here claimed by the Chinese Government, that of governing its own subjects, "Christians and non-Christians alike," must certainly be admitted, and one can hardly suppose that it has ever been disputed, either by foreign governments or by foreign officials. Why, then, the very strong declaration of this right which we find in the words here quoted? We should be utterly at a loss to know but for the accompanying statement that some missionaries have arrogated to themselves an official status and assumed authority belonging to the local magistrates.

This is a grave charge, and, before accepting it, one has a right to be put in possession of the facts upon which it is based. As for myself, without denying its truth, I must yet say that a somewhat extended acquaintance, both with missionaries and their operations, has furnished me with no facts that would serve to corroborate it. The statement may have special reference, I suppose it has, to the Catholic missionaries. But even in regard to them I think it should not pass unchallenged, or be accepted without proof. Quite likely in the interior, where there are no consular officers, these missionaries may in some cases have undertaken to afford protection to their converts against persecution, or against wrongs to which their religion or their connection with foreigners would be likely to subject them. And quite likely in their endeavors to do this, they may have committed some improprieties. More likely it has oftener happened that where no real improprieties have been committed they have been charged with them by unfriendly officials. And in all cases, it must be borne in mind, reports of their conduct, whatever it may have been, would reach the Peking government only through tortuous and distorting channels. The charge, then, is by no means proved because it is stated. It is open also to other objections. In the first place, there was no need of its being made. If wrongs of the kind stated had been committed, the proper course to take was to trace out the wrong doers and report them to their respective authorities, and not to indulge in general complaint against a class.

Again, it is put forward as the occasion for insisting upon a certain right, as if that right had really been or was likely to be endangered. Again, it is a charge of wrong unaccompanied with proof. And again, it is so made that it subjects to suspicion the innocent with the guilty.

China, of course, must rule her own people, as well those who become Christians as those who do not. No one can deprive her of this natural right; and no one, it is presumed, has or ever has had any intention or wish to do it. On the other hand, China has pledged herself to permit the people to become Christians, if they choose to do so, and to protect them from all persecutions on that account. The Peking government, it is presumed, has acted, and has the intention to act, in good faith in this matter. If, now, it would instruct and require all its officials throughout the provinces to do the same, it would take a long step in the way of preventing those complications known as "missionary difficulties," and of facilitating the settlement of those that might arise. If a general and hearty disposition were manifested on the part of these officials to afford to missionaries and to Christian converts the toleration which the treaties guarantee, and which both reason and justice demand, there would probably be very

little heard about missionary interference; for there can hardly be a doubt that in most if not in all cases where missionaries come in collision with native authorities, it is owing to acts of intolerance on their part. In ordinary disputes, although neither party is likely to be faultless, the aggressor is always held to be the greater sinner. Applying this rule here, one can hardly see with what propriety the Chinese Government comes forward as a complainant in this matter.

If missionaries have interfered in matters belonging to local magistrates, it is pretty certain that there have been occasions for their interference. Let the Chinese Government put an end to these occasions, then it will be in a position to complain should there be any cause for it.

10. I see no occasion for remarks upon this section, as it is only a recapitulation of the matters previously discussed.

In closing these comments I have, in the first place, to apologize for their great length; and in the second place to express my regret that, through want of time and strength, I am unable to condense and put them in a better shape.

I have the honor to be, &c.,

EDWARD C. LORD.

No. 605.]

No. 154.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Peking, February 23, 1880. (Received April 26.) SIR: I have the honor to hand to you herewith a copy of the response made by the foreign office to my letter in regard to the case of Chung How. My colleagues, the English, German, and French representatives have received notes of the same tenor.

While the fate of Chung How is not yet known, it seems to me that the determination reached by the government to reopen negotiations with Russia, and the knowledge that extreme measures in his case would cause general dissatisfaction and effect prejudicially their further representations at St. Petersburg, indicate that the moment of gravest danger for him has passed.

I have, &c.,

GEORGE F. SEWARD.

[Inclosure in No. 605.]

Prince Kung to Mr. Seward.

(Informal.)

FEBRUARY 16, 1880.

I have had the honor to receive your excellency's note touching certain matters which concern the governments of China and Russia, and the punishment to be dealt to His Excellency Chung How, in which your excellency manifests much interest and anxiety.

The ministers and I beg leave to express our highest appreciation for the faithful friendship and regard for the good or ill fortune of China so fully manifested by your excellency.

The matters mentioned above have been, by an imperial decree, referred to a council, and although a line of action has not yet been determined upon, yet it is certainly to be hoped that the present circumstances may be considered, and a reasonable and satisfactory course pursued.

In this the ministers and myself are of one opinion with your excellency.

Being aware that these matters have received the serious attention of your excellency, I beg leave in the first instance to make reply as above.

Cards and compliments.