home, secular knowledge has been taught in them to some extent. Missionaries in this part of China have not, as a general thing, encouraged their pupils to learn English; but they have tried to teach them history, geography, mathematics, philosophy, astronomy, physiology, medicine, &c., and their efforts have no doubt been attended with some success. The number thus instructed may not have been very large, and, bearing in mind the great difficulties under which the instruction must have been given, we can hardly suppose that the results have been very great. Still, something has been done. A beginning at least has been made in the work of a higher and better education among this people. Though aside from these mission schools there has been in this place no organized efforts for the education of Chinese in foreign knowledge, one will often meet with Chinese who have acquired more or less of this knowledge. Some of these have been taught in schools elsewhere, either at other ports or in foreign countries, and others have in one way or another been so related that this knowledge has in various degrees come to them. And these instances are continually increasing. The number of Chinese who speak English, and who have more or less English education, is less here than at some of the other ports. They naturally go to places where there is a demand for these qualifications. There has, so far, been very little demand for them here. This reminds me of a matter to which I have long been wishing to call your attention. It is the inconvenience and disadvantage under which consular officers are placed in being required to write their dispatches in Chinese to Chinese officials. I wish to say something on this subject, but perhaps I had better do it in another letter and when I have more leisure. I have, &c., [Inclosure 11 in No. 705.] Mr. Denny to Mr. Seward. EDWARD C. LORD. No. 37.] TIENTSIN, March 9, 1880. SIR: In reply to your dispatch No. 78, I beg to state that the only educational establishment of any kind where Chinese may acquire foreign knowledge is the torpedo school connected with the imperial arsenal. Up to last autumn the school had been for three years under the care of Mr. Betts, an English telegrapher, and the class of fifteen young men who graduated last year and carried off the honors of feathers and buttons, plumed themselves upon their acquirement of the English alphabet, words of two syllables, the first four rules of arithmetic, and a few chapters in geography. They were at once told off to the several forts and telegraph stations in this neighborhood, and having acquired official employment it is not likely that they will give more attention to foreign studies. A new class of twenty-seven boys is now being grounded in the alphabet by Mr. Spencer Laisun, a Chinese, who has attended school in the United States. There is now no foreigner connected with the school, and, as a measure of economy, there is no intention to engage another. At Chefoo there is a missionary school, where boys are taught foreign arithmetic, geography, and the elements of natural science, through the medium of their own language. Excepting the imperial college at Peking, these are the only organized efforts being made within this consular district to introduce foreign learning. I have, &c., No. 173. Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts. O. N. DENNY. No. 718.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, July 5, 1880. (Received August 27.) SIR: I have the honor to hand to you herewith a translation of a note which I have received from Prince Kung, inclosing a copy of an important edict in the case of Chung How, late Chinese minister to Russia. I am informed, on what seems to be good authority, that the Kuldja question and Chung How's case have recently been made the subject of the deliberations of a council of state at this capital. One of the results of these deliberations is the decree given herewith. I learn further that a wide difference of opinion was manifested in the council between the members of the so-called pro-foreign and anti-foreign parties in Chinese politics as to the proper course to be taken in the present condition of affairs, and that eight of the members of the council, headed by the older brother of Prince Kung, refused to sign the report to the Throne upon which the present edict is based. The action thus taken indicates a disposition favorable to peace on the part of this government, and that the counsels of Prince Kung are again in the ascendency. The childish condition attached to the suspension of punishment or the pardon of Chung How that he is to remain in prison until the settlement with Russia is effected, was probably demanded by Prince Kung's opponents. I have, &c., GEORGE F. SEWARD. [Inclosure 1 in No. 718.] Prince Kung to Mr. Seward. JULY 3, 1880. I had the honor to receive some time since a note from your excellency in the matter of the punishment inflicted upon the minister Chung How, to which a reply was duly made. His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of China is much concerned lest aversion and distrust shall grow out of this business, the possibility of which was indicated in your excellency's note. His Imperial Majesty therefore, as an act of special grace, has revoked the punishment denounced upon Chung How, in evidence of the friendly feeling between China and Russia. I beg leave to submit herewith a copy of the imperial decree for your information, and to express my gratitude to your excellency. Cards and compliments. AN IMPERIAL DECREE. As Chung How, sent as our envoy to Russia, violated his instructions and exceeded his powers, and because the treaty made by him contained many stipulations which were impracticable, our high ministers of state in counsel deliberated upon his offenses and decided that he should be decapitated after the autumn assizes as a punishment befitting his guilt. But now we hear from without* that this matter is discussed and that many are of opinion that the punishment of Chung How on the part of China reflects upon the dignity of Russia. This is very far from being the design of the Imperial Throne. China has been upon a footing of amity with Russia for more than two hundred years, and it is assuredly our desire that this may continue to the end of time, and that the amicable relations of friendly states may not be destroyed. Chung How, in obedience to our mandate, acting as our minister, without deliberate and careful negotiations with Russia, recklessly gave assent to stipulations which China cannot fulfill. He has brought his punishment upon himself. The Throne deals with him according to the statutes, and maintains that, in thus acting, the laws of China deal with a minister of China, and that Russia is not affected in any way. But we fear that, as the report of our action must travel to a great distance and be transmitted from one to another, the real motives which have prompted the conduct of China in this business may not be perfectly understood; that aversion and distrust may spring from a misapprehension of our motives, and that friendly relations will be unavoidably interfered with. Outside the palace.-C. H. We, therefore, acting outside of the statutes, and as a special mark of grace, remit temporarily the sentence of decapitation after the autumn assizes passed upon Chung How. Let him, however, be detained in prison until the Marquis Tseng shall have reached Russia, and it shall appear how the matters at issue may be adjusted, when a further decree in his case will be made known. Let the Marquis Tseng upon the receipt of this decree inform the Government of Russia that the sentence of decapitation passed upon Chung How has been temporarily remitted, and let him state that in this act is to be seen an evidence of the friendly sentiments of China towards Russia. In the treaty stipulations which he must negotiate, let him deal with the business and reach a satisfactory solution, in accordance with our will as already expressed to him. Respect this. No. 719.] No. 174. Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, July 6, 1880. (Received August 27.) SIR: I have the honor to hand to you, herewith, a copy of a dispatch which I have received from our consul at Ningpo, discussing the question why foreign officials should not make use of their own language in their communications to the Chinese authorities, and stating his conviction that the time has come when the Chinese should be called upon to do their share of the work of translating official communications. I have responded to Dr. Lord, that he is at liberty to send his dispatches to the authorities in English if he can do so without sacrificing any of the interests committed to him. I have, &c., GEORGE F. SEWARD. [Inclosure 1 in No. 719.] Mr. Lord to Mr. Seward. No. 124.] NINGPO, May 31, 1880. SIR: I venture to submit a few remarks for your consideration on the question which forms the subject of this letter, namely, "Why should not foreign officials use their own language in their communications addressed to the Chinese authorities?" That they should do so, and that they should do so as soon as it could be made practicable, was certainly contemplated at the time when the treaties were made, as a number of these treaties have stipulations to that effect. In the English treaty, Article I, we read: "All official communications addressed by the diplomatic and consular agents of Her Majesty the Queen to the Chinese authorities shall, henceforth, be written in English. They will, for the present, be accompanied by a Chinese version, but it is understood that, in the event of there being any difference of meaning between the English and Chinese text, the English Government will hold the sense as expressed in the English text to be the correct one." The language of the French treaty, Article III, is to the same effect, only more explicit. We read: "Les communications officielles des agents diplomatiques et consulaires français avec les autorités chinoises seront écrites en français, mais seront accompagnées, pour faciliter le service, d'une traduction chinoise aussi exacte que possible, jusqu'au moment où le gouvernement impérial de Pékin ayant des interprètes pour parler et écrire correctement le français, la correspondance aura lien dans cette langue pour les agents français, et en chinois pour les fonctionnaires de l'empire." Several of the other treaties have similar stipulation, but I need not burden this letter with further quotations. Their language on this subject is the language of reason, simply stating what should be, and what commonly is, official custom, that communications are made in the language of the party addressing, and that translations of them, if translations are needed, must be provided by the party addressed. There would be no justice, there would be great inconvenience in laying the burden of making these translations all upon one side. And so it is never done except under extraordinary circumstances, and then only, as here contemplated, till these circumstances can be changed. At the time these treaties were made, it was understood that the Chinese Government could not perform its part of this work, for the want of suitable interpreters. So foreign governments kindly consented to perform this work for it, until it should have time to provide its interpreters, it being understood, of course, that prompt and efficient effort would be made in that direction. This was many years ago, time more than enough for all the interpreters needed to have been born, reared, trained, and put into service. But we see them not. The burden which we took up then we have still to carry; and there is very little doubt but we shall have to carry it forever, unless we ourselves determine to lay it down. The Chinese certainly will never offer to relieve us of it. They understand too well the convenience and advantage afforded them by their present freedom. But we need not blame them for this. We might do the same in like circumstances, for we can easily imagine what a convenience it would be to us, if, in our intercourse with these officials, we could use our own language in our communications to them, and then have them use it in their communications to us. To be rid of the endless bother which we now experience, first in trying to understand them, and then in trying to make them understand us, would be a boon that we might well covet. This boon-this peculiar privilege-they have long enjoyed, and one can hardly wonder if they are loth to part with it now. Of course the peculiar privilege which they have enjoyed we cannot expect. We cannot ask the Chinese to speak and write to us in English. They will use their own language, and it is right and proper that they should, but we may ask and insist upon a similar right, the right to use our language in our communications to them. I do not know whether you will regard this a subject of sufficient importance to demand your attention either now or at some future time. But it is one which practical difficulties have often forced upon my attention; and I have taken the liberty of submitting to you these few remarks upon it. SIR: I have had the honor to receive your very interesting dispatch No. 124. I concur in your view that it is desirable to use the English language in letters addressed to the Chinese authorities, whenever we can do so without injury to the interests involved, and that it will be allowable to write in English, having reference to treaty stipulations and to some, at least, international usages. If you believe, then, that you can discontinue the preparation of dispatches in Chinese, sending them to the authorities in English, without sacrificing the interest confided to you, you have my full approval for adopting such course. I am, &c., GEORGE. F. SEWARD. No. 726.] No. 175. Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, July 10, 1880. (Received August 27.) SIR Referring to my dispatch No. 718, in which were inclosed copies. of a note and edict regarding Chung How, late Chinese minister to Russia, I now have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a note in reply which I am sending to Prince Kung. Asking your approval of this action on my part, I have, &c., GEORGE F. SEWARD. Informal.] [Inclosure in No. 726.] Mr. Seward to Prince Kung. PEKING, July 10, 1880. I have had the honor to receive the letter which your imperial highness addressed to me on the 3d instant in regard to the case of Chung How. When I had the honor some time since to communicate to your imperial highness certain views which I held touching the matter in question, I spoke, as is my habit, with sincere and earnest feelings of friendship for China, and I desire now to express to you my thanks for the very considerate manner in which you received my words. It is not likely that I should have again spoken upon this subject had your imperial highness not again addressed me, for I recognize, as does my government, your right to deal with your officers in your own way. But since I have received a further letter from you, I think it not inappropriate to state that my government has informed me that it specially approved the language used in my earlier note. You will see from this that the information of the suspension of the sentence of the ex-embassador will be received with appreciation at Washington, and that the clemency of the Emperor will be regarded as indicating his disposition to promote peaceful relations with all countries, and to deal considerately with a person who has served the state in distinguished ways. I seize this occasion, &c. GEORGE F. SEWARD. No. 739.] No. 176. Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, July 28, 1880. (Received September 15.) SIR Recurring to my dispatch No. 665, in which I informed you that the diplomatic body had confided to the German minister the negotiation on its behalf with the foreign office of the reforms needed in the export trade, and to my dispatch No. 695, covering a report of an interview had by Mr. von Brandt with the Chinese ministers upon this subject, I have now the honor to hand to you herewith a copy of a letter which I have received from him, giving the results of a second interview in the same matter. You will notice that the ministers declared their inability to enter upon a further discussion at present. I have, &c., GEORGE F. SEWARD. [Inclosure 1 in No. 739.] Mr. von Brandt to Mr. Seward. Mr. von Brandt presents his compliments to his excellency Mr. Seward, and has the honor to inform him that he met the ministers of the Tsung-li Yamên on the 17th instant, on the subject of transit-passes outwards. The ministers present, Shen, Wang, Tung, and Chung-li, declared that they had not yet received the reports they had asked for from the provincial authorities, except from those at Wuhu and that they could not therefore enter upon any discussion of the subject. They added that they would prefer to arrange all the questions at the same time. Mr. von Brandt answered to this, that he did not object in principle to such a course being pursued, but that he could not allow the proposal to be used only as a means for postponing the settlement of the question now before the Yamên; that the treaties were explicit on the subject of transit-passes; that, moreover, regulations issued by the customs authorities and approved by the legations existed, and that therefore there could be no reason why the issue of transit-passes should not be proceeded |