Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1894, With the Annual Message of the President, Transmitted to Congress, December 3, 1894

Mr. Denby, chargé, to Mr. Gresham.

Legation of the United States,
Peking , June 8, 1894 . (Received July 18, 1894.)

No. 1861.]

Sir: I have been advised by the U. S. consul at Canton, under date of the 21st ultimo, that the long-standing trouble between the missionaries and the local authorities at Kiungchow, in the island of Hainan, over a piece of property, has culminated in the seizure of the land in dispute by the authorities and the forcible ejectment of the missionaries therefrom.

The gravity of this case has been, the consul assures me, greatly exaggerated and the difficulties of it have been largely due to the indiscreet conduct of the members of the mission. He hopes to arrive by patience at a satisfactory arrangement of the dispute, and to this end has asked me to bring the matter to the attention of the Yamên.

The circumstances of this case are as follows:

Eight or nine years ago Mr. Jeremiassen, a Danish subject belonging to the American Presbyterian Mission, brought about the purchase of a piece of land at Kiungchow by a native Christian. This land was then conveyed by the native Christian to Mr. Jeremiassen, and by him to the American Presbyterian Mission. The deeds were recorded in the U. S. consulate at Canton. In September, 1886, this last deed and six antecedent deeds were sent by the consul to the taotai for authentication, in accordance with Chinese custom. These deeds have never been authenticated nor returned and they remain to this day in the possession of the authorities. To demands for their restoration, the authorities reply that the seller had no right to sell without the consent of others; that the Chinese buyer was a fictitious personage (the mission dares not produce him for fear of persecution), and that the ground is unsuitable for missionary purposes, as it adjoins a spot where the Chinese have, or will soon have, a powder magazine. They offer to return the $800 of purchase money to the mission. In the meantime the property has remained in the possession of the missionaries, who have used a small building on it as a dispensary.

The consul has been trying to induce the authorities to assist in procuring another site, and in April last the viceroy at Canton offered to instruct the local officials to consult with the missionaries on this question. But, as a preliminary to these negotiations, he insisted that the missionaries should receive the purchase money back, thus giving up all claim to the land which has been, until its recent seizure, in their possession. This the missionaries refuse, and demand on their part the issuing of a proclamation informing the people that no one will be punished for selling land to foreigners or Christians, which, they say, would remove all difficulty as to securing another site. To this the viceroy does not consent.

In this deadlock matters remained until very recently. A few weeks ago the missionaries, impatient of delay, prepared building materials for the construction of houses on the disputed ground. They appealed to the consul at Canton for protection in this operation. To his representations to the viceroy on the subject he received a reply that no harm should come to anyone, but that no building on the land would be permitted. Affairs came to a crisis on the 13th ultimo.

On the evening of that day some officers of the district magistrate’s Yamên, accompanied by three literati and some employés, removed the contents of the building on the ground in dispute, affixed another lock to it, closed it and locked it, and thus practically ejected the mission from the premises.

The lack of judgment displayed by the missionaries in attempting to build in the face of decided official opposition constitutes no justification for such arbitrary proceedings. The consul at Canton took up the case, and, after consultation with the more experienced missionaries of that locality, decided to recommend the missionaries not to attempt to erect buildings at present, and in the meantime to urge the viceroy to cooperate in the selection of another site, and to issue a proclamation assuring immunity from persecution of Chinese who may propose to sell land to foreigners. He also requests this legation to bring before the Yamên (1) the unjustifiable proceedings of the officials in retaining possession of the deeds; (2) the recent arbitrary ejectment of the mission from its property; (3) compliance with the missionaries’ reasonable request for a proclamation.

I have complied with this request and have this date forwarded to the Yamên a dispatch, of which I inclose a copy.

It remains to be said that the missionaries in Hainan do not seem to have considered the action of the consul in their behalf as sufficient. They cabled to their board in New York to notify the U. S. Government of the seizure of their property. Mr. Jeremiassen also availed of his Danish citizenship to wire the Russian minister, who represents Denmark here, that his life was in danger. The minister sent his interpreter to the Yamên to demand Mr. Jeremiassen’s protection, and the Yamên telegraphed the viceroy at Canton giving orders to that effect. In a note of the 1st instant, communicated to me by the Russian minister, the Yamên reported that they had received telegraphic assurances from the Hainan officials that there was absolutely no danger; that the populace was favorably disposed to the missionaries, and that the sole dispute was an unsettled lawsuit with reference to a piece of land. They accused Mr. Jeremiassen of willfully stirring up trouble, and requested that he be ordered to peacefully pursue his missionary calling.

The difficulties of acquiring land in Hainan have not been experienced by Americans alone. The British Government has for many years been trying to secure a suitable site for a consulate, and the foreign customs were long unable to buy property at Kiungchow. The viceroy at Canton and the Government at Peking do not always exercise supreme control in the island. I hope, however, that patience and reasonable conduct may ultimately obtain for our missionaries another suitable site in lieu of the one of which they have been deprived.

I have, etc.,

Charles Denby, Jr.

[Inclosure in No. 1861.]

Mr. Denby, jr., to the Tsung-li-Yamén.

June 8, 1894.

Your Highness and Your Excellencies: I have the honor to bring to your notice the unlawful conduct of certain officials in the island of Hainan with reference to a piece of land belonging to the American Presbyterian Mission. The circumstances of this case are as follows:

In the year 1886, Mr. Jeremiassen, a Danish subject, bought a piece of land in the city of Kiungchow, in Hainan, and then sold it to the American Presbyterian Mission. This sale was recorded in the U. S. consulate at Canton. The deeds making this transfer and six antecedent deeds were sent in September, 1886, to the taotai at Kiuugchow for examination and authentication. These deeds have remained in the hands of the Chinese authorities, who have persistently refused all demands for their delivery. In the meantime the American missionaries have remained in possession of the property and have used a small house situated thereon as a dispensary. Objections existed on the part of the officials to the possession by the missionaries of this particular piece of land, and the missionaries, on their part, were willing to receive another in place of it if some suitable site were offered them. Though often appealed to by the consul, the viceroy at Canton and the Hainan officials took no steps for making such an exchange.

Some weeks ago the missionaries, wearied by this delay, resolved to build upon the land in their possession and prepared materials for the purpose. To this proceeding strenuous opposition was manifested by the authorities.

On the 13th of last month some officers of the district magistrate’s Yamên, accompanied by three literati and some employés, proceeded in the evening to the disputed land. The house situated thereon was guarded by a watchman. This man they drove away, and, removing the contents of the house, they placed another lock upon it, locked it, and thus turned the mission out of its own property.

I have to remark to your highness and your excellencies that such a proceeding is entirely unlawful and inadmissible. The missionaries were willing and are now willing to take another piece of property in exchange for the site to which the officials objected. Until such a change had been effected the property in dispute remained the property of the missionaries and the taotai had no authority to enter upon it.

The conduct of the officials throughout this affair is of a most remarkable character. During eight years they have arbitrarily retained possession of deeds sent them by an official of the United States for official purposes and now they forcibly take possession of property belonging to American citizens. I ask your highness and your excellencies if such flagrant disregard of the rights of foreigners is to be permitted on the part of officials under your control?

The manner of acquisition of land by Americans in China is set forth in Article xvii of the treaty with the United States executed in 1844. If the officials in Hainan will comply therewith, this affair can be speedily arranged.

The U. S. consul at Canton has asked the viceroy to issue a proclamation stating that, under the treaties, foreigners are entitled to buy land for missionary purposes, and that no native selling or leasing to them will incur punishment or persecution therefor. This is a reasonable request, and it is to be hoped that your highness and your excellencies will direct the viceroy to comply with it. There is no reason why further delay should occur in the settlement of this difficulty in Hainan, and I respectfully request that proper measures be taken to have it dealt with promptly, and in a spirit of justice.