"The Government of the United States, while it claims to exercise, under and by virtue of the stipulations of treaty, the exclusive right of judg. ing of the wrongful acts of its citizens resident in China, and of punishing them when found guilty according to its own laws, does not assume to claim or exercise any authority or control over the natives of China. This rule applies equally to merchants and missionaries, and, so far as I know, all foreign Governments having treaties with China adhere strictly to this rule. In case, however, missionaries see that native Christians are being persecuted by the local officials on account of their religious opinions, in violation of the letter and spirit of the twenty-ninth article of the treaty between the United States and China, it would be proper, and entirely in accordance with the principles of humanity and the teachings of their religion, to make respectful representation of the facts in such cases to the local authorities direct, or through their diplomatic representative to the foreign office; for it cannot be presumed that the Imperial Government would sanction any violation of treaty engagement, or that the local officials would allow persecutions for opinion's sake, when once the facts are made known to them. In doing this the missionaries should conform to Chinese custom and etiquette, so far as it can be done without assuming an attitude that would be humiliating and degrading to themselves.".

The question is one of the most difficult and delicate of all the questions with which the missionary must deal. On the one hand, every impulse of justice and humanity prompts him to befriend a good man who is being persecuted for righteousness' sake. But on the other hand, sore experience has taught him the necessity of caution. The pressure upon him is so frequent and trying that it becomes the bête noire of his life. The outsider may wisely hesitate before he adds to that presThe citations that have been given show that the missionaries themselves understand the question quite as well as any one else and that they are competent to deal with it.

sure.

XX

MISSIONARIES AND THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS

T

HE relation of the missionary to the consular and

diplomatic representatives of his own government is another topic of perennial criticism. Some European Governments have persistently and notoriously sought to advance their national interest through their missionaries. France and Russia have been particularly active in this way, the former claiming large rights by virtue of its position as "the protector of Catholic missions.” The result is that the average Chinese official regards all missionaries as political agents who are to be watched and feared. Dr. L. J. Davies, a Presbyterian missionary, says that he has been repeatedly asked his rank as "an American official," whether he "reported in person to his " ' emperor on his return to his native land, how much salary his government allowed him, and many other questions the import of which was manifest.

The typical consul and minister, moreover, find that no small part of their business relates to matters that are brought to their attention by missionaries. Sometimes they manifest impatience on this account. One consul profanely complained to me that three-fourths of his business related to the missionary question. He forgot, however, that nine-tenths of the nationals under his jurisdiction were missionaries, so that in proportion to their numbers, the missionaries gave him less trouble than the non-missionary Americans. In answer to an inquiry by the Rev. Dr. Paul D. Bergen, of the Presbyterian Mission, seventythree missionaries, of from five to thirty years' experience, and representing most of the Protestant boards, reported a total of only fifty-two applications through consul or minister. The

Hon. John Barrett, formerly Minister of the United States to Siam, writes: "Let us be fair in judging the missionaries. Let the complaining merchant, traveller or clubman take the beam from his own eye before he demands that the mote be taken from the missionary's eye. In my diplomatic experience in Siam, 150 missionaries gave me less trouble in five years than fifteen merchants gave me in five months."

Doubtless some diplomats would be glad to have the missionaries expatriate themselves. In the United States Senate the Hon. John Sherman is reported to have said that "if our citizens go to a far-distant country, semi-civilized and bitterly opposed to their movements, we cannot follow them there and protect them. They ought to come home." Is, then, the missionary's business less legitimate than the trader's? Is a man entitled to the protection of his country if he goes to the Orient to sell whiskey and rifles, but does he forfeit that protection if he goes there to preach the gospel of temperance and peace ?

Critics may be reminded that missionaries are American citizens; that when gamblers and drunkards and adventurers and distillery agents in China claim the rights of citizenship, the missionary does not forfeit his rights by a residence in China for the purpose of teaching the young, healing the sick, distributing the Bible and preaching the gospel of Christ, particularly when treaties expressly guarantee him protection in the exercise of these very privileges. It is odd to find some people insisting that a dissolute trader should be allowed to go wherever he pleases and raising a tremendous hubbub if a hair of his head is injured, while at the same time they appear to deem it an unwarranted thing for a decent man to go to China on a mission of peace and good-will.

While the individual missionary is, of course, free to renounce his claim to the protection of home citizenship, such renunciation is neither necessary nor expedient. There is not the slightest probability that our Government will require

it, and if it should, the public sentiment of the United States would not tolerate such an order for a week. No self-respecting nation can expatriate its citizens who go abroad to do good. The policy of the United States was indicated in the note of the Hon. J. C. B. Davis, acting Secretary of State, to the United States Minister at Peking, October 19, 1871.

"The rights of citizens of the United States in China are well defined by treaty. So long as they attend peaceably to their affairs they are to be placed on a common footing of amity and good-will with subjects of China, and are to receive and enjoy for themselves, and everything appertaining to them, protection and defense from all insults and injuries. They have the right to reside at any of the ports open to foreign commerce, to rent houses and places of business, or to build such upon sites which they have the right to hire. They have secured to them the right to build churches and cemeteries, and they may teach or worship in those churches without being harassed, persecuted, interfered with, or molested. These are some of the rights which are expressly and in terms granted to the United States, for their citizens, by the Treaty of 1858. If I rightly apprehend the spirit of the note of the Foreign Office, and of the regulations which accompany it, there is, to state it in the least objectionable form, an apprehension in the yamen that it may become necessary to curtail some of these rights, in consequence of the alleged conduct of French missionaries. This idea cannot be entertained for one moment by the United States."

This position was given new emphasis by the note sent by Secretary of State John Hay to the Hon. Horace Porter, United States Ambassador to France, in response to a communication from the American Chamber of Commerce in Paris in 1903. In this note Mr. Hay said:

"The Government holds that every citizen sojourning or travelling abroad in pursuit of his lawful affairs is entitled to a passport, and the duration of such sojourn the department does not arrogate to itself the right to limit or prescribe."

The governments of continental Europe have repeatedly shown themselves quick to resent an infringement upon the

treaty rights of their subjects who are in China as missionaries. The Hon. Thomas Francis Wade, British Minister at Peking, wrote to Minister Wen Hsiang in June, 1871 :-"The British Government draws no distinction between the missionaries and any other of its non-official subjects." This sentiment was emphatically reiterated by Earl Granville in a note from the foreign office in London to Mr. Wade dated August 21, 1871:

"Her Majesty's Government cannot allow the claim that the missionaries residing in China must conform to the laws and customs of China to pass unchallenged. It is the duty of a missionary, as of every other British subject, to avoid giving offense as far as possible to the Chinese authorities or people, but he does not forfeit the rights to which he is entitled under the treaty as a British subject because of his missionary character."

But while this is the only possible policy for a government, it is surely reasonable to expect that the persons concerned will exercise moderation and prudence in their demands. The China Island Mission does not permit its missionaries to appeal to their Government officials without special permission from headquarters. Many missionaries of other societies would probably resent such a limitation of their liberty as citizens. But as the act of the individual often involves others, it might be well to make the approval of the station necessary, and, wherever practicable, of the mission. Nine-tenths of the missionaries do not and will not unnecessarily write or telegraph for the intervention of minister or consul. But the tenth man may be benefited by the counsel of his colleagues who know or who may be easily acquainted with the facts. The American Presbyterian Board in a formal action has expressed the wise judgment that "appeals to the secular arm should always and everywhere be as few as possible." It is not in the civil or military power of a country to give the missionary success. In the crude condition of heathen society, the temptation is sometimes strong to appeal for aid to "the secular arm" of the home government. Occasions may