No. 1553.] Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, July 5, 1892. (Received August 17.) SIR: In your dispatch No. 725, of May 17 last, you inclosed a circular of the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, covering printed copies of the acts of Congress from May 6, 1882, to May 5, 1892 (except the act of September 13, 1888), relating to Chinese exclusion. I have now the honor to inform you that I transmitted to the foreign office on the 4th day of July a printed copy of the said circular, together with a communication of which a copy is herewith inclosed. I have, etc., CHARLES DENBY. Inclosure in No. 1553.] Mr. Denby to the tsung-li yamên. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, YOUR HIGHNESS AND YOUR EXCELLENCIES: In my communication to your highness and your excellencies of June 20, 1892, I had the honor to state that I would transmit to you a copy of the recent act of Congress entitled "An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons to the United States," as soon as I should receive a copy thereof. I have now the honor to inclose copies of the following papers, viz: First. A circular of the Secretary of the Treasury informing collectors and other officers of the customs of the passage and approval of the above-mentioned act. Second. A copy of the act of Congress above mentioned, approved May 5, 1892. Third. A copy of the act of Congress approved May 6, 1882. Fourth. A copy of the act of Congress approved July 5, 1884. Fifth. A copy of the act of Congress approved October 1, 1888. These acts cover all the legislation of Congress on Chinese exclusion except the act approved September 13, 1888. This last act was dependent by its terms on the ratification of the proposed treaty of 1888, and was to take effect only after the ratification of that treaty. As the treaty of 1888 was not ratified by China, this act never became operative. I have, etc., Mr. Wharton to Mr. Denby. CHARLES DENBY. No. 736.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have received your No. 1534 of 18th May last, relative to the question of jurisdiction raised by Mr. Leonard, consul-general of the United States at Shanghai. According to the statement, one James A. Frame, jailer of the American consulate, shot and killed, on May 1, 1892, George Lemon. Both were American citizens. Your opinion that the consul-general should try the case is approved. I inclose a copy of the instruction on the subject to Mr. Leonard. I am, etc., WILLIAM F. WHARTON. [Inclosure in No. 736.] No. 64.] Mr. Adee to Mr. Leonard. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 2, 1892. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 198 of May 31 last, in relation to the question of jurisdiction in the case of James A. Frame, charged with killing George Lemon, and to say that the Department considers it quite clear that you should try this case in the manner provided by law. I may add that a jailer or marshal is not considered a consular officer within the intendiment of the statute. I am, etc., ALVEY A. ADEE, Second Assistant Secretary. Mr. Foster to Mr. Denby. No. 737.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: A dispatch, No. 51, of the 26th May, 1892, has been received from Mr. H. W. Andrews, consul at Hankow, in relation to the application for a passport made through him by Rev. John R. Hykes, an American missionary residing at Kin Kiang. Your instruction of April 27, to Mr. Andrews, correctly represents the view here entertained in regard to the proof of the animus revertendi which should be offered by citizens of the United States applying for passports in a foreign country. These requirements, while generally applicable to the cases of native-born citizens indefinitely sojourn ing abroad under circumstances creating a presumption of abandonment of their American domicile and status, are particularly necessary in respect to naturalized citizens quitting this country after acquiring citizenship, and especially to such as take up residence in the land of their original allegiance. The case of an American missionary in a country where the United States possesses extraterritorial jurisdiction presents certain exceptional features which may well invite relaxation of requirements not obviously necessary in their regard. In China, as in other extraterritorial countries, the fact of continued sojourn of a native-born citizen of the United States does not alone create a prima facie presumption of intent to acquire political domicile there. Short of actual naturalization as a Chinese subject, the individual is and remains under the jurisdiction of the United States; and no conflicting claim to exercise jurisdiction over him is possible on the part of China. Moreover, the peculiar conditions under which American missionaries reside in China, and their self-sacrificing devotion to the calls of higher duty may, and indeed often do, bring about an abandonment of a fixed domicile in the United States without the acquisition of a domicile in the country of residence. Such men are for the most part agents of American societies, and when they are nativeborn citizens the requirement that they shall prove retention of a permanent domicile in the United States is a needless hardship, because often impracticable of fulfillment by a conscientious missionary whose residence in China has been taken up, in fact, with a purpose to pursue there his life work; so, also, as to the intention to return to the United States, which in most cases may amount merely to a floating and contingent purpose. Mr. Hykes is a native-born citizen, employed in China by an American society under circumstances which make his retention of domicile in the United States impracticable and his purpose of return indefinite, but which do not of themselves withdraw him from American jurisdiction. If, as the Department infers, the difficulty on Mr. Hykes's part is conscientious, he may now make an entirely honest and acceptable declaration in the line of these suggestions which will satisfy you of his bona fides. Such explanatory statements would certainly be more acceptable and more truthfully indicative of the relation which should exist between the citizen and the state than the declaration that he does not intend to return to the United States except against his will, "as forced to do so by sickness or family." Mr. Hykes's own good judg ment should suggest to him that persistence in such a declaration as he makes is not only unwise but needless, and is a dangerous approach to the border line of a formal renunciation of his rightful status as a loyal citizen. Mr. Hykes may therefore be invited to make an amended application as indicated, upon which a passport may be issued by you. A copy of this instruction will be sent to the consul at Hankow for his information. He will, however, take his instructions in the matter from you. No reference of the question to this Department, through the authorities of Mr. Hykes's society, has yet been received. Should any be presented, the usual course of the Department will be pursued and the matter referred to you with appropriate instructions, the applicants being so informed. I am, etc., JOHN W. FOSTER. No. 1562.] Mr. Denby to Mr. Wharton. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, July 27, 1892. (Received September 22.) SIR: I have the honor to inform you that the summer in China so far has been quiet, and no serious antiforeign riots have occurred. There are indications, however, that the conspirators in Hu-Nan are again endeavoring to stir up popular prejudice. The circulation of placards containing abuse of foreigners and missionaries has again commenced. It appears that these placards were prepared in Hu-Nan and were sent to Chang-tel-Fu, a city in the province of Hu-Nan. I inclose herewith copies of four of these placards. CHARLES DENBY. [Inclosure with No. 1562.] Clipping from North China Daily News, July 15, 1892. I. Let all be informed that I, Taotai of Han, Wang, Tao district, have for years been worshipping the "Hog Ancestor, Jesus." Since my promotion to this office each of the western powers has paid me a salary of 10,000 taels per year, and the various consular bodies have given my wife, concubines, and the female members of my household 10,000 taels for the expenses of their toilets. Although my relations with the great western powers have been most friendly, yet it is due to the intimate relation existing between the different consular bodies and my wife, concubines, and the female members of my household that we obtain this. But without the blessings from the "Hog Ancestor" how could we have reached such a prosperous state? There is a report abroad that you wish to injure and take violent measures against the "Hog Ancestor" and to give preeminence to the names of Yao, Sung, Yü, Tan, Chow Kong, Wên, Whang, Wu Whang, Confucius, and Mencius. This is most foolish, and surpassingly so. I therefore hasten to issue this proclamation so that all may know that, if you wish hereafter to become rich and prosperous, you must take your wives, concubines, and the female members of your family to the church every night and worship the "Hog Ancestor." You should not in the least degree give trouble to the consuls and the missionaries, and in particular you should not injure Jesus, the Hog Ancestor. If you do not desire to strive for wealth and prosperity and one not willing to enter the church there will be no one to force you to do so. Now, let no one, hereafter, again injure the "Hog Ancestor," and those disobeying this mandate shall be nailed upon the cross to die. Issued by II. Let the entire town assemble, but do not let in strangers and bad people, to deliberate and counsel upon the following: There is a foreign devil religion, which upholds the "Heavenly Hog" as being sacred. They profess to persuade people to love each other and to do what is good, but they secretly conceal within themselves a heart bent on injuring and ruining the people. They make it their business to bring young children from the people whom they place in the church to pursue religious studies. But in reality they got hold of these chileren so as to pick out their eyes and hearts, wherewith to concoct chemicals for making silver and gold. It is a pity the poor people can not at once be made to understand this. We have heard of these revolting acts, and by secret investigation we have obtained positive information concerning them. If there be any kidnapping of children committed we shall now secretly punish the offenders without mercy. Whoever is found to believe the "devil religion" shall not be allowed to remain here, and any who should seek secretly to conceal them, or is unwilling to report the presence of such persons, is certainly a III. We the people of this city and of the surrounding country do hereby with one heart and voice resolve that we will seek out the members of the "Heavenly Hog religion" and the "Jesus religion." If any be found to say that the foreign religions are good let us bind him up, beat him, and push him into the deep water. Let us tear down and destroy the churches and exterminate those who "eat the religion." In doing this we must pull the weed up by the roots so that we may escape incurring the calamities from above and suffering here below. Will it then not be peace for us? Let all be of one mind and strive with united efforts, even staking our lives to attain this, and be not in the least afraid. For were he a tiger we will eat his flesh and skin his hide. IV. We the people of this locality should tear down, demolish, and set fire to the Catholic premises in Tao-yuen Hsien, and take that traitorous devil official up to this place that detestable foreign religious devil. Let us unite together and forbid the establishment of the "Jesus Religion Church" and prohibit the "foreign devil" from entering our territory. The church members devote themselves especially to kidnapping young female children, who are sold to foreigners, and the latter pluck out their eyes for the purpose of making chemical preparations with which they produce gold and silver. We have discovered at Wanshousu that the kidnappers really send the children to the churches. Now, let us apprehend all strangers among us who do not worship our gods, for they are kidnappers, and when so apprehended let us punish them ourselves, and not send them to the authorities. No. 1569.] Mr. Denby to Mr. Foster. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, August 17, 1892. (Received September 28.) SIR: I have the honor to inclose a translation of a communication that I recently received from the foreign office on the subject of Chinese exclusion legislation of the United States, together with a copy of my answer thereto. Under Article IV of the treaty of 1880 (Treaties 1776-1887, p. 183) it is competent for the foreign office to take up this discussion with the minister of the United States at Peking. It will be seen that the yamên severely criticises the legislation in question and requests that the President take steps to secure its repeal. A sufficient abstract of this communication will be found in my answer thereto. On account of an intimation in the Department's dispatch, No. 553, of September 24, 1890, I have hitherto forbore to enter into any argu ment with the foreign office on this subject. In the present conjuncture of affairs I concluded that a temperate presentation to the yamên of the scope, effect, and legality of the Chinese exclusion legislation, and a reasonable argument, tending to show that, by the treaty of 1880, China had given her consent to the enactment thereof, would produce a good effect. Such discussion, in my opinion, will tend to remove from the minds of the members of the yamên misconceptions as to the character of this legislation, and, if retaliatory measures were being considered-of which I have no information-it might cause a halt in the adoption thereof. The reading of my answer to the grave charges made by the yamên will show that I have confined myself chiefly to making a legal argu ment. Owing to the intimation already mentioned, contained in the Department's dispatch cited, I did not feel authorized to enter upon a discussion of the broad grounds upon which such legislation might be defended, nor did I feel authorized to enter into an effort to show that such legislation did not contravene Article II of the treaty whereby certain rights and immunities were guarantied to Chinese laborers who were in the United States at the date of the treaty. As I have never received any instructions from the Department on this subject, it did not appear to me that it would be prudent to discuss the general relations of the two countries, or to suggest remedies that might remove the unfortunate friction now existing. Your own wisdom and experience will suggest a general treatment of the questions. involved, should such a policy be desired by you. I have, etc., [Inclosure 1 in No. 1569.] CHARLES DENBY. The tsung-li yamên to Mr. Denby. FOREIGN OFFICE, Peking, August 5, 1892. Upon the 4th of July last the prince and ministers had the honor to receive a communication from the minister of the United States wherein he stated that he had received a copy of the new exclusion act against Chinese laborers, and inclosing in English First. A circular of the Secretary of the Treasury, informing collectors of customs of the passage and approval of the above-mentioned act. Second. A copy of the above-mentioned act, approved May 5, 1892. Fourth. A copy of the act of Congress approved July 5, 1884. Fifth. A copy of the act of Congress approved October 1, 1888. The minister of the United States stated that these acts covered all the legislation of Congress on Chinese exclusion. The prince and ministers would observe that it appears that the exclusion of Chi |