While, therefore, the treaties mentioned confer no right to acquire land in China, it nevertheless appears that, without objection on the part of the Chinese government, in practice missionaries purchase or lease property, either in their own names or in the name of a convert, in the interior as well as in the treaty ports. We now come to the question of indemnity where the foreigner, after having been permitted to purchase property in the interior, has been expelled by mobs and his property destroyed. The policy of the government of the United States in such cases may be briefly stated as follows: While the government has never advanced the claim that its citizens have any right to reside beyond the treaty ports, yet whenever American missionaries have located in the interior and have acquired property with the consent and acquiescence of the local officials and the inhabitants, our government has insisted that they shall not be deprived of their property without due process of law and just compensation. To illustrate the treatment of this class of cases and the result reached, two instances of recent date are in point.

The American Methodist mission was established in 1882, and property was purchased in the city of Chungking the next year. In 1886 additional property for a hospital, a school, and residence was purchased with the full knowledge and consent of the people and the local authorities. The deeds were sealed by the magistrate, and proclamations were issued stating that the mission intended to build. While the buildings were being erected the magistrate requested that the work should temporarily cease on account of the presence of a large body of military students caused by the military examinations. The property was turned over to the magistrate with the understanding that he was to be responsible for its protection. Inflammatory placards were posted by the students calling on the people to destroy the buildings, and two days later all the missionary property in Chungking was destroyed. A fine Catholic cathedral, just completed, and extensive foreign residences were consigned to the flames. The missionaries and families escaped from the buildings, and after some difficulty reached the Yamen, where they were given protection. After the

Nan-Chang-fu, the capital of the province of Kiangsi. He leased premises just outside the city gates and began work. The inhabitants soon raised objections to his presence, and, after trying in vain to persuade him to leave, they finally put his furniture in a boat and sent him with it down the river. The incident was made the subject of a diplomatic remonstrance, our minister referring the foreign office to Article XXIX. of the treaty of Tien-tsin. For. Rel. 1881, p. 308.

immediate danger had passed, they were escorted to boats and allowed to leave the city. It clearly appeared from the evidence that the local officials took no precautions whatever to check the impending riot, and during its progress, for two days, nothing was done to quell it. It was only when the destruction of the city seemed imminent that any efforts were made to resist the acts of the mob. The United States demanded a large indemnity, which was paid by the Chinese government. The missionaries were permitted to return to Chungking, and under the protection of the authorities, to rebuild, where it was deemed advisable; but in those localities where the opposition of the inhabitants was very great, the sites were exchanged for others.1

In 1887 the Presbyterian mission sought the aid of the local officials at Chi-nan-fu in securing ground for a hospital. The governor, to whom the matter was referred by the Taotai, replied that the officials could neither purchase property for the missionaries nor compel the people to sell, but if both parties mutually agreed to a transfer, the conveyance could be completed, and if any opposition arose, it would be suppressed. The missionaries took a perpetual lease of a piece of property and took the deed to the magistrate to be stamped, but he declined to seal it until the property was vacated. Some time later the literati and gentry, headed by a former governor of the province, presented a petition objecting to the lease as a violation of the treaty, and because it would interfere with the geomantic influence. After several interviews with the officials, the missionaries at their request agreed to wait thirty days to allow the officials to procure satisfactory property in exchange for the piece selected. But no offer of exchange was ever made. The landlord's family having agreed that the missionaries might take possession of the property, they notified the Taotai that the time having expired, one of them would go that evening and take charge of it, and a request was made that the magistrate be ordered to protect the occupant. In the evening a missionary went to the property, and in a short time a mob gathered about the premises. He was forcibly ejected from the house and severely injured by being stoned and otherwise maltreated. In an interview with the Taotai the missionaries were informed that the opposition was so great that it was impossible to suppress it, and that all they could do would be to accept back again their money which awaited them in the magistrate's Yamen. Our minister, in

1 For. Rel. 1887, pp. 159, 160, 163, 165, 166, 169, 176, 179, 180, 189, 207.

a communication to the Tsung-li Yamen, demanded that the possession of the leased property be accorded to the missionaries and protection in its occupancy be assured them; but that if it was more desirable to make an exchange of property, then a suitable and satisfactory tract of land should be tendered to them. The missionaries were willing for an exchange of property, but the Chinese officials excused themselves by saying that they could find no land for sale. But as it appeared that large sums of money were extorted from the landlord who leased the property to the missionaries, that he was repeatedly beaten, stoned, and imprisoned, and that when taken out of prison two years later he soon died as a result of the inhuman treatment to which he was subjected, it is not at all surprising that there was no land for sale. The American minister, in a communication to the Tsung-li Yamen, stated that there would be no difficulty in purchasing land in the suburbs; that it was only necessary that a guaranty be given of protection, and that there would be no maltreatment or imprisonment of a vendor. The imperial officers replied that the Yamen would address the provincial authorities and direct them to render assistance in devising a plan of action, but that if property could not be acquired at once the missionaries would have to be patient, "and wait and not show a hasty temper." Diplomatic correspondence on this subject continued for several years; it would only be repetition to discuss this matter in detail. The imperial and provincial authorities seemed willing that the missionaries should be granted other property, but it was impossible to overcome the opposition of the inhabitants. In 1891 our minister's patient and persistent efforts were at last rewarded, the mission being granted another site within the city limits; it was, however, expressly stipulated that, in order to preserve the geomantic influence, no ditch should be dug out, and that no high storied buildings should be erected.1

It is important to notice in this connection that in neither of the two preceding cases was there any objection interposed by the government of China to the demands of our government on the ground that the missionaries had exceeded their rights under the treaties. Not only has China failed to insist that the mission

1 For. Rel. 1888, pp. 238, 243, 266, 292, 309, 325, 349; For. Rel. 1899, pp. 72, 74, 108; For. Rel. 1890, pp. 155, 158, 160, 179, 192, 197, 206, 208; For. Rel. 1891, pp. 353, 431, 434, 451, 454; For. Rel. 1892, pp. 70, 71, 73, 89, 118.

2 With the exception of the statement of the Tsung-li Yamen that there was no provision in the treaties authorizing the missionaries at Nanking to go to the moun

aries confine their actions within the rights granted by the treaties, but the enormous and often exorbitant and unreasonable indemnities demanded by the United States for injuries done to American missionaries in the interior have invariably been paid without any question being raised as to the liability of the imperial government. Thus in 1873 the Rev. Corbett, an American missionary in Chi-mi, a city located in the interior, 130 miles from any treaty port, leased property for a residence and began work. A short time after his arrival he "began to feel the effects of the native opposition, being twice stoned and hooted out of the neighboring villages." He was finally compelled to flee to the nearest treaty port for protection. After he had gone, some one entered and sacked his house. The American minister demanded that the imperial government take action in the matter, and the nearest consul made a complaint to the local authorities; but no satisfactory progress having beer made toward a settlement our minister directed the consul to go in person to the port of Chefoo "to bring the affair to a conclusion according to the obligation of the treaty and justice." An American naval vessel was sent to Chefoo, where it remained until the affair was satisfactorily settled. Twentyeight of the rioters were arrested and with a number of witnesses taken from the scene of the disturbance at Chi-mi to Chefoo, a distance of 140 miles, where the trial took place. Four of the rioters who had been prominently engaged in the stone throwing were severely punished, while the local constables, in addition to suffering severe corporal punishment, were dismissed from office. All of the prisoners were obliged to enter into a bond to keep the peace, and to guarantee Mr. Corbett personal safety while he remained at Chi-mi. The Taotai issued a proclamation threatening severe punishment for similar attacks in the future. Mr. Corbett was indemnified for his pecuniary loss, was given a special passport, and also a letter to the Chi-mi magistrate.1

One cannot but compare the justice insisted upon by our government in this case with the position taken by our own gov ernment when asked for indemnity in such cases. It will be tains during the summer, the writer has been unable to find a single instance where the imperial government has ever objected to the presence of the missionaries in the interior, or even alluded to their rights under the treaties. As we have already seen, the objections in the Nanking case were based on the reasonable ground that it was impossible to afford the missionaries any protection if they resided in the mountains; but for the antipathy of the inhabitants the question would probably not have been raised.

1 For. Rel. 1874, pp. 274, 297, 345.

remembered that in September, 1885, a riot occurred at Rock Springs, Wyoming, and twenty-eight Chinamen were killed and many more severely injured. It appeared that the Chinese miners refused to join with the other miners in one of their "strikes," and while quietly at work one morning, they were suddenly attacked by an armed mob. They were ordered to leave the neighborhood, but before they had an opportunity to obey the mob opened fire upon them. All who were able fled to the mountains without offering any resistance. Many were murdered in their homes, and others were shot down while endeavoring to escape. The rioting continued all day without any effort being made by the local authorities to suppress it. During the entire night the reports of rifles and revolvers could be heard, while the surrounding hills were lit with the glare of the burning Chinese village. It is not necessary to review the sickening details of the massacre; the history of civilized nations does not present a more shocking example of brutal cruelty and inhumanity. The proceedings before the grand jury were described as a "burlesque." Although nearly all the murderers were known, the jury failed to find any bill of indictment. Regarding the coroner's proceedings the Chinese minister stated: "The conduct of the coroner who investigated the causes of death seems to be strange, but with my imperfect knowledge of American procedure I prefer not to criticise it." Minister Cheng Tsao Ju, in a note to the Department of State, demanded that the guilty parties be brought to punishment; that the Chinese subjects be indemnified for all losses and injuries sustained; and that proper measures be taken to prevent similar attacks. Secretary Bayard in reply advanced the well-known argument which has often been put forward by our Secretaries of State; that is, that under our Constitution the federal government cannot interfere with the administration or execution of the local laws of a state or territory; that the territorial courts were open, "with every aid they can devise, to secure publicity and impartiality in the administration of justice to every human being found within their jurisdiction." He then went on to say:

"Yet I am frank to state that the circumstances of the case now under consideration contain features which I am disposed to believe may induce the President to recommend to the Congress, not as under obligation of treaty or principle of international law, but solely from a sentiment of generosity and pity to an innocent and unfortunate body of men, subjects of a friendly power, who, being peaceably employed within our jurisdiction, were so shockingly outraged; that in view of the gross and shameful