Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Ta-fong. I shall inform the Legation of the outcome of this trial. The statement that Chen Tsu-ming has been executed is at variance with information in possession of the Passionist Procuration at Hankow. I have requested this missionary organization to give me further information on the subject.

I have [etc.]

393.1123 Coveyou, Walter/37

F. P. LOCKHART

The Consul General at Hankow (Lockhart) to the Minister in China (MacMurray) 5

L. No. 854

54

55

HANKOW, October 17, 1929. SIR: I have the honor to refer to my despatch No. 828 of September 18 [13], 1929, and to previous correspondence, and also to the Legation's instruction of September 19, 1929, on the above mentioned subject, and to enclose herewith a memorandum recently furnished me, at my request, by the Reverend Timothy McDermott, giving detailed information regarding the efforts put forth by the Chinese authorities to apprehend the persons guilty of the murder of the three missionaries. The Reverend Father McDermott's memorandum explains itself. The information contained therein is at variance in some respects with information furnished me by the Chinese authorities in Hunan. It seems fairly well established that none of the five persons executed on account of this crime had any actual direct participation in it. While some of those executed may have been indirectly implicated or may have had prior knowledge, it seems clear from the Reverend McDermott's statement that the bandits who actually committed the crime have not yet been apprehended. In this connection, I beg to enclose herewith a copy of a telegram addressed by me on September 19 to General Ho Chien at Changsha 55 requesting specific information as to whether any persons suspected of committing the crime have been apprehended, and if so, whether they have been tried and found guilty and what punishment, if any, was meted out to them. It will be observed that I requested the names of such persons and any other details available showing efforts put forth by the Chinese authorities to bring to justice all persons guilty of the crime. A copy of General Ho Chien's telegraphic reply of September 21, 1929, is enclosed herewith.55 The two brigands, Chu Chia-tsai and Chu Chang-nan, were undoubtedly executed as claimed, but no evidence has been adduced showing that they directly participated in the crime. The other three persons who were executed, namely, Lou Sen-lung, Mrs. Yun neé Nien,

[ocr errors]

Copy transmitted to the Department by the Consul General in his despatch No. 1246, October 17; received November 23, 1929.

Not printed.

(keeper of the inn) and Hwang Tse-yun, commanding officer of a volunteer corps, were merely suspected of having some connection with the unfortunate affair. It appears that Chen Tse-ming and Mao Chiying who are also suspected of having had more direct connection with the crime than any others, are still at large. The main difference of opinion between the Chinese authorities and the missionaries resident in the area in which the crime was committed is whether the bandit leader, Chen Tse-ming, and Mao Chi-ying, are still alive. The missionaries interested in the case state that they are still at large and that until they are captured and punished it cannot be said that the crime has been atoned.

There is also enclosed herewith a letter (in Chinese text and English translation) addressed to me by the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs at Changsha under date of September 21, 1929,59 showing that one Chang Liu Lao Ko was arrested, tried, found guilty, and executed in connection with the above mentioned case. It will be observed in the Reverend Father McDermott's memorandum enclosed herewith that Father Anthony Maloney of Chenki wrote under date of August 26, 1929, that "Chang Liu Lao Ko, a former officer of Chang Hsien Lo, executed here yesterday. Opinion around here though seem [s] to make him innocent of the murder of the priests which was the first item on his condemnation."

I have instructed Consul Butrick who is now in Changsha engaged in closing the Consulate at that place, to call on General Ho Chien and urge him to renew efforts towards capturing the brigand chief, Chen Tse-ming, and also Mao Chi-ying. Until definite information is at hand showing that these two brigands have been apprehended, tried and adequately punished I do not consider that the case can be regarded as closed.

I have [etc.]

393.1123 Coveyou, Walter/39

F. P. LOCKHART

The American Chargé in China (Perkins) to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs (C. T. Wang) 6o

60

No. 932 PEIPING, November 30, 1929. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to refer to Your Excellency's note of September 30, 1929,59 regarding the apprehension and punishment of the bandits responsible for the murder of three American missionaries at Chenki, Hunan, and to state that since Your Excellency's note under acknowledgment was written, missionaries at Chenki have written that the Magistrate at Chenki admits that Ch'en Tzu-ming

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Not printed.

Copy transmitted to the Department by the Chargé in his despatch No. 2459, December 5; received January 3, 1930.

has not yet been killed, which is also the opinion generally held at Chenki, and that the Magistrate at Süp'u also admits this to be a fact. The other leader, Mao Lien-ch'ang, is reported to be still alive, and several people at Chenki have reported having seen him at Changteh recently.

In view of the foregoing, I must request that Your Excellency have stringent orders issued to General Ho Chien to take vigorous action to apprehend and punish these two leaders as well as the others of the murderers still at large.61

I avail myself [etc.]

MAHLON F. PERKINS

DUAL NATIONALITY OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS OF CHINESE

DESCENT"

893.012/35

The Consul General at Shanghai (Cunningham) to the Secretary of State

No. 6178

64

SHANGHAI, May 17, 1929. [Received June 10.]

SIR: I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of a self-explanatory letter addressed by the Shanghai Consulate General to the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs 63 concerning the citizenship of Mr. Char Wei Yuen (W. Y. Char), a citizen of the United States, born in the Hawaiian Islands of Chinese parents. While the statements contained in the enclosure herewith explain the citizenship status of Mr. Char as interpreted by this office, there are still other facts which should be reported in order that the Department may have a fuller knowledge of the case upon which to base its instructions in this and other similar cases which may arise from time to time.

On the afternoon of June 4, 1927, at the close of a baseball game, Mr. Char Wei Yuen is said to have assaulted a Chinese citizen named Jui Hsoh-hsien. The assault was apparently a serious one, since the injured party is reported to be still confined to his bed after a lapse of almost two years, although there is some question as to the genuineness of the allegations of his relatives on this point. The complaint against Mr. Char was filed, not in the United States Court for China but in the Provisional Court, the complainant alleging that Mr. Char was a citizen of China. Shortly after the filing of the com

[ocr errors]

Reports to the Department in May 1930 indicated that Ch'en Tzu-ming was alive and continuing bandit activities; and in April 1931 it was reported that he had been received into the Chinese Army (393.1123 Coveyou, Walter/42, 43, 44). Continued from Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. I. pp. 581-587. Not printed.

62

64 Also known as Zia Wei Nyoen.

plaint, the question of citizenship arose and the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs was informed by this office that Mr. Char was an American citizen. Mr. Char, however, voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Provisional Court, because foreign lawyers are not allowed to appear in the Provisional Court on behalf of Chinese citizens in purely Chinese cases and because Mr. Char apparently desired to take advantage of the fact that as a lawyer of Chinese race he might appear on behalf of Chinese citizens. It is also believed that he, as well as his American partner, Mr. H. D. Rodger, thought that the case would be treated lightly and had no idea that at a later date complications such as have arisen would arise. The case finally came on for trial and Mr. Char was fined $300.00 on October 12, 1928. The complainant, however, was not satisfied and filed an appeal. The Appellate Court apparently considered the matter more serious and changed the sentence, on February 8, 1929, to three months imprisonment. Just prior to the judgment of the Appeal Court, but after it had ordered his detention, Mr. Char appealed to this Consulate General for assistance on the ground that he was an American citizen. Before, however, taking any steps to protect Mr. Char, he was required to execute an affidavit, a copy of which is attached hereto,65 to the effect that he had done nothing to expatriate himself. Although this office realized that Mr. Char had been trying to take advantage of his dual nationality, it did not feel that these facts, in the absence of any proof that he had actually taken an oath of allegiance to China, could relieve it of extending protection. There were several reasons why this stand was taken. In the first place, the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs was informed on May 22, 1928, while the case against Mr. Char was pending in the Provisional Court, that he was an American citizen. In the second place, Mr. Char was residing in the International Settlement of Shanghai, where the complainants could easily have brought action in the United States Court for China. In the third place, to have withdrawn protection from Mr. Char would have created a precedent which could in the future be cited by the Chinese authorities as our recognition of the right of the Chinese Government to assume jurisdiction over all persons of Chinese race who might be American citizens. Every opportunity was given to the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs and to the President of the Appeal Court to produce proof of the fact that Mr. Char had committed an act of expatriation under American Law, but they failed to take advantage of the opportunity. It was also suggested to the President of the Appeal Court that Mr. Char be granted bail pending some agree

65 Not printed.

ment as to his citizenship status but this suggestion was also refused. Under the circumstances, this office had no alternative but to request the Police authorities of the International Settlement to release Mr. Char, since he was an American citizen. This request the police complied with as is the usual custom in Shanghai when a Consul of an extraterritorial power makes such a request.

case.

66

I am also enclosing herewith, for the Department's information, copies of two letters dated March 18, 1929, and April 11, 1929, which were received by this office from Dr. George Sellett, the United States District Attorney, in which he sets forth his views on this The gist of Dr. Sellett's views is that the United States Court for China and the Provisional Court have concurrent jurisdiction over Mr. Char and that, since the Provisional Court first took jurisdiction, it should be the Court to try the accused. This office, however, disagrees with Dr. Sellett's views principally on the ground that, under the system of extraterritoriality existing in China, every American citizen, regardless of the question of dual nationality, is subject only to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States functioning in China so long as the citizen has not expatriated himself and so long as he resides in a place set aside by the treaties as places of residence and trade in China.

Although Dr. Sellett held a contrary opinion to that of this office, he agreed to prosecute Mr. Char, but so far has been prevented from doing so because of the refusal of the aggrieved Chinese party to cooperate in the prosecution. As can be seen from the letter addressed to the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs, a copy of which was mentioned above as an enclosure herewith, the Chinese authorities are again being requested to instruct the complainant to cooperate with Dr. Sellett in order that Mr. Char can be prosecuted. It is doubtful, however, if they will do so and the question arises as to what should be done in the premises. Two alternatives present themselves, either to let the matter drop entirely as far as the American authorities are concerned, since the Chinese complainant refused to come forward to assist in the prosecution, or to hand Mr. Char over to the Provisional Court to be dealt with by that Court as a Chinese citizen.

Since the citizenship status of all American citizens of Chinese race who reside in China is involved in this case, the instructions of the Department are requested for future guidance.

I have [etc.]

Neither printed.

EDWIN S. CUNNINGHAM

« ПретходнаНастави »