the missionary interests and the various agencies of the Government charged with the protection of American interests in China. I should also be glad to receive from you such comments on the matters herein discussed as may suggest themselves to you. I am [etc.] CHARLES E. HUGHES 393.116/310 The Foreign Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (James L. Barton) to the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs, Department of State (MacMurray) BOSTON, March 18, 1924. DEAR MR. MACMURRAY: Bearing directly upon the subject of the conference you were so kind as to give us the honor of having with you in New York two weeks ago on the subject of China and the relation of American missionaries to the present situation, I would like to submit to you a question which is evidently coming to the front in China, perhaps more rapidly than some of us are aware. It is evident that a spirit of opposition to the extra-territorial conditions and of government protection for American missionaries is rising in some parts of China. There has just come into my hands a statement in terms as follows: "Without attempting to enter into the general question of extraterritorial rights but having regard to the fact that we are here as messengers of the Gospel of peace and that our task is to establish peace by leading men and women one by one into that new life in Christ which takes away the occasion for all wars, we express our earnest desire that no form of military pressure may be exerted to protect us or our property, that in the event of our capture by lawless persons or our death at their hands no money be paid for our release, no punitive expedition be sent out and no indemnity exacted. We take this stand believing that the way to maintain righteousness and peace is through suffering without retaliation and through bringing the spirit of personal good will to bear on all persons under all circumstances. So we understand the teaching and example of Jesus Christ our Lord and it is to the extension of His Kingdom that our lives are dedicated. In signing this statement we wish it to be clear that we have no authority to speak for our missions or churches, and sign simply in our individual capacity." This statement originated in China, but I have no information as to how many if any signatures were secured thereto. I would like to ask therefore if you can make a ruling upon some points which seem to bear upon this entire question. 1. The extra-territorial rights in China are rights by treaty as I understand. Has an American the right and privilege of vacating rights thus secured? 2. Should a missionary, in accordance with the above statement, decline to accept those rights as they relate to his person and property? Would that position endanger the life and property of other American missionaries, and if other American missionaries, then other Americans engaged in other pursuits in China? 3. If a missionary, contrary to the treaty, should be arrested and imprisoned and should refuse to make an appeal to his consul or the representatives of his government in China for protection, would the consul or representatives of the government, for that reason, refuse to insist that the Chinese Government should observe the treaties existing between the United States and China quite irrespective of the wishes of the party more directly affected? In a word, has an American the right in any country, and would that right be recognized by the U. S. government, to vacate his rights which belong to him as an American citizen by treaty, thus excusing the government in his case from insisting that treaties shall be observed? That is, can an American in China in some respects be an American citizen and in other respects not, so far as the claiming of his rights as a citizen are concerned? I am preparing an article bearing upon some of these subjects for the general instruction of mission boards represented in the Committee of Reference and Counsel, and I would very much appreciate a ruling if you could give me one upon the question involved in this communication for use with these boards and with the missionaries concerned. I have [etc.] JAMES L. BARTON 393.116/310 The Secretary of State to the Foreign Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (James L. Barton) WASHINGTON, April 1, 1924. SIR: The Department has received your letter of March 18, 1924, stating that there exists among American missionaries in China a growing spirit of opposition to the extraterritorial conditions and to government protection of missionaries thereunder, and making certain inquiries with regard to the right of American citizens to waive such privileges, if they so desire. In general, I may state that American citizens are not entitled to waive rights of the character to which you refer. The treaties concluded between China and the United States are contracts between the two governments. They expressly provide that American citizens in China shall enjoy, with respect to their person and property, the protection of the local authorities of government, and that they shall be exempt from the processes of Chinese law. The observance of these provisions of the treaties this Government has a right to insist upon, and doubtless would insist upon, irrespective of the wishes of particular individuals who may be influenced by religious or other beliefs. It has been. repeatedly held that a citizen cannot by his independent act control the right of his government to intervene or afford protection in an appropriate case. In this connection, you may be interested to refer to Moore's International Law Digest, Vol. VI, p. 293. With reference to the exercise of extraterritorial rights, Congress has, furthermore, enacted legislation extending to American citizens. in China the laws of the United States. No American citizen in China, so long as he remains such, can waive the application to his person or property of such laws by the claim of a preference to be subject to the laws of China. I think you will agree with me that the surrender of such rights by a portion of the American community in China, even if by a very small number of individuals, would seriously impair the whole system of the treaties as designed for the protection of all classes of American citizens in that country. It is hoped, therefore, that, in the article which you are preparing for the general instruction of mission boards, you may be in a position to make clear the attitude, of the Department with respect to this subject. I am [etc.] For the Secretary of State: J. V. A. MACMURRAY, Chief, Division of Far Eastern Affairs 393.116/311 The Foreign Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (James L. Barton) to the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs, Department of State (MacMurray) BOSTON, April 3, 1924. DEAR MR. MACMURRAY: I am grateful indeed for yours of April 1st in reply to my inquiry of the 18th March on the subject of American missionaries surrendering extra-territorial rights in China. The position which you have taken is one that I have always taken in correspondence and in discussion, namely, that no American can be half American and half not American. When I was in Turkey many years ago I wished to set the college press in action which had been closed and sealed by the Turkish government. I was informed that if I would forego my rights as an American citizen under the capitulations in so far as my relations to the press were concerned, they would allow me to open the press. This would have made me subject to all the Turkish laws and courts: in so far as I was related to the press as its responsible head. I reported the situation to Washington and received back very speedily from Secretary Blaine a statement that, as an American citizen, I had the full right to abrogate my citizenship and become a citizen of Turkey or any other country, but that the Department could not recognize my right to be in some respects an American citizen and in other respects not. In a word, I could not be part American citizen and part citizen of some other country. I am not quoting his words, but the principle is the same as that which you enunciate it seems to me. I understand from your closing words that I am at liberty to quote from your communication to the mission boards of the United States having missionary work in China and also in substance in the article to which I referred. I want to thank you for the clear answer to a question which has a very important bearing, I believe, on mission work in China, and I think it is unanswerable. With much appreciation [etc.] JAMES L. BARTON PROTEST BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST PARDON AND RESTORATION TO COMMAND OF THE CHINESE GENERAL HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDER OF AN AMERICAN MISSIONARY " 393.1123 Reimert, William A.: Telegram The Minister in China (Schurman) to the Secretary of State PEKING, January 4, 1924-11 a. m. 33 3. Legation's despatch no. 350, January 30, 1922.32 Presidential order of December 27, 1923, authorizes cancellation of the mandate ordering trial and punishment of Chang Ching-yao. This is believed to be a political move to please Chang Tso-lin, Chang Ching-yao being his personal friend. I was not consulted either before or after the granting of the pardon. American prestige is closely involved and we shall undoubtedly be severely criticized if we do not enter emphatic protest. I do not think it would be possible to secure withdrawal of the pardon; but I request authority to lodge a very strong protest against it as a violation of the assurance given in the third paragraph the Chinese Foreign Office note of October 7, 1920, see despatch number 272,32 same date, adding that such procedure is a discourtesy For documents relating to the murder of Rev. William A. Reimert by troops under command of Gen. Chang Ching-yao, see Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. 1, pp. 435, 462, 806, 810-814. to my Government and also is an act that cannot but affect most seriously the confidence my Government can in the future place in the official utterances of the Government of China. I think the substance of the protest should be made public and I propose to inform the diplomatic body of the circumstances. For the Minister: BELL 393.1123 Reimert, William A.: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (Schurman) WASHINGTON, January 14, 1924-4 p.m. 14. Your No. 3 January 4, 11 a. m. You are directed to lodge with the Chinese Government a protest against the issuance of the Presidential Mandate of December 27, 1923, authorizing the cancellation of the mandate for the arrest and trial of Chang Ching-yao which is regarded as a breach of faith on the part of the Chinese Government and a specific violation of its undertaking in this particular as stated in the note addressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Legation, dated October 7, 1923.34 In your discretion, you may add that this action cannot but affect most seriously the confidence of this Government in the future in the official utterances of the Government of China. You are authorized to make public the terms or substance of the protest. HUGHES 393.1128 Reimert, William A.: Telegram The Minister in China (Schurman) to the Secretary of State PEKING, January 24, 1924-9 a. m. 43. Your 14, January 14, 4 p. m. On January 18 I addressed note to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs in the sense indicated. January 23rd at an interview I intimated to him that, in the absence of some satisfactory measure by the Chinese Government, I should feel obliged to publish substance of my note. Minister for Foreign Affairs replied that apparently the nature of the mandate pardoning Chang had been misconstrued since in it Chang had been named with others in a general amnesty to political offenders as customarily granted on the accession of a new Executive. Not having particular reference to Reimert case, it could not be regarded as a breach of faith with the American Government. "Not printed. |