Abraham Lincoln to William H. Seward, August 18, 1879

Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Seward.

Sir: I have had the honor to receive your dispatch No. 58, of 26th ultimo, relative to the practice at this consulate in civil cases arising between Chinamen and Americans.

In reply to your interrogatories I have to say:

• Since Mr. Jewell’s administration of this office no such cases as you mention have arisen and been brought to trial.
• We have no mixed court here as at Shanghai.
• It has been and is the custom where claims are presented against natives for the consul to inform defendant of complaint and arrange, if possible, an amicable settlement; if not successful, then to present the case by dispatch to his excellency the viceroy, who, according to its importance, instructs either the prefect or one of the magistrates to take cognizance of the case. At this investigation the consul, with interpreter, plain tiff, and witnesses can be present if they so desire; this is seldom done however. In nearly every instance the case is conducted through correspondence.
• If not satisfactorily adjusted by the prefect or magistrate, complaint would be made to his excellency the viceroy. In case he should concur in the decision rendered, copies of correspondence, &c., would be referred Peking.
• Were a consul present at such trial it would only be to watch the proceedings, and in case of any injustice being done to enter protest. He would be received and treated on such occasions as he would be in making an official call. Seats would be so arranged that neither officer would occupy the seat of honor, though the native official should and would conduct the proceedings.
• In cases where foreigners are defendants and natives plaintiffs, suit would be brought before the consul either direct or through the native authorities at his request. If by the authorities, it would be carried on by correspondence; if by the plaintiff, notice would be issued for parties to appear, witnesses be summoned, &c. If the plaintiff desired a native official to be present, the consul would notify the viceroy of the pending suit, and request him to direct an officer to be present. The prefect would probably be sent, who would occupy a similar position to that of a consul at a trial before a Chinese official. In case of dissatisfaction with the decision, the case would be erred to Peking.
• Judgments against native defendants are enforced by seizure and sale of property and imprisonment of party until liquidation of claim.
• The practice as above stated is preferred by the consuls at this port.
• Taking in view the limited number of foreigners at this port and the infrequency of litigation arising, I think the practice followed here is preferable to the more complicated and formal practice of mixed courts.

Only one case of importance has been brought to suit here within several years. This was a claim for damage, or to enforce specific “performance of contract.” Suit was brought by a French firm against a native silk merchant. The loss sustained by nonperformance of contract was estimated at $80,000. It was tried before the prefect, the French consul, plaintiff, and witnesses being present. The consul claimed the right to and did conduct the proceedings, notwithstanding the prefect’s protest. He gave judgment for plaintiff, the prefect dissenting. Not having authority to enforce his judgment, the case was referred to Peking. I am told that the French minister declined to interfere in the matter, on the ground that the course pursued by the consul had been so erroneous—in fact, ridiculous—that the plaintiff had no other recourse but to submit, and so it ended.

Trusting the foregoing will prove satisfactory as a reply to your No. 58,

I have, &c.,