Bandinel to William H. Seward, September 12, 1879

Mr. Bandinel to Mr. Seward.

Sir: I have had the honor to receive your excellency’s dispatch, No, 49, containing a series of questions with regard to the practice at this and other consulates at this port in civil cases arising between Chinese and foreigners, and now beg leave to transmit my replies to the same as follows:

In reply to question A, I have to state: The only civil case in my time between Chinese and our people, was a claim for damages arising out of a collision, brought against the master of the “William Phillips.” This was tried by the vice-consul (defendant’s officer) only, to whose court the taotai had directed the plaintiff to apply. The taotai also furnished the vice-consul with some information requested by the latter; but, after judgment had been given in defendant’s favor, denied the validity of the proceedings, which, he maintained, ought to have been in the nature of a mixed court.

In reply to questions B to I, I have to state: No case in which a Chinese was defendant has been brought to an issue in my time.

In reply to questions J to O, I have to state: No trials in mixed courts have taken place in my time, nor, as I believe, previously.

In reply to question P, I have to state: It is not the practice of other consuls at this port to sit in mixed courts; the foreign defendant is tried by his consul; the foreign plaintiff applies to his consul, who generally investigates the facts and endeavors to arrange matters amicably, failing in which he reports to the taotai. The latter usually takes the consul’s dispatch as a statement of the plaintiff’s case, examines the defendant, and, generally speaking, grants the claim in a modified form; if there is anything in the case which he does not understand, or any suggestion for a compromise which he does not care to put on record until he knows that it will be agreed to, he calls, or more generally sends a deputy to call, on the consul and discuss the matter.

The Chinese defendant frequently puts in an appearance in the first place before the consul, with the hope of arranging matters amicably; and thus a sort of preliminary investigation is held, which results in the facts of the case being pretty thoroughly sifted before any representation is made to the taotai.

In reply to question Q, I have to state: I consider that the present mode of action, as stated under my reply to question P, has worked so very well that it is not desirable to disturb it, in the present condition of this port; but that some modification in the direction of a mixed court might be necessary in the events a large increase in the number of foreign residents, or the general adoption here of the transit-pass system, or the concession to foreigners of the right of inland navigation, or of residence in the interior.

I would recommend that in small ports like this the consul should be at liberty to take as associates, in cases of collision between Chinese and American vessels, captains of American vessels, or American captains of other vessels, who may happen to be in port at the time.

I have, &c.,