Benj. P. Avery to M. M. De Lano , United States, June 1, 1875

No. 159. Mr. Avery to Mr. Fish.

Sir: On two occasions within a few months past I have been asked by consuls for an expression of my views upon questions affecting the right of missionaries to reside and hold property, to open chapels, schools, and hospitals, and to preach the doctrines of Christianity, beyond the limits of the treaty-ports.

In reply to the first application of this sort, from Consul De Lano, at Foo-chow, I wrote the dispatch of which a copy is inclosed, and in answer to the second application, from Consul Johnson, at Hankow, I forwarded a duplicate of the same dispatch.

Substantially, I followed the just interpretation of our treaty-rights in respect to the question at issue which was set forth in Mr. Low’s No. 40 to the State Department, and which had your approval; but, in addition, I expressed the opinion that whatever may be the ultimate decision as to remanding back to treaty-limits missionaries who have established premises beyond them, citizens of the United States, wherever they may be in the empire, are entitled to protection against ill-usage so long as they are behaving peaceably and lawfully, and that if they transgress law, exceed the limits of treaty-privileges, or in any way act viciously or offensively, they are still entitled, under the ex-territorial provisions of treaty, to be dealt with only by officials of their own nation.

It seemed to me that this point, overlooked in Mr. Low’s correspondence, above referred to, needed to be insisted upon, in order to prevent the occurrence of wrongs and hardships, if not of serious complications, which might arise if it were disregarded, and if our citizens beyond the treaty-limits were left to the mercies of the native authorities. I was confronted by the fact that American missionaries, following the example of the French, and relying upon the immunity accorded to the latter, have pushed their pious operations to many places in the interior, where they generally win their way and secure native protection by prudent and conciliatory conduct; indeed, they are apt to be more discreet without the treaty-limits than within them, and most of the difficulties they have had have arisen at places where their right to dwell and hold property is undisputed. In the face of the strictest construction of treaty-provisions, both our Government and that of Great Britain have extended protection to missionaries dwelling in the interior.

In a dispatch addressed by Earl Granville to Mr. Wade, Her British Majesty’s minister in China, in 1871, which was inclosed to Mr. Low in a dispatch from the Department of State, numbered 53, and dated September 19, 1871, the following language was used:

“If British missionaries behave improperly, they should be handed over to the nearest consul for punishment, like other British subjects, as provided in the ninth article of the treaty of Tien-tsin. If the local authorities consider that Her Majesty’s consuls do not, in any instance, afford redress for their complaints, they can appeal through the government at Peking to Her Majesty’s minister, in the ordinary course of international usage.”

In the spirit of this extract, it may be said that, if American missionaries do what they have no right to do under our treaty with China, the remedy of the Chinese authorities is not to instigate or permit their maltreatment or expulsion by a violent mob, but to refer the case to the nearest consul of the United States, and, failing the due performance of his duty by that officer, to appeal the matter to Peking.

It is far from my wish to encourage latitudinarian constructions of treaty-provisions to our selfish advantage, and at the risk of giving offense or just cause of complaint to the Chinese; I think we should be even more careful to be just with this people than with a stronger and more intelligent one, better able to define and defend its rights. At the same time there is some danger to be apprehended from a rash recession from privileges allowed to be enjoyed during a number of years, although there is no warrant for them in the letter of treaties. The general retreat of all missionaries, of whatever nations, from the advanced posts they are now occupying, would probably be hailed by the Chinese populace as a weakening of foreign influence and power, and might react disastrously upon other interests than those of religion.

Such a retreat is not likely to happen, unless demanded by the Chinese government and ordered by the powers with which it has treaty relations. That the Chinese will sooner or later ask for a strict compliance with the treaties, as interpreted by the United States and Great Britain, I have no doubt. They find us imperative enough, usually, in exacting a compliance with whatever in the treaties is to our advantage; and as they are more and more annoyed by the missionary question, they may, any day, retort upon us with a demand for its settlement in a way satisfactory to themselves.

The French are certain to resist such a demand. Their religious interest in China is greater than their commercial, and they will refuse to contract it within the boundaries of treaty-ports.

Thus the subject presents grave practical difficulties, requiring wisdom and forbearance to adjust without a rupture of peaceable relations.

The policy this legation has had to pursue is a temporizing one, and I am most anxious for such instructions as the Department may think proper to give for my guidance in the future.

Without engaging indirectly in religious propagandism on the one hand, to maintain the prestige and opportunities of our citizens on the other, while dealing justly and honorably by China, is the problem to be solved.

I have, &c.,