C. Delano to G. F. Seward, June 23, 1880

Mr. De Lano to Mr. Seward.

Sir: I have on several occasions of late, in my dispatches, called your attention to various acts of the local and provincial officers calculated to prejudice the natives against foreigners, and more particularly to intimidate their people so that they shall not dare to effect leases or sales of property to missionaries.

In the autumn of last year the American Board mission purchased on perpetual lease a piece of land in one of the suburbs of the city, which they had occupied for a number of years under leases effected from year to year. They sent their deed of lease through the consulate to the magistrate for registration in the usual way, and in February last they reported to me that the sellers, the Tepo of the ward, the middleman, the writer, and the witnesses had all been summoned to the Yamên for examination, were kept in the Yamên lock-up two days and nights, and had been mulcted collectively in the sum of some 13,000 cash.

This was a sudden departure from the prevailing custom at the port, and was doubtless intended to make it impossible for the mission to make further purchase of ground. I first made inquiry about the matter, and found that the new system had been inaugurated by order of the viceroy, and later on I addressed a letter to the intendant on the subject, complaining that this official interference was contrary to the spirit and letter of Article XII of our treaty, as well as to Article XXVIII, which forbids the extortion of illegal fees.

I stated that, according to my interpretation of those articles of the treaty, when Chinese subjects effected sales or leases of property to American citizens voluntarily, and without fraud or coercion, the authorities should not interfere or intimidate. That the custom of the past of sending a single Yamên runner to the seller to inquire if the sale had been voluntary, and collect a fee of some 1,200 cash for stamping the deed, had answered all necessary requirements, and had not been complained of, and that when new regulations were made, or were about to be made, affecting the interest of foreign residents it would be only fair and courteous to give notice to the resident consuls.

I also suggested that, as a means of preventing the possible extortion of unlawful fees by the runners, it would be better if the foreign lessor be required to pay the official fee for stamping the leases, and that it be sent by the consul when sending the lease for registration.

The intendant in his reply said, “I find that in cases of perpetual lease by foreigners from Chinese, of buildings or grounds, if the lease is sent to the consul and by him to the local authorities, the latter ought immediately to summon the sellers, middlemen, witnesses, &c., before them, and after finding, by clear examination, that there has been no breach (of treaty) nor harm to the free course of the elements, and after making these men prepare a bond, they are immediately to affix their seal to the lease, retain a copy, and return the other to the consul. But when these men (the sellers, middlemen, witnesses, &c.) are before the magistrate, any illicit extortion of fees by the runners would be extremely improper.”

I replied to the intendant’s dispatch protesting against the practice, and added that if the new system was to be adhered to, American citizens, when effecting leases, would be permitted to enter upon the possession of their property on depositing their title papers in the consulate, and the consul might elect when he would send them to the magistrate for registration. My last dispatch brought no response, and as I have had no deeds for registration since there has been no revival of the question.

I shall feel obliged for your advice as to the proper course to be pursued in case the subject should again come up.

If the new system were to be enforced, there would be no Chinese who would venture to sell or lease property to our people.

I have, &c.,