Chester Holcombe to Carrow, May 6, 1882

Mr. Holcombe to Mr. Carrow.

Sir: I have had the honor to receive your dispatch of the 6th ultimo, covering a letter from Mr. Consular Agent Williams, in which inquiry is made of me whether any concession has been granted by the officials of the Chinese Government, by virtue of which missionaries are allowed to reside permanently in the interior, that is to say, outside of the treaty limits at the several open ports.

In reply I have to say that under the terms of our treaties with China, all citizens of the United States are placed upon a footing of equality.

No formal concession of any special privileges to missionaries as such has been made by the Government of China, nor, so far as I understand the policy of the United States, is it prepared to assert any peculiar rights for missionaries which may not, under an honest interpretation of our rights as laid down in the treaties, be demanded for merchants or any other class of citizens.

Under these conventions citizens of the United States are permitted—

• To reside and pursue their various avocations at the ports in China which are open to foreign trade.
• To travel under passport to all parts of the interior; and they are guaranteed—
• Protection to their persons and property and immunity from insults and injuries everywhere in China.
• Exemption from all disabilities or persecutions in teaching or professing the Christian faith.

The right to travel under passport in the interior carries with it, by fair and indeed necessary inference, the privilege of temporary residence there, but would not justify any assertion of the right to rent or purchase premises for permanent occupation.

The “toleration article” may be justly construed as promising the protection of the Chinese Government to chapels and similar places of public worship owned or used by native Christians in all parts of the Empire.

The foregoing statement covers, in my opinion, all the rights conceded by treaty to missionaries in China, and as already indicated no other concessions to them have been formally made by the Imperial Government.

It is true, on the other hand, as Mr. Williams remarks, that “there are several missionaries of the different denominations now residing in various parts of the interior,” and he very naturally asks, “on what conditions they are permitted to remain there?”

Protestant and Romish missionaries are to be found to-day quietly established as permanent residents in very considerable numbers in every province of China. There are fifty-two Protestant missionaries in this province alone, outside of the treaty port of Tientsin, forty-three of whom are Americans. And proclamations have in many instances been issued by the local Chinese authorities declaring the full right of the missionary thus to establish himself and to acquire property in the interior, and warning the populace not to oppose or disturb him in any way. This very marked and valuable advance beyond the strict line of privileges granted by treaty has been gained, not by any formal concession on the part of the Chinese Government, but by the discreet and patient effort of individual missionaries on the one hand and by the liberal and tolerant disposition of the local authorities, influenced more or less by the good will of the people, on the other.

Only in very rare cases has there arisen any trouble in connection with these establishments, and in no instance within my knowledge has it been maintained by the local authorities that the missionaries concerned were seeking that which the treaties did not warrant.

The policy of the central Government of China in regard to missionary residence in the interior, though never formally enunciated, seems to be, so far as it can be gathered as the result of the discussion of cases which have arisen from time to time, to make no opposition to such residence, to tacitly concede it provided no objection is urged by the authorities of the locality concerned, no disturbance arises, and our people are able to establish themselves and their work quietly. Should the issue be squarely raised by the local authorities of any city or district, that certain missionaries, in seeking to gain a residence among them, were going beyond their rights as4aid down in the treaties, it is in my mind more than doubtful whether the foreign office here would consent to make that issue with the foreign government concerned. They would, however, if I am to judge of the future by the past, doubtless raise imaginary difficulties in the given case, and while carefully avoiding the question of the right of residence in the interior, would give practical support to the opposition raised by their local officers.

The policy of our own government in the question under discussion is plain and well defined. While it does not claim for any class of its people the right to reside permanently beyond the limits of the open ports, it appreciates the self-denial and philanthropic motives of the missionary, and is disposed rather to congratulate than to censure him if, by wise and patient effort to conciliate the good will of the natives, he is able quietly to extend his operations beyond treaty limits, and to develop his benevolent work in the heart of this vast Empire. It certainly does not enter into the wish or purpose of the Government or of this Legation to repress or hamper the wider action upon which American missionaries have entered, to advise any retreat from the advanced ground which has been taken with the tacit consent of the Imperial Government, or to fail in taking rightful measures for their protection whenever it may become necessary. On the contrary the Government of the United States will be found ready to give such moral support and encouragement and practical protection to its missionary citizens, either at the ports or in the interior, as their valuable work may justly deserve, and a sound policy and their manifest rights under the treaties may demand.

It may be a legitimate question for discussion, whether the Chinese Government by this tacit acquiescence in the process which has been going on for more that twenty years, and which has resulted in the permanent establishment of missionaries in considerable numbers in every province, may or may not be held to have positively conceded the right of such residence. Prescription and precedent reckon for more in China than in western nations, and may establish “quasi” rights, which, while not conferred by the letter of treaty, are nevertheless entitled to official recognition.

Be this as it may, our treaties with this Empire specifically guarantee to all citizens of the United States in every part of China entire immunity from every species of insult or injury whether to persons or property. Nothing can be more explicit than the language of Article XI of the treaty of Tientsin upon this point. Our people are entitled to, and must receive the full benefit of this stipulation wherever they may be in China. For any supposed or actual breach or excess of treaty rights they may be proceeded against by clearly defined, methods before the duly authorized officers of our government. But under no circumstances will the Government of the United States allow its citizens, whether residing within or without the so-called treaty limits, to be subjected to mob violence, to be violently expelled from this or that district by illegal means, or to have their lives or property jeopardized in any manner except by due process of law.

I am, &c.,