James Burrill Angell to Carrow, July 27, 1881

Mr. Angell to Mr. Carrow.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 16, in which you inform me that the Nam Hoi magistrate declines to stamp the deeds of two lots of land purchased by the Rev. E. Z. Simmons, an American citizen, acting for the American Southern Baptist Mission. These lots lie on the river, outside the city walls, but near to houses which missionaries have been heretofore permitted to purchase, and which they now occupy.

The magistrate justifies his action on two grounds:

• First. That the treaties between the United States and China do not allow our citizens to buy land beyond the walls of the port of Canton.
• Secondly. That even if this is not the right view of the treaties, still Mr. Simmons has no right to buy in his own name for the mission society.

I cannot refrain from an expression of surprise that the magistrate should suddenly depart from the example of his predecessors, when, so far as appears, the occupancy by other foreigners of the land, in the vicinity of which Mr. Simmons has purchased has wrought no harm to Chinese interests.

But furthermore, his action is not sustained by the treaties. Article XII of the British treaty of Tientsin, 1858, says:

“British subjects, whether at the ports or at other places, desiring to build or open houses, warehouses, churches, hospitals, or burial grounds, shall make their agreement for the land or buildings they require at the rates prevailing among the people, equitably, and without exaction on either side.”

Article XXX of our treaty of Tientsin, 1858, gives us all the rights and privileges of other nations.

Now, without desiring to give to this expression “at other places” too wide a meaning it is clear that it means something. I believe it is historically true that it was inserted by the British especially because of the restrictions to which foreigners had been subjected in obtaining land in Canton. Now, when our citizens and other foreigners have under this article been justly and peaceably occupying land just outside the walls of Canton for many years, and the authorities have by silence virtually admitted that such occupancy was lawful, we have a right to protest, as we must most vigorously, against such action as this of the Nam Hoi magistrate.

But, in the second place, the magistrate may be safely challenged to show a line or a word in any treaty in support of his second point. If Mr. Simmons has, as I maintain he has, a right to purchase at all in the place described, he has a perfect right to buy for the society, or to buy in his own right, as he may choose. I cannot imagine on what ground the magistrate can rest his argument. If this is the only alleged error in the form of the deeds, we cannot admit that it is an error.

You will, therefore, please communicate the substance of this dispatch to the magistrate, and renew the request that the deeds be stamped, and in case the magistrate persists in his refusal, you will carry the case to the viceroy, and if necessary in the end send it up here again that it may be presented to the Tsung-li Yamên.

I am, &c.,