JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG, United States Minister to Henry Blodget, March 28, 1885

Mr. Young to Mr. Blodget.

To the Rev. H. Blodget, D. D., chairman, and the Rev. Dr. Edkins and the Rev. J. L. Whiting, secretaries, of the China Branch of the Evangelical Alliance:

Gentlemen: I have read with much care your letter, dated March 14, in regard to missionary affairs in China, and especially the anti-Christian riots in Canton in September, 1884. I note with interest your summary of the historical relations of China towards the cause in which you are engaged. Your presentation of the stipulations between China and the treaty powers had not escaped the attention of the legation in the course of the many discussions with the yamen and local officials upon missionary questions.

My experience in China had led to certain conclusions. I have discovered no antagonism toward missionaries on the part of the authorities in Peking. I have never had a question, none at least which I can now recall, which has not been adjusted after due and amicable discussion. What gives value to the statement is the further fact that during the time of which I can speak with personal knowledge the relations between China and the foreign powers have been upon a most unsatisfactory basis.

With one power war exists; with another power war is feared. From these and other causes it has been the experience of this legation, and I think of others, that the difficulties of transacting business have been unusually great. The exception is in questions arising out of missionary work. I note this fact as an important achievement in your peculiar relations with the Chinese people.

It was my duty last year to make an official tour of inspection of the consular ports. I was accompanied by Admiral Davis, commanding our naval forces. We were received by the officials with every honor and attention. In my conversations with the high authorities I took special pains to impress upon them the wisdom and the propriety, not alone of protecting our own people who were engaged in missionary labors, but more especially the native converts. I held that it would be a violation of the spirit and letter of the treaty, and a reflection upon China, if these converts were outlawed simply for professing the Gospel of Christ. China had not rejected other religions systems, Buddhism, Mohammedanism, Tauism, Confucianism. The Government did not see any reason why a Chinese subject in accepting these forms of faith should invite suspicion as to his fealty to the throne. There was certainly none in the gospel taught by those of my own faith.

In these representations I did not include those Chinese converts who had entered the Roman and Greek churches. I recognized and respected the fact that priests of these communions were endeavoring to teach a high, form of morality and felt it my duty to give them in my conversations with the Chinese authorities, so far as advice would go, all the aid and protection in my power. As a part of a large and general experience, I am happy to say that in no instance did I find on the part of a Chinese official any disposition to antagonize these views. On the contrary, there was acquiescence, or, perhaps I might say, indifference,

The practical point was that I had the assurance from the officials that they would respect and protect those engaged in the missionary work; that they would discountenance every effort to ostracize or outlaw the native converts who had accepted the Christian faith. I do not know of an exception to this experience in the course of a most careful inquiry. I have heard of no hostility to the missions in Peking. The Psalms of David and the anthems of the Roman Church are sung under the walls of the imperial palace.

In Tien-Tsin and the provinces adjoining, the missions may virtually be said to be under the protection of the viceroy. The Canton viceroy promised me that he would issue a proclamation commending Christian converts to special protection. The same assurance was given by the viceroy at Wu Chang. The trouble, therefore, so far as I may venture an opinion, is not with the high authorities, but with local authorities, what are known as the “gentry” or the “literary class.” This is a trouble which no legation can reach, unless it comes to us in a definite form of complaint of some injury done or injustice suffered, for which we can ask redress from the yamên. Under these circumstances, this legation has never failed to ask redress. It will always be my duty to do so where American citizens are concerned.

I do not see that the treaties can be amended so as to make your rights more secure. An American missionary, in the eyes of the law, is a citizen, no more. He is engaged in an honorable calling, just as if he were a banker, or a teacher of chemistry, or a tiller of the soil. So long as he observes the law, he must have the protection of the law. I think this states the whole proposition.

There are one or two further thoughts which occur to me. Your work is a peculiar one, and must of course meet with peculiar difficulties. History shows that there have been unhappily many instances of a public policy of suppression on the part of states, resulting in martyrdom and massacre. If the religious element were strong in China, the same might be feared. Happily for you, gentlemen, and for us who are charged with your protection, no such sentiment exists. What we have to dread is some local antipathy or dislike that may lead to outbreaks, especially to our friends in the interior. Much of this may be avoided by patience and tact on the part of the ladies and gentlemen themselves engaged in the work, remembering that those who follow the cross must sometimes bear the cross.

Abnormal circumstances now existing, arising out of the strained relations between China and France, have occasioned the legations much concern as to the protection of the missions in the interior. The question of the protection of those at the open ports was well considered in the beginning, and an arrangement was made between the maritime powers by which the flag of any neutral nation would protect the citizens or subjects of every other neutral. In this arrangement were included the citizens of France. This has been faithfully observed, and I am glad to know that Admiral Davis has done everything to fulfill our part of this important engagements Thus, for instance, although but one American resides in Newchwang, an American gunboat has been frozen in all winter for the safeguard of the foreign residents. At the same time, while we have many Americans in Tien-Tsin, they are under the protection of the Russian and German flags.

As to the interior, we are not in a position to give that entire support which we should like to extend everywhere. We have received from the Prince and ministers every assurance that, so far as the Government is concerned, there would be protection to every foreigner non-combatant, including the citizens of France. I do not think the integrity of this assurance can be questioned. It has certainly not been by the French Republic, whose minister remains on Chinese soil while warlike operations on the part of France are directed against the Chinese Government.

The question has been frequently asked whether the legations would advise those in the interior to come to the seaboard as a precautionary measure. I have not, so far as American citizens are concerned, felt it my duty to give such advice.

My lamented colleague, Sir Harry Parkes, with whom I had many conversations on this subject, did not feel that he could take a contrary course regarding English missionaries. Any action of this kind could only arise from circumstances within the knowledge of the residents themselves, and upon which they alone should act. There is perhaps no point in China more exposed than Peking—an official class, a turbulent army, and a threatened withdrawal of the rice, upon which the food of the army depends. We, a handful as it were, in the center of a vast population, with no possible means of naval or military support from our own flag in the event of tumult or uprising, have not even considered the advisability of retiring to the seaboard. At the same time the contingency may arise here as it may arise elsewhere. But the advice we have not felt it wise to follow, we have not thought it wise to give.

The decree from the throne in which the Emperor extends protection to loyal subjects, without regard to their creed, arose out of the protest of my colleagues and myself against the inhuman proclamations of the local authorities offering rewards for the heads of Frenchmen. It is within my knowledge that the Prince and ministers disavowed these proclamations. In regard to such occurrences as those reported in Chuhuan, I do not see that we can do more than has been our custom under similar circumstances. The diplomatic body has maintained the principle that the teaching of Christianity and its acceptance shall not be to the disadvantage of a Chinese subject. This has been confirmed by the throne. It seems wise for us, therefore, to accept what the throne gives as the expression of a general imperial policy, and when cases arise such as you indicate, implying a violation of our rights, to make them a matter of special remonstrance and reclamation.

In the mean time I remain, gentlemen, &c.,