Mckibben to Chester Holcombe, April 6, 1882

Mr. McKibben to Mr. Holcombe.

Sir: Our consul, Mr. Williams, is writing to you to ascertain on my behalf what is the status under the treaty of American missionaries in the interior of China.

The various treaties clearly recognize and provide for the right of missionaries to trade freely in pursuit of their calling. Nothing is said, so far as I have seen, as to where they may stop, whether in boats or at inns, or in other houses; nor for how long a time they may stay at a place. I suppose, however, the general permission to travel and preach is intended to include such requisites of the missionary’s calling as the privilege of renting houses for chapels and for temporary residence as may be necessary.

It is of importance to me to ascertain somewhat more definitely what privileges are recognized as being within, the general scope of treaty provisions. I have frequently seen in the periodicals notices of missionaries having purchased or rented ground and houses at interior places, as at Soochow, Nanking, Kalgan, Tsi Nanfoo, Teun Haw Chan. I have seen the statement made that missionaries may rent “t’ung” or chapels, but not purchase them, at interior places. In connection with the case at Teun Haw Chau, between Peking and Tientsin, the statement is made that “the right (missionary) of residence in the interior is officially conceded in the very highest (Chinese) quarters.” (See “Chinese Recorder” for November, December, 1880, p. 476.)

Whether or not there are restrictions or limitations upon missionaries who wish to avail themselves of this recognized treaty privilege—for instance, as to the length of time he may stay at a place, or as to special passport regulations—I have never heard authoritatively; and I trust that your reply to Consul Williams’s letter may inform me in regard to any usages or regulations to which I will need to conform.

I should have mentioned in my account of the difficulty at Fai Poo Hien that the district magistrate to whom I appealed in vain for protection, told me that I had no rights in the city except it were for a few days’ residence; and that my having taken lodgings at the inn for a period of six months was more than I had any right to do.

I need hardly say that I am not seeking for privileges outside the treaties, as perhaps some of the consular representatives of this Province understand; hut for a recognition of privileges under the treaties.

I am, &c.,