Russell Young to Prince Kung, November 23, 1882

Mr. Young to Prince Kung.

Your Imperial Highness: I have had the honor to receive your dispatch of the 18th of October in response to mine of the 13th of the same month in the matter of the company established at Shanghai by certain citizens of the United States for the’ manufacture of cotton yarn.

In this response your imperial highness maintains that the in tendant of circuit at Shanghai, in his action in endeavoring to suppress the company, had not violated the treaty at any point. And your imperial highness proceeds to say that the treaties negotiated between China and foreign powers contain no stipulation permitting foreigners to manufacture native products at any of the open ports in China. Your imperial highness contends that the phrases mao yi and kung tso, found in several of the treaties, only mean (1) that foreigners may traffic in or import or export all foreign and native merchandise, and (2) that Chinese and foreigners may reciprocally employ either foreigners or Chinese as assistants or laborers at their own option and desire.

Your imperial highness declares that the cotton yarn company, if established, would interfere with a monopoly granted by his excellency Li, and confirmed by the throne. And you conclude by remarking that the plain language of each article of each treaty must stand for law.

In response I beg leave to express my entire concurrence with this final statement of your imperial highness. Indeed, it was only because I believed that the customs intendant at Shanghai had violated the plain meaning of one article of the treaty that I first appealed to your imperial highness in the case. The only desire of this legation or of the Government which it represents, is to see the plain language of each article of the treaties regarded as a law, binding equally upon both parties, and as such faithfully and fully observed.

But, in order to avoid prolonged and unnecessary discussion, I feel it my duty to Inform your imperial highness frankly and at once that the interpretation placed upon the word kung tso in the dispatch now under reply, is one which will in no event be accepted by the Government of the United States. The interpretation of this word as given by your imperial highness does not appear to be consistent with its plain meaning as given in the dictionary compiled under the command of His Imperial Majesty Kang-hsi. Be that as it may, that interpretation is totally at variance with the perfectly plain and indisputable meaning of the equivalent foreign expression used in the treaties in which the word kung tso occurs. I need hardly remind your imperial highness that, by a provision contained in those same treaties, in cases of difference of interpretation of the two texts, the foreign version is to be held as authoritative and final.

The word industrie, used in the several treaties as equivalent to the Chinese word kung tso, is exceedingly broad in its signification, and covers all the different callings and pursuits in life which men are accustomed to follow. Under its plain and indisputable meaning foreigners of all classes have the same liberty and freedom of choice as to what they shall do that they would have in their native lands, with but one limitation, which confines such operations to the ports in China which are by treaty open to foreigners.

Hence, under the plain provisions of treaty, foreigners have a right to establish manufactories at the open ports in China, and this right, so far as my countrymen are concerned, I am bound to insist upon and maintain.

As to the remark of your imperial highness, that the cotton yarn company, if established, would interfere with a monopoly granted by his excellency Li and confirmed by the throne, I can only reply by repeating what was said in an earlier dispatch, that “treaties form the supreme law of the land in each of the two countries between which they are concluded, and that neither local regulations nor the regulations of the supreme authority itself can be allowed to curtail or contravene the privileges secured by them. Under this principle the monopoly referred to is void and of no effect, as it interferes with the treaty provisions mentioned above.”

If further evidence to the meaning of the phrase be needed it is found in the fact that the employment of compradores, assistants and laborers of every class by foreigners is specifically provided for in a different article in the several treaties, and hence could not have been referred to in the expression under dispute.

In conclusion, I beg to observe that it is no part of the intention or desire of my Government to interfere with the revenues of His Imperial Majesty, nor the industrial pursuits of his subjects. Nor can I perceive that a proper interpretation and just enforcement of the treaties would serve to produce either of these results.

I have, &c.,