Stephen Hunter to James Burrill Angell, July 20, 1881

Messrs. Murray and Hunter to Mr. Angell.

We, the missionaries in Chi-nan-fu, capital of Shantung province, being citizens of the United States, and having the usual passports, desire to make a statement of certain difficulties which have arisen from the purchase of property in this city. The main facts are the following:

• A property suitable for a chapel was bought on the main street of the city during the month of January, 1881.
• Peaceable possession of the same was given during the month of May, and the buildings put under contract for repairs.
• Upon the 13th of July the house was attacked by a mob led by the teachers or sien shangs from the Shu Yuan Yamên, and remained in the hands of the populace until taken possession of by a body of soldiers from the Yamên.
• The property has been given up by us upon condition that the authorities furnish us a suitable location elsewhere.
• The public excitement and popular outbreak has caused our lives and that of the native Christians to be placed in imminent danger.

Therefore, we now present the whole case to you, our national representatives, and ask for advice and direction concerning the proposed change of property, and, if need be, also, for protection of our lives and persons.

In order that you may be able more perfectly to understand the whole matter, we herewith subjoin a statement in detail of all the circumstances connected with this difficulty.

During the autumn of 1880, Rev. J. S. McIlvaine, a former member of this mission, but now deceased, entered into negotiation on behalf of the mission for the purchase of the aforesaid property. This property is one of the most eligible positions in the whole city for our purpose, being upon the west end of the main street, near our former rented chapel and connected with all our former work. It is situated by the side of the “Shu Yuan Yamên” and the ground is said to have formerly belonged to the same. The purchase price agreed upon was 3,750 taels. On the 19th of January, 1881, the sum of 3,100 taels having been paid, the titles were transferred, the balance to be paid upon possession.

Owing to the difficulties in the way of a foreigner purchasing property in the interior, one of our church members, Lui Yü Ting by name, agreed to purchase the property in his own right, and afterwards deed it to the church. The title which the former owner, Tsiao Tung Hing, made to Lui Yü Ting was duly signed, witnessed, and attested by the customary feast, Lui Yü Ting upon his part made a title to the church for public use. But this, one of the neighbors refused to sign and it was held by us simply as an evidence against the exclusive ownership of Lui Yü Ting. This title, however, does not properly form a part of the present case, as Lui Yü Ting does not deny his trusteeship.

The old titles furnished us extend over a period of eighty years, and the property is commonly reported to have had consecutive owners for two centuries. None of the titles, however, have the usual red stamp upon them as the property is “meé liang ti.” Whether the same distinction obtains in other provinces or not is unknown to us, but as ordinarily explained, it has reference to certain laws, the owners of which were favored by the present dynasty upon its accession to the throne, and the lands were subjected only to a nominal tax. Much land is so held in this city. The owners’ names are registered in the Ch’eng Shon Ying Ts’an Fu, and each owner receives a yearly tax receipt with the official stamp, upon payment of dues. When the property was bought the name of Lui Yü Ting was registered as its present owner, and upon payment of tax the usual receipt was given.

It is now claimed that these deeds are false, but the subsequent offer of the authorities to furnish us another location is a virtual concession that our title is valid.

We were put in peaceable possession of the property on the 19th of May and entered into a contract for certain repairs, for which we were to pay the sum of 1,300,000 small cash, and the carpenters to have the old material, the value of which was rated at 200,000 small cash (the whole sum being about $700 of our money). The building was to be repaired according to native plans and style of architecture, and every effort was made to avoid collision with the people. The repairing proceeded in peace for about three weeks. On the 12th of July we were informed by friends that on the following day an attack would be made upon the building and the workmen stopped. Having received this information we proceeded to the Taotai’s Yamên and asked for a proclamation to preserve peace. The officer assured us that he would keep the peace and that no trouble should occur. The next day, 13th, we, ourselves, ordered the workmen to cease in apprehension of difficulty. About 9 o’clock a.m. the house was attacked by a mob led by the sien shangs from the Shu Yuon.

The Taotai was at that time in the Shu Yuan counseling with the officers, and we are informed that the teachers acted in defiance of the orders of their superior. After the teachers left the building it was in the hands of the mob, who severely beat one of the head workmen, and destroyed everything movable, carrying off money, valuable papers, &c. Late in the day the property was taken possession of by the soldiery.

During the same day our Christian Lui Yü Ting was taken to the fu Yamên, beaten, and cast into prison, where he still remains, despite our earnest endeavors for his release.

Late in the day we sought an interview with the governor, but were not able to obtain it. On the morning of the 14th we saw the governor in presence of four other officials, whom it seems he had invited to hear the case. After a lengthy consultation we agreed to give up the house we had purchased, upon condition we were furnished another on the west end of the main street. This they refused to promise, offering to refund us the purchased price and damages. They also offered to assist us in buying a house whenever we could find one. These terms we would not accede to, but demanded another house in exchange. This they would not promise to furnish, saying they would consider the matter and give us word. But the governor promised to issue a proclamation affording us protection, and ordered the fu officer not to beat or further oppress our Christian now in confinement.

On the evening of the same day the proclamation was sent us, but it was not satisfactory, as it only quoted the words of the treaty, and made no mention whatever to the present circumstances. We returned it through the Taotai, and the next day, 15th, it was again sent us; this time in a more satisfactory form.

It was posted upon the gates of the city and upon our dwellings.

On the 16th the talk on the streets was alarming. The death of all the foreigners and native Christians was threatened, and the 17th was said to be the day on which it was to be carried into execution. A notice had been previously posted in public places calling the scholars of the province together upon that day to confer concerning the property we had bought; and the lower classes, taking this for a threat, were ripe for a mob.

In the evening of the same day we informed the Taotai of this increasing turbulence and asked for soldiers to guard our premises. This was promised. Upon the morning of the 17th, our position was apparently critical. No soldiers had yet arrived; and, relying upon our passports, in the early dawn we took protection in the Taotai’s Yamên. The authorities then took precautions to avoid an outbreak, and in the evening of the same day we returned to our homes.

Since that time the city has been quieter, and the Taotai and other officials, invited by the governor to hear the case, have held several consultations, at which we have been present, and they have promised to furnish us another location and make good all our losses. But they insist that it is impossible to find a place upon the main street.

We are willing to concede much for the sake of peace, but we are not willing to be put in a corner. A chapel for daily preaching would be of little use unless upon the main street, west of the center of the city. And as the purpose of Mr. McIlvaine, the original donor of the purchase money, was to have a street chapel, we have no right to accept of any location unsuitable for such purpose. We have no complaint to make against the officials, as the governor and Taotai seem well disposed towards us. But it has been a difficult case for them to manage, because the scholars have disregarded their authority, and they cannot be dealt with as the lower classes. We only fear that we will be trifled with from day to day, and this matter, for an indefinite period, remains unsettled. Therefore we have presented the whole case to you, and await your advice and direction. We would especially ask for information concerning the following points:

• Have we, or not, a right to demand a house upon the main street, west end, when we are giving up the best location upon that street and the best in the whole city for our work?
• In case a house is offered us at an exorbitant price, what remedy have we to avoid imposition except refusing to take the place?
• Is the name of the Presbyterian church, which is used in the former deed, “Chang lao hui yeh su chiao tang” a sufficient title to enable foreigners, as well as natives, to control the property?
• Have we, or not, grounds for demanding the release of Lui Yü Ting, our native Christian, inasmuch as he only acted for the church in buying the property? In regard to these, and any other points which seem to you to arise out of this case, we respectfully ask and await your advice.

Hoping that the whole matter may be brought to a peaceful and satisfactory concluclusion through your kind intervention,

We have the honor, &c.,