Wells Williams to Henderson, August 31, 1874

Mr. Williams to Mr. Henderson.

Sir: I have received your two dispatches of the 10th and 13th instant (Nos. 10 and 11,) both relating to the arrest of Charles W. Le Gendre, and inclosing copy of a protest from Gosheki, acting Japanese consul at Amoy, against this arrest, and your reply to him.

You have, in your answer to Mr. Gosheki, clearly stated the grounds of your action; and the reference he makes in his protest to the engagement of General Le Gendre, in Japan, in December, 1872, and his subsequent appointment by that government as special commissioner to China, has no strength or validity in neutralizing your jurisdiction over him. General Le Gendre is still an American citizen, and if you have reason to believe that he is violating the laws of the United States, or the treaty with China, while within your jurisdiction, you have no need to refer to any Japanese authority in taking all proper measures to restrain him.

The tenth article of the treaty between Japan and the United States relates particularly to the engagement of American citizens in a military or naval capacity, and does not speak of diplomatic service, as you observe in your answer; but neither in one nor other of these capacities can any American citizen in China be allowed to aid or abet a hostile expedition against its government as long as the United States is at peace with it. Still there is an apparent difference in the nature and objects of the two callings, and more caution and evidence are, perhaps, required before proceeding against one in an ostensibly peaceful employment than one whose profession is warlike, and his surroundings more or less hostile.

If it was found after arrest that no proof of having violated treaty obligations was produced, or not enough to detain the prisoner, he should be discharged; but if was not competent for the Japanese consul to ask for the charges, as General Le Gendre was not under his jurisdiction, and Japanese law could not interfere.

I conclude further, that there was no infraction of the rights of nations in your acts, nor anything in them “contrary to the privileges and immunities which public commissioners enjoy in civilized countries,” as Mr. Gosheki expresses it. The case is no doubt a singular one, but the Japanese government will clearly understand that their employment of American citizens does not remove such persons from the paramount claim of their own national laws, wherever those laws reach. Neither does an engagement in either of the above-mentioned callings by the Japanese government, when there was no hostile expedition started against China, authorize American citizens to engage further in active hostilities under the Japanese flag, and screen themselves by their previous obligations to serve their employers, as releasing them from their duty to keep the peace with China, while within her limits.

I am, &c.,