In the first place, I desire to submit to the enlightened judgment of your excellency, whether the present case is not, in one material respect, different from the occurrence at Denver, Colo. In the latter, Mr. Evarts called attention to the fact "that the powers of direct intervention on the part of this Government are limited by the Constitution of the United States. Under the limitations of that instrument, the Government of the Federal Union cannot interfere in regard to the administration or execution of the municipal laws of a State of the Union, except under circumstances expressly provided for in the Constitution." And after referring to those circumstances as applied to the Denver riot, he concluded that action "belongs exclusively to the Government and authorities of the State of Colorado." But in the present case, if I have been correctly informed as to the Governmental practice of your excellency's nation, the administration of justice and the protection of life and property belong exclusively to the Government and authorities of the Federal Union, and the limitations referred to, as hampering the immediate and direct intervention of the Supreme Government in the Denver case, do not obstruct the action requested in this note. But it is not my intention nor am I qualified to discuss the relative responsibilities or duties of the central and provincial bodies or authorities of the American Union. I count my Government and myself fortunate in having had at the head of the foreign department of this country, in the person of your excellency, one whose long and distinguished experience in public affairs and intimate knowledge of domestic law, and whose well-known sense of international justice and fair dealing eminently fit him for this task, and I cheerfully leave this question in your hands.

There is, however, a broader view of the subject, to which I desire to ask your excellency's consideration. Mr. Evarts states that he knows "of no principle of national obligation, and certainly there is none arising out of treaty stipulations, which renders it incumbent on the Government of the United States to make indemnity to the Chinese residents of Denver, who * suffered losses from the operations of the mob. Whatever remedies may be afforded to the citizens of Colorado are equally open to the Chinese residents of Denver. This is all that the principles of international law and the usages of national comity demand." I again disown any desire to question the interpretation of international law given by so high an authority, but as "the usages of national comity" are matters of fact and not of law, I trust it may not be considered inappropriate for me to examine somewhat in detail what these "usages" really have been and now are.

There is a principle of reciprocal justice and comity so fair and so true that it is incorporated as a cardinal doctrine, in common, in the system of religion and ethics of the people of America and of China. And in proof of the fact that this principle is equally applicable to Governments in their international relations as to persons in their individual duties, it has been inserted in one of the earliest treaties between China and the United States, and the maxim "to do to others as they would have others do to them" remains in a treaty which is to-day the international law of the two nations (Article XXIX, treaty of 1858). Although, unhappily, this principle has not always been observed in the relations which Christian nations have maintained towards China during the present century, it affords me the highest gratification to recognize the fact that whatever advances have been made in the direction of a practical application of that principle are due in great measure to the

magnanimous conduct and powerful influence of the Government of the United States. This conduct has been manifested in a number of instances, but notably so when my Government determined to ask the nations of America and Europe to change the policy which they had heretofore pursued, and to enter upon new treaty stipulations. China cherishes with grateful memory the cordial reception given by the United States to its special embassy in 1868, and the ready acceptance of the treaty proposed by it. As to the effect and meaning of that treaty, I beg to refer your excellency to the declarations of the Secretaries of State, Messrs. Seward and Fish, as quoted in inclosure No. 4 to this note.

I recognize the fact that the treaty of 1868 did not repeal various stipulations of former treaties, whereby China had conceded certain extraterritorial rights to citizens of the United States; but I think it is also clear that so far as the questions involved in this note are concerned, to wit, the full protection of the laws, punishment for acts of riot, murder, robbery, and arson, and pecuniary indemnity for losses occasioned thereby, American citizens in China have no other and no greater treaty guarantees and rights than Chinese subjects in the United States. They are placed on a common footing with the people of the country. A reference to the treaties and the opinions cited in inclosure No. 4 to this note will, I think, establish the correctness of this position. I do not understand that, in citing Article XI of the treaty of 1858, guaranteeing to Americans in China the protection of the local authorities, and in noting the fact that this provision is not reciprocal, Mr. Blaine designed to assert that an equivalent obligation was not incumbent upon the local authorities of the United States. Neither that distinguished statesman nor any other patriotic citizen of this powerful nation of law and order would admit that any Government of the globe was more ready than the United States to do justice and afford protec tion to those who had legally entered its territory. Besides, it is expressly stipulated in Article VI of the treaty of 1868, and in Article II of the treaty of 1880, that Chinese subjects in the United States should be treated as those of the most favored nation.

I now ask that your excellency will examine with me what has been the practice of the Government of the United States in respect to the injuries and damages which its citizens have suffered from mob violence and lawless acts in China. The investigation which I have caused to be made has necessarily been confined to the published records of your own Government, as the desire I have had to bring officially to your attention the Wyoming massacre with as little delay as possible has prevented me from availing myself of the voluminous data in the Chinese archives at Peking. Before the year 1858, upon the request and intervention of the American diplomatic and consular representatives, the Chinese provincial and local authorities had, in a considerable number of instances, indemnified American citizens for losses occasioned by riots and violence, but in that year a convention was agreed to whereby the Government of China paid over to that of the United States the sum of $735,258.97, "in full liquidation of all claims of American citizens." In making that payment my Government did not consider the strict obligations of international law or treaty, but was influenced by a desire to show its appreciation of the friendly conduct of the United States in a time of great trial. It neither examined the evidence upon which the claims were based, nor did it insist upon having a representative on the board which disbursed this large sum. The diplomatic representative of the United States, under instructions from his Government, had declared that the claims were equitable and

just to that amount, and ought to be paid by China, and upon the faith of his representation the payment was made. From an examination of the claims paid out of that fund, an epitome of which accompanies this note as inclosure No. 3, it appears that a large part of them was for losses sustained by mob violence, robbery, and other lawless acts of individual Chinese subjects. While I desire to embrace this opportunity to again recognize the illustrious conduct of the United States in returning to China the unexpended balance of that fund, it is a fact clearly established by the history of the claims convention of 1858 that the Government of the United States demanded and received from the Government of China a large sum of money as indemnification for losses sustained by American citizens in China by mob violence and robbery.

In addition to this, your excellency, in reviewing the correspondence of the American legation and consulates in China, from the date of that convention up to the present day, will find that it has been the constant and uniform practice of the diplomatic and consular representatives, under direct and specific instructions or subsequent approval of the Department of State, to intervene with the Chinese imperial and local authorities in all cases which came to their notice of injuries or losses suffered by American citizens from mob violence, and have asked these authorities not only to punish the offenders but to indemnify the citizens for all their losses. An abstract of some of these cases has been compiled, and is sent with this note, to substantiate its declarations on this point. It will thus be seen that the Government of the United States has insisted upon the direct indemnification by or through the imperial and local authorities for almost all conceivable losses by mob violence and other kindred acts. It has caused losses to be paid for the burning or destruction of houses by mobs; required the local authorities in some cases to rebuild or repair them, even when owned by Chinese and rented to Americans, the rent paid during the time the houses could not be occupied by the Americans on account of the acts of the mob to be made good. It has exacted indemnification by the authorities for the robbing of Americans and the plunder of their houses by mobs; reimbursement of traveling expenses occasioned by fleeing from them; for petty thefts where the perpetrators were unknown or could not be arrested; the return of money or the value of clothing and other property taken from the native helpers or Chinese servants of Americans. It has asked and received from the imperial treasury large sums of money as indemnification for losses to Americans, where the Chinese passengers and crew of merchant vessels have risen and by force seized the vessel and stolen portions of the cargo, or where wreckers or local pirates have plundered vessels in distress. It has sent its consuls and vessels of war to demand the trial of rioters where a single American suffered losses valued at less than $500; required the infliction of punishment on the guilty in the presence of the representatives of the American Government, and that the rioters should give bond for the future security of American citizens. Its representative has asked for the destruction of prints in interior districts calculated to incite mob violence, the destruction of the block or type, and the punishment of the possessors. Its minister plenipotentiary has intervened with the imperial prince minister to secure the return of sums as small as $73 stolen from American citizens, and to have the latter guarded with greater vigilance. These acts of intervention on the part of the American Government and its representatives, so often repeated through a long serious of years, have been independent of any treaty stipulations

to that effect. Article XI, heretofore referred to, confers upon the United States representatives no greater privileges than are, as I am informed, enjoyed by the consular and diplomatic representatives of foreign nations in the United States without any treaty stipulations; and it gives to American citizens no other or greater protection than is afforded by the laws of China to its own subjects. Notwithstanding this, the Government of the United States has asked for, and that of China has uniformly conceded to, American citizens full indemnity through the imperial or local authorities, for all losses and injuries sustained by mob violence and lawless acts of Chinese subjects.

It cannot be believed that in doing this the United States has required of China that which it would not, in the language of Secretary Fish, expect of a "European or American state under the rules of the equitable code which regulated the intercourse of civilized nations." Neither can it be believed that the United States would so far violate the spirit of the "golden rule," incorporated by it in one of its treaties, or "the usages of national comity," referred to by Mr. Evarts, as to require of China that which under similar circumstances it would not concede to China in reciprocity.

Having thus examined what has been the practice of the Government of the United States towards China on this subject, I trust your excellency will not consider that I exceed diplomatic propriety if I refer to the conduct of the United States with respect to other nations. I regret that this note is already so long, and I will, therefore, confine my reference on this point to one notable instance. I learn from an examination of the published records of your excellency's Government (a memorandum of which is herewith inclosed) that in the year 1851, in consequence of a great excitement created throughout the United States on account of the execution of a considerable number of American citizens by the authorities of Cuba, the indignation against Spain was so great that a mob took place at New Orleans and another at Key West, and the houses of several Spanish subjects were attacked, but the damages done by the mob were confined to the injury of some property, no lives being lost. Without loss of time, the Spanish minister at Washington made a demand for the punishment of the rioters, and "indemnification for damages and injuries inflicted upon Her Catholic Majesty's subjects." To this request the distinguished statesman who occupied the post now so worthily filled by your excellency replied in almost the same terms as those used by Mr. Evarts, in which he took the position that Spanish residents were entitled to no other or greater protection and rights than afforded by the laws and courts to nativeborn citizens. This answer does not appear to have satisfied the Queen of Spain, and her minister in Washington was instructed to renew his request for indemnity, and he, referring to the friendly relations existing between the two Governments, applied to the "equity and wisdom" of Secretary Webster to provide "a generous remedy," and also invoked the interposition of the President to secure from Congress the indemnification desired. Thereupon the Congress of the United States authorized the Secretary of State to indemnify the Spanish subjects at New Orleans and Key West for all the losses sustained from the lawless mobs at those places, and a large sum of money was paid out of the national Treasury for this object.

Your excellency must not infer from this citation that I regard this act as legal a precedent, binding the United States in all its future national relations. On the contrary, I understand that it was a voluntary act of good-will, above and beyond the strict authorization of domestic

law. But I do claim that it goes to show that there are high principles of equity and "national comity," rising above the narrow limits of statutory law, which control the action of nations; and I heartily rejoice that the early, constant, and steadfast friend of China, the great and enlightened Government of America, has done so much to bring the nations of the earth up to this high plane of international justice and fair dealing. It is far from my mind to undervalue the friendly relations of any other Government towards the United States, or to lessen the obligations of reciprocal good-fellowship which exists between them; but I would be wanting in my duty to my august sovereign did I admit that any Government has cherished for your excellency's nation more cordial friendship or has been more ready to reciprocate its acts of goodwill than China. If, therefore, in the past the equity and wisdom of the Secretary of State, of his excellency the President, and of the Congress of the United States have found a way whereby the obstructions referred to by Messrs. Evarts and Blaine have been overcome as to the subjects of other nations, I do not doubt that an equally efficacious method will be devised for the relief of the subjects of China, especially in view of the fact that the Government of the latter has uniformly and for a long series of years granted, at the request of the Government of the United States, similar relief to its citizens, and that, too, in the face of strong local prejudice and at the cost of many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I ask the indulgence of your excellency in order to refer to a single further point. I cannot disguise the fact that the presence of Chinese laborers in the United States awakens the hatred and opposition of a certain class of the inhabitants of this country. I am happy to know that neither the Government nor the mass of its citizens share in or sympathize with that hatred. It will be remembered, however, that your excellency's Government, only a few years ago, in order to remove some of the causes of that opposition, sent a special embassy to Peking to ask my Government to modify the treaty of 1868 respecting immigration, and in their conferences with the Chinese plenipotentiaries that embassy gave assurances that if the modifications proposed should be conceded by China, the Chinese laborers then in this country should have ample protection guaranteed to them by a specific treaty stipulation, and that the Government would "construe all such obligations in that spirit of friendly liberality which has marked its relations with the Chinese Government." While it was difficult for the Chinese plenipotentiaries to see why a greater obligation rested on their Government to modify treaty stipulations in respect to Chinese laborers than in respect to American missionaries, for instance, whose presence awakened among certain ignorant and prejudiced Chinese a similar hatred and opposition, nevertheless, upon the faith of the solemn assurances of the American ambassadors, they consented to the treaty modifications desired. (For. Rel., 1881, pp. 173 and 178.) I therefore submit to the recognized candor of your excellency, whether your Government did not thereby incur an increased obligation, if that were possible, to afford ample protection to Chinese laborers, such as those who have been murdered and robbed so cruelly at Rock Springs, Wyoming Territory. In view of the state of public sentiment at that place, and of the failure of justice at Denver, I cannot believe that you will refer my suffering countryman, as their only remedy, to the local courts of that Territory. But calling to mind the conduct of China, and the practice of the United States for a long series of years, you will, in such way as your equity and wisdom may devise, provide an ample and prompt indemnification