I must also insist that any arrest of occupants of those premises be sanctioned by me. This has been the mode of proceeding under the Chinese administration and should be maintained by your temporary administration. Hoping that you will see the points of my views of a proper mode of proceeding in this matter, I have, etc., HENRY B. MILLER, United States Consul. [Subinclosure 3.] Mr. Kristy to Mr. Miller. No. 106.] CONSULAT IMPÉRIAL DE RUSSIE À NEWCHWANG, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favors dated November 27 and 7th instant concerning the docking of a Russian launch on the ground belonging to one of your nationals, Mr. C. McCaslin. In reply I have the honor to point out to you that none of the Russian authorities wanted intentionally to make depredations and unwarranted use of land belonging to one of your nationals. Even if the dock has been dug on the ground of an American citizen, it happened by a misunderstanding, which was the fault of the owner. When we drove out together to see where the dock had been made, I called your attention to the fact that the stones with the owner's initials, marking the boundaries of your national's property, were placed beyond the dock. This circumstance put the dock builder on a wrong scent, as he thought that the stones were in the proper place and acted according to the common sense and indications of people living in the Russian settlement. Besides, according to the Chinese and Russian laws, a certain part of the ground from the bank of the river can not be anybody's property. I have had a personal conversation about the matter with Mr. McCaslin to endeavor to settle this affair amicably, being firmly convinced that Mr. McCaslin would be modest in his claims. Now, Mr. McCaslin is unwilling to settle this matter for 500 rubles under the conditions mentioned in the copy of a letter which you sent to me from Mr. McCaslin. This claim of Mr. McCaslin as a rent for a small dock, in comparison with the rent for which the provisional imperial Russian civil administration paid for rent for a much larger dock, in my opinion, is too immodest, the more so that the abovementioned gentleman was at fault in this matter. Therefore I absolutely refuse to give any attention to any claim of Mr. McCaslin. Owing to the complete undetermination of the boundaries of the land belonging to Mr. McCaslin near the Russian settlement, I have the honor to ask you kindly to let me have the plan of American property there. This is necessary to enable me to inform the Russian authorities there distinctly where the property of Mr. McCaslin is situated, and what marks show the boundaries, thereby avoiding all unpleasantness and misunderstanding in the future. I have, etc., [Subinclosure 4.] CH. KRISTY. No. 86.] CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES, I have the honor to acknowledge your dispatch of the 18th instant, concerning the docking of a launch owned by the Russian authorities. I am surprised at the position you take in saying: "Therefore I absolutely refuse to give any attention to any claim of Mr. McCaslin." You admitted to me in conversation over the matter that a wrong had been done, and that compensation would be made, but complained that Mr. McCaslin's demands were too much. I am therefore astonished that you should refuse to do justice to an American citizen, and am at a loss to understand by what right you claim to enter upon his property without due compensation. There was an abundance of river frontage owned by the Russian authorities, a mile or more, adjoining Mr. McCaslin's land, where your boat could have been docked as well as on Mr. McCaslin's land. It is true that all of this river bank and land is subject to constant washings and destruction, and it would have increased the washing away of this land belonging to the Russian authorities to have broken the bank by docking a boat there, and this may have been the reason for not using their own land for that purpose. The same condition of damage by washing, however, pertains to the land of Mr. McCaslin and the measure of damage that he claims is based upon this fact. Your claim that the occupation of this land by Russian authority is the fault of the owner is a point that I fail to comprehend. His agent there remonstrated at the time, and as soon as he was notified he addressed you a communication giving the terms and conditions upon which it could be occupied. After that the dock was completed, and long after the boat was docked there, and the action of your authorities in completing the dock and docking the boat after Mr. McCaslin's letter of notice and terms were received by you, and after I had called your attention to the violation of Mr. McCaslin's rights, was a practical acceptation of his terms. Your claim that the boundary stones were beyond the limits of the dock has an appearance of an excuse for your getting on to Mr. McCaslin's land, but it is not a fair excuse for continued occupation. The boundary stones to which you refer were not all of the original stones, as some have been washed away in the 150 feet of his land that has been destroyed and washed away. Your further claim that by Chinese and Russian laws a certain part of the ground along the bank of the river can not belong to individuals does not, in my opinion, apply to this case. I must beg you to point out to me when and by what authority "Russian law” has been substituted in lieu of the treaty rights of China guaranteed to American citizens here. This Chinese law to which you refer is evidently the custom and regulation by which a passage along the river can not be closed by individuals. The Chinese custom or law does not, however, give your people the right to close a passage to the river by docking a boat there without permission of the owner of the land adjoining; but on the other hand would be a perfect bar to your using the place for any such purpose. The motive and purpose of the law is to allow free passage along the river bank, and this law you have violated by obstructing the passage with a dock and a boat. Because Mr. McCaslin demands a recompense that appears too large to you, you therefore refuse to pay any attention to the matter. I can not believe that your Government will sustain such violations of the rights of American citizens, and I can not, in so far as my duties extend, permit that Russian authorities should forcibly occupy land belonging to American citizens without due recompense. This land is duly registered in this consulate as the property of Mr. Charles McCaslin, an American citizen, and I must therefore insist that settlement be made with him for its use. Concerning your request for a map of Mr. McCaslin's land, I will say that such a map is not in the possession of the consulate, and you must apply to Mr. McCaslin, or secure it from the proper records. The land records of this consulate will be open to you for compiling such a map, if you will recognize the rights of American property owners. If, however, you do not propose to pay any attention to the claims and rights of property of American citizens, I can see little use for such a map. In conclusion, I beg to say that I consider that the property and treaty rights of Mr. McCaslin have been violated in this case; that a boat belonging to the Russian authorities has been docked upon his land without his consent, except on condition with which you refuse to comply; that this boat is to be continued on this land belonging to Mr. McCaslin for several months; to all of which I must enter my earnest protest, and the facts concerning which I must report to my Government. I have, etc., HENRY B. MILLER. No. 78.] [Subinclosure 5.] Mr. Miller to Captain Eberhard. CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: Complaint has been filed in this office by Mr. C. McCaslin, an American citizen, against the action of your soldiers' taking possession of his land and digging dock for winter quarters for tugboats. This land is registered at this consulate as the property of Mr. McCaslin, and you can readily understand that no one has a right to use or possession of it except by arrangements with Mr. McCaslin. Your men were warned against using this land by Mr. McCaslin's agent. I must therefore beg to call your attention to this matter, and urge that proper adjustment be made at an early date. I have, etc., HENRY B. MILLER, United States Consul. [Subinclosure 6.] No. 1462.] Captain Eberhard to Mr. Miller. 9 (22) NOVEMBER, 1901. In reply to your letter of this date, No. 78, I beg to inform you that Mr. McCaslin's property is beyond the limits of the city under my administration, and you have to address this complaint to the imperial Russian consulate. I have, etc., A. EBERHARD, Captain, I. R. M., Civil Administrator. [Subinclosure 7.] Mr. Miller to Captain Eberhard. No. 79.] CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge your dispatch of the 22d instant, in which you say that the matter of Mr. McCaslin's complaint should be addressed to the Russian consulate. I beg to inclose you a copy of Mr. McCaslin's letter to the Russian consul and a copy of his reply. There surely must be someone here with the proper authority to deal with this matter, and I beg you to advise me to whom the case should be brought. Such violations of the rights of American citizens should not be allowed by your people, and there ought to be means of prompt redress, and I beg you to point out to me the proper authorities. I have, etc., [Subinclosure 8.] Mr. McCaslin to Mr. Kristy. HENRY B. MILLER, United States Consul. NIUCHWANG, November 17, 1901. DEAR MR. KRISTY: I am sorry to make a complaint to you again. This time it is against the people who are docking the steam launches. They started to-day to dig a dock on my ground next to the Russian settlement. Anything they dock there they will have to pay for; each launch $500, and if the Sampson, $1,000; then the expenses of filling up the docks will have to be paid by the people who dug them. These docks wil! cause my land to wash away twice as fast as if they had not been there. It seems to me as though some of the Russian people here think they can do what they like with my land. I do not wish to make trouble, but they are going a little too far. If you will notify the people who are digging the dock what they are doing, you will greatly oblige. Yours, truly, [Subinclosure 9.] Mr. Kristy to Mr. McCaslin. C. MCCASLIN. DEAR MR. MCCASLIN: You are quite right in your to-day's letter, but I am sorry to say that I have nothing to do with the mentioned dock. Please address to the administrator. Yours, sincerely, CH. KRISTY. [Subinclosure 10.] Captain Eberhard to Mr. Miller. NOVEMBER 25, 1901. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, No. 79, in which you say that the violations of the rights of the American citizens should not be allowed by our people and, further, that there surely must be some one here with the proper authority, etc. Though I am ignorant of whom you designate by the words "your people," I surely agree with your opinion. Of course, an authority for any questions beyond my jurisdiction exists here, and, as I pointed out to you before, in the person of the imperial consul for Russia. I am sorry that you are guided more by the private correspondence between Messrs. Kristy and McCaslin than by my dispatch. I have, etc., A. EBERHARD, Captain, Imperial Russian Navy, Civil Administrator. [Inclosure 6.-Telegram.] Mr. Conger to Mr. Miller. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Russian minister says he will telegraph consul that Russian authority only replaces Chinese, and that all treaty rights must be respected and all former lawful practices followed, and direct him to meet you and try amicably to settle all questions. You can hardly claim complete and exclusive jurisdiction of Chinese subjects because they live in American houses. CONGER. [Inclosure 7.] Mr. Conger to Mr. Miller. No. 1281.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I confirm my telegram of yesterday, and reply to your dispatch, No. 59, herewith. You should in all cases do your best to settle questions amicably, and while maintaining with dignity all treaty and other rights, you should be sure that your demands are always within your rights, and that in presenting them you do not adopt a style that will unnecessarily give offense. I note that Captain Eberhard objects to your use of " your people" in referring to the Russian authorities. It appears to me, also, that your note of December 19 would have been stronger had you left out the imputation of improper motives in the selection, by the Russians, of Mr. McCaslin's land for docking purposes instead of their own. I trust you will be able, after the Russian consul receives the minister's telegram to confer amicably with him and come to a satisfactory settlement of Mr. McCaslin's claim. If you are not able to do this, then please send me in detail all the facts in the case, reporting all personal interviews concerning the matter, and giving information as to charges of other owners of land for like usage, and how much is paid for the Vicksburg's dock, etc. I am, etc., [Inclosure 8.] Mr. Conger to Mr. Miller. E. H. CONGER. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: Continuing the subject-matter of my No. 1281, referring again to my telegram confirmed therein, and replying to your No. 60, in which you ask if your position is tenable, I have to say I can not quite agree with your position as stated in your letter to Mr. Kristy, of December 20, substantially claiming jurisdiction over all Chinese occupying American-owned houses, and particularly that you should undertake to decide whether or not arrests of Chinese by Chinese authorities were justifiable. Russian authority might be permitted, under its assumed jurisdiction, to do whatever Chinese might have done before, but nothing more. It has been, so far as I can learn, the general custom not to permit Chinese in foreign employ to be arrested except with foreign consent, and within foreign settlements to require consular consent before arresting Chinese in foreign-owned buildings; but consent in the latter case is always given. Insistence by the consul that justification of arrest should be proven beforehand would, I apprehend, be an unwarrantable interference with Chinese administration. Outside of foreign settlements the consul might properly exercise a certain jurisdiction over foreign-owned property, but not over Chinese domiciled therein. I am, etc., E. H. CONGER. [Inclosure 9.] No. 63.] CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have to report the inclosed copy of a dispatch received from the civil administrator, and my reply thereto. This raises the question of the right of the United States to land troops in Manchuria. While I have purposely evaded a reply to that question, I am firmly convinced that we ought not to surrender our right to land troops at any time that we consider it necessary for the protection of life and property of our citizens, and I am further convinced that it would not be wise, under existing conditions, to grant that Russia has the sole right to land troops in Manchuria. It would be impolitic and injudicious to land troops to interfere with the civil or military administration of Russia, but we certainly ought not to grant Russia that we have no right to do so at any time we deem it imperative for the protection of American interests here. The Russian administration is gradually pressing the claims of Russian authority in this port and over all Manchuria, and we are in almost daily receipt of some communication along these lines. In this matter I have no doubt that Russia will object to the landing of the crew of the Vicksburg for drill. I am of the opinion that we are entitled, as much as Russia, to land troops in this port, under existing conditions, and that we ought not surrender that right by any intimidation. As long as Russian administration protects American interests we ought not to interfere, and, so far as I am concerned, will not. The circumstance that aroused the excitement of the civil administrator was the taking of six rifles and accouterments from the British ship Algerine to the public hall, where the crew of the ship were giving a theatrical performance in which they used these guns. |