Mr. Conger to
Mr. Hay.
Legation of the United States,
Pekin, China, October 27, 1900.
No. 431.]Sir: I have the honor to confirm, on the
overleaf, my cipher telegram of the 26th instant,1 and to say that on
yesterday the several foreign ministers met to formally begin the
discussion of terms of settlement to be presented to the Chinese
plenipotentiaries. Each had been instructed that all the powers had
agreed substantially or in principle with the French proposition,
and as the question of punishments was the first of these it was the
first taken up. After much
[Page 222]
discussion it was unanimously decided that the punishment of death
should be demanded for eleven officials, whom it is agreed by all
foreign ministers and Chinese Government are chiefly responsible for
the crime committed, to wit, Princes Tuan and Chuang I (Pu Ching),
Tsai Lien, and Tsai Ying, Duke Lan, Tung Fu-hsiang, Yu Hsien, Kang
I, Chao Shu-chiao, Ying Nien. The manner of their death was much
discussed, but it is believed that whatever we demanded most of them
would either voluntarily or by Imperial order commit suicide, and so
we simply say “death.” I have to-day received a note from Li
Hung-chang informing me that Kang I had died and that Governor Yu
Hsien had taken his own life by swallowing gold leaf.
The details that come to us of the horrible murder and mutilation of
our missionaries in the interior are so frightfully shocking that
less severe punishment can not be asked, and I believe the Chinese
Government are so impressed by the terrible results of their efforts
to get rid of the foreigners that they will readily accede to our
demand, unless the court is held in the power of those who are to be
thus punished; but, whether or no, they should be made to do it and
to furnish ample and satisfactory proof of its accomplishment.
Provision must also be made for adequate punishment for all
provincial and local officials who may be proved to be in any way
responsible for or accessory to the crime.
I inclose copy of my correspondence with Prince Ching and Li
Hung-chang regarding the rumored probability of removal of the
Yangtze viceroys.
I have the honor to be, etc.,
[Inclosure 1.]
Mr. Conger
to Prince Ching and Li
Hung-chang.
Legation of the United States,
Pekin, China, October 26, 1900.
No. 232.]Your Highness and Your Excellency:
Reports are reaching me from several sources that reactionary
and disturbing officials are being appointed in the Yangtze
provinces; that the power of the viceroys is being thus
undermined, and the removal of the viceroys Liu Kun-i and Chang
Chih-tung is contemplated. I can not believe this, for such
appointments or removals would be acts most unfriendly toward
the foreign powers who are now trying to negotiate a settlement
of the troubles which China has unfortunately brought upon
herself.
And yet the matter is so important that I am constrained to file
a formal and energetic protest against such action, and
respectfully request your highness and your excellency to
communicate it to the Emperor by telegraph.
I avail myself of this occasion to renew to your highness and
your excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.
[Inclosure 2.]
Prince Ching and Li
Hung-chang to Mr. Conger.
Pekin, October 27,
1900.
No. 203.]Your Excellency: We have just received
your excellency’s communication in which you state that reports
have been reaching you that reactionary disturbing officials are
being appointed in the Yangtze provinces; that the power of the
viceroys is being undermined and the removal of the viceroys of
the two Hu provinces and of Nanking is contemplated, but that
you can not believe this, etc.
[Page 223]
In reply we have the honor to say that it is very evident from
your excellency’s communication that you are sincerely friendly
in your intercourse (with us), for which we feel exceedingly
grateful.
We would observe, however, that in regard to the two
viceroys—Liang Hu provinces and Nanking—a decree was recently
issued appointing these officers to consult with us in arranging
terms of peace, and they are granted the position of minister
plenipotentiary. The court certainly relies on the position of
these officers, and they certainly have not been removed from
their respective posts. Even supposing that the idea of [their
removal] emanated from persons who are opposed to them, still
the fact of their being high officials of the Government would
certainly prevent them from venturing to defeat or overthrow
them before the very presence of the Throne. We may inform your
excellency that we have never heard of the reports to which you
allude, and even your excellency also knows that they certainly
are not really true.
In sending this communication in reply to your excellency, which
we beg you will take due note of, we ask you not to listen to
false reports.
