Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:05:21.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

American “Good Offices” in Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Tyler Dennett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first article of the American treaty with China, June 18, 1858, reads:

There shall be, as there have always been, peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Ta Tsing Empire, and between their peoples, respectively. They shall not insult or oppress each other for any trifling cause, so as to produce an estrangement between them; and if any other nation should act unjustly or oppressively, the United States will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement of the question, thus showing their friendly feelings.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 1922 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1922

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Journal of Williams, S. Wells; Journal of the North-China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XLII, 1911, p. 61;Martin, W. A. P. , Cycle of Cathy, p. 185, gives a different and probably inaccurate account of the incident.Google Scholar

2 For the details of the negotiations of Eeed, William B. , the American Minister, and Williams, S. Wells , the secretary of the legation, see Eeed Correspondence, S. Ex. Doc. 30, 36-36; also the Williams Journal. Google Scholar

3 William Elliot Griffis, Korea, the Hermit Nation, Chap. XLVT; Foreign Relations, 1871, p. 73, Low to Fish, Nov. 22, 1870; p. I l l , Low to Fish, Apr. 3, 1871; p. 116, Low to Fish, May 31, 1871; p. 121, Low to Fish, June 2, 1871; p. 124, Low to Fish, June 15, 1871; p. 142, Low to Fish, July 6, 1871.

4 Paullin, Charles Oscar, The Opening of Korea by Commodore Shufeldt , Pol. Sci. Quart. Vol. XXV , No. 3 , pp. 478 Google Scholar ff.; China Despatches, Vol. 55 , No. 21 , Angell to Secretary of State, Sept. 27, 1880 ; Vol. 57 , No. 30 , Holcombe to Secretary of State,Dec. 19, 1881 .

5 Reports of the Shufeldt negotiations with Li Hung Chang and with the Korean Commissioners are to be found in the China Despatches, Vols. 55 , 57 , 58 , 59 , filed according to dates; Angell to Secretary of State, No. 30 , Oct. 11, 1880 ; No. 33 , Oct. 22, 1880 ; Holcombe to Secretary of State, No. 30 , Dec. 19, 1881 ; No. 37 , Dec. 29, 1881 ; Shufeldt to Secretary of State, July 1, 1881 , Jan. 20, Jan. 23, Mar. 11, Mar. 28, April 10, April 28, May 13, May 22, May 24, May 29, June 8, June 12, and June 26, 1882 . For the international relations of Japan throughout the period under discussion see article by Nagao Ariga on “ Japanese Diplomacy” in Alfred Stead [Ed.], Japan by the Japanese, London, 1904, Chap. XI. This chapter, an unblushing account of the motives and methods of Japanese diplomacy from 1860 to 1900, contains evidence of having been prepared from official records, and may be accepted as semi-official in its statements. References to this chapter in the following pages would be so numerous as to be wearisome, and are, therefore, except in a few cases, omitted.

6 The British despatches, and the British and French historians all unite in the indictment of bad faith on the part of the Chinese. See, Correspondence with Mr. Bruce, 1859 ; correspondence respecting China, 1859 - 60 ; Cordier, Expedition de Chine, 1860 ; Douglas, Europe in the Far East, p. 113 ff . The American records, however (see Ward Correspondence, S. Ex. Doe. 30, 36-1, pp. 575 ff., particularly p. 611; Williams Journal, p. 143), make it practically certain, that the Chinese were acting in all sincerity and according to the provisions of the treaty.

7 For brief account, see U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 40, p. 1085.

8 Ward Correspondence, Desp. of Aug. 20, 1859 , p. 594. Williams Journal, p. 153.

9 China Despatches, Vol. 19 , Ward to Cass, Feb. 13, 1860 .

10 Griffis' Hermit Kingdom, p. 205 ; Douglas' Europe in the Far East, p. 190 .n Japan Despatches, Vol. 4 .

11 Japan Despatches, Vol. 4 .

12 Japan Instructions, Vol. 1 , Feb. 5, 1862 .

13 For a history of the controversy see Stead, op. cit. pp. 149 S.

14 Japan Despatches, Vol. 13 , No. 7 , Jan. 11, 1870 ; Japan Instructions, Vol. 1 , No. 85 , Jan. 17, 1871 ; Russia Instructions, No. 65 , Nov. 11, 1870 ; Russia Despatches,No. 91 , Dec. 9, 1870 .

15 Moore's Digest, Vol. 2 , p. 655 .

16 Jackson Payson Treat, Japan and the United States, pp. 70 , 100, 101; Treat,Early Diplomatic Relations between the United Statesand Japan, 1853 - 65 , p. 249 ; Diplomatic Correspondence, 1863 , II, p. 1079 ; For. Rel., 1873 , Vol. 1 , p. 613 .

17 Also spelled Loo Choo, Liu Chiu; Japanese, Eiu Kiu.

18 The evidence for this statement is to be found in Walter Wallace McLaren, A Political History of the Meiji Era, p.195 ff .; Stead, op. cit., Chap. XI.

19 China Despatches, Vol. 36 , No. 55 , Aug. 22, 1874 , Williams to Fish.

20 China Despatches, Vol. 37 , No. 70 , Oct. .29, 1874 , Williams to Fish.

21 Parliamentary Papers, China No. 2 (1875), Correspondence respecting settlement of the difficulty between China and Japan in regard to the Island of Formosa. Further Correspondence presented Mar. 9, 1875. Foreign Relations, 1875, p. 221, Williams to Fish, Nov. 12, 1874.

22 For a discussion of this most complicated question of theexact status of the Lew Chews vis a vis China, see Foreign Relations, 1880, p. 194, Dec. 11, 1879, Seward to Secretary of State.

23 Perry Correspondence, Sen. Ex. Doc. 34; 33-33, pp. 12 ff., 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 66,81, 108-108, 112, 174.

24 Stead, op. cit., p. 171.

25 China Despatches, Vol. 61 , No. 33 , Oct. 9, 1882 , Young to Frelinghuysen.

26 Young John Bussell , Men and Memories, Vol. 2 , pp. 294 - 5 . John Bussell Young,Around the World with General Grant, Vol. 2 , pp. 410 - 412 , 415 , 543 - 546 , 558 -60 .

27 Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 243, Apr. 4, 1881, Blaine to Angell.

28 It has been frequently stated (ef. Robert P. Porter, Japan, the Rise of a Modem Power, p. 119 ; Morse H. B. , op. tit., Vol. II , p. 322 ) that General Grant himself proposed the partition of the islands between China and Japan. As a matter of fact, the most important point in the mediation by General Grant was that China and Japan should, if possible, settle their own disputes without the admission of any European into the controversy.

29 Foreign Relations, ibid., p. 229 , Jan. 25, 1881 , Angell to Secretary of State. See 1873 , pp. 188 , 553 , 564 ; 1879 , p. 637 ; 1880 , p. 194 , for details of entire controversy.

30 China Despatches, Vol. 58 , No. 19 , Nov. 24, 1881 , Holcombe to Secretary of State.

31 Mr. Young refers to this conference in Men and Memories, op. cit., p. 308.

32 Cordier, Relations de la Chine avec les puissances ocddentales, II, p. 399.

33 Morse, H. B. , International Relations of the Chinese Empire, Vol. II , pp. 353-57 Google Scholar ,who was present at the Li Hung Chang-Fournier negotiations and saw the documents,gives personal testimony as well as evidence to prove that the French Government was guilty of extremely bad faith in the observance of this convention. His verdict is:ȜIt is only on the ground that an Asiatic nation has no rights which the white man is bound to respect that the course of France is to be explained.ȝ For the French statement of the case, see Cordier, op. cit., II, pp. 435 ff.

34 Morse, op. cit., pp. 364-7.

35 Moore's Arbitrations, Vol. 2 , p. 1857 - 59 .

36 Foreign Relations, 1883 , p. 209 ; 1884 , p. 46 ; Morse, op. eit., p. 320 .

37 For the more important details of Mr. Young's negotiations in the French controversy,see China Despatches, Vol. 65 , No.230 , Aug. 8, 1883 , No.232 , Aug. 16, 1882 ,No.252 , Sept. 7, 1883 , No.268, Oct. 8, 1883 ; Vol. 67 , No.308 , Dec.24, 1883 ; Vol.68, No.318 , Jan. 6, 1884 ; Vol. 71 , No. 496 , Aug. 21,1884 , No. 501 , Sept. 4, 1884 ; Vol.73, No. 569 , Dec. 9, 1884 , No. 583 , Dec. 22, 1884 . It is difficult to explain the omission of all of these very able despatches from Foreign Relations. Perhaps the failure of Frelinghuysen's negotiations with France, together with the fact of a change of administration in 1885 , explains it. There are few finer chapters in the history of arbitration than the Young-Frelinghuysen efforts in 1883 - 1883 .

38 Foreign Relations, 1894, Vol. 2, p. 22.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid., p. 29.

41 Foreign Relations, 1894, Vol. 2, p. 30.

42 Ibid., p. 37.

43 Foreign Relations, 1894, Vol. 2, p. 70.

44 Ibid., pp. 73, 74, 76, 77.

45 Charles Denby, China and Her People, Vol.2, p. 130 ff.

46 China seems to have been prepared as early as 1895 to accept arbitration as a method of settling international disputes. It is believed that at Shimoneseki the Chinese Commissioners submitted to Japan for inclusion in the peace treaty an articledrafted as follows: “ In order to avoid future conflict or war between China andJapan, it is agreed that should any question arise hereafter as to the interpretation, orexecution of the present Treaty of Peace, or as to the negotiation, interpretation, orexecution of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation and the Convention of FrontierIntercourse provided for in Article VI of this treaty, which cannot be adjusted by theusual method of diplomatic conference and correspondence between the two governments,they will submit such questions to the decision of an arbitrator to be designated bysome friendly power to be selected by mutual accord of the two governments, or, in caseof failure to agree as to the selection of said power, then the President of the UnitedStates shall be invited to designate the arbitrator; and both governments agree to accept,abide by and carry out in good faith the decision of said arbitrator.” The Japanesedeclined to accept this article.