University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Foreign Relations of the United States

Page View

United States Department of State / Index to the executive documents of the House of Representatives for the second session of the fiftieth Congress, 1888-'90

China,   pp. 199-404 PDF (90.0 MB)

Page 202

   At page 7, Ex. Doe. No. 48, Mr. Seward sets out at length the reasons
 why this award was not enforced.
   It is unnecessary for me to copy his language here. Woo absolutely
 refused to pay any of the awards. Finally, on the 13th day of October,
 1863, a new agreement of arbitration was made by Seward and Woo.
 The letter of Seward to Woo, fixing the terms of this arbitration and.
 Woo's acceptance, are set out at page 10, Ex. Doc. No. 48. I call special
 attention thereto. Mr. Seward's proposal contains these words:
   Those claims which are declared not just or unsupported shall be dropped
by the
 consul and never brought forward again.
   Woo, in his acceptance, claims "that the account of Mr. Benson
 should be reckoned in connection with that of General Ward, and the
 dues on account of the former made available in settling the accounts of
 the latter. There is no reasoniin our being called on to pay money on
 account of General Ward first."
   The arbitrators selected were Edward Cunningham and Thomas
 Hanbury. Mr. Seward (1). 4, Ex. Doc. No. 48) says:
 When the second arbitration * * was agreed upon the claim of the estate
 was again submitted. I append hereto the decision of the arbitrators (pp.
4 and-5,
 Ex. Doc. No. 48).
   It does not appear by whom the claim was submitted to the arbitra-
 tors. Presumably it was done by Mr. Freeman. He was still the ad-
 ministratorof Ward's estate. Mr. Freeman resigned his trust June,
 With reference to the award (p. 5, Ex. Doe. No. 48), Mr. Seward says:
 They found the evidence on either side as submitted to them incomplete and
 sufficient, and were unable to reach an award.
   It may be mentioned here, also, that this new arbitration and award
is throughout this record bitterly attacked by the representatives of
Ward's estate.
  It is charged that there were verbal protests against the new arbi-
tration before action by the arbitrators. But the record does not thor-
oughly sustain this charge.
  The decision of the arbitrators was made December 26, 1863. Thh
written protest is dated March, 1864, and was not delivered to Mr. Sew-
ard until November 14, 1864. At all events, Mr. Seward does not ap-
pear to have regarded the determination of the arbitrators as final. He
seems to have looked on it as a dismissal without prejudice. We find
that, after Mr. Freeman's resignation as administrator, Seward, in vir-
tue of his general consular authority, continued to act as administrator
of the Ward estate until Mr. Twombley was appointed.
  Woo paid some of the claims*allowed (see p. 13, Ex. Doc. No. 48) and
refused to pay the balance.
  Seward took steps to procure the report of Henry G. Ward as to the
disposition of £40,000 that he had taken to the United States to be
used in purchasing ships. But in the meantime, through the instru.
mentality of Mr. Burlingame, Ying, a former Taotai at Shanghai, had
been appointed to take evidence and report at Peking. Upon meeting
Ying, Seward found himself in the same condition that Freeman had
been in, unable to account for the use of the £40,000 which had been
entrusted to Henry G. Ward. Thus the matter had to rest until the
accounts of Henry Ward could be had. In May, 1868, John T. Twomb-
ley was appointed administrator of Ward's estate. Henry Ward's ac-
counts were furnished to Mr. Twombley. These accounts were laid b6-
fore Woo in June,      h-, but he still refused to pay any sum of money.

Go up to Top of Page