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
(1888-1889)

China,   pp. 199-404 PDF (90.0 MB)


Page 207


Hanbury and Cunningham, not dated, but showing on its face that it
was after the award; letter of Henry G. Ward to. Frederick G. Ward,
May 24, 1864; letter from same to same, same date; petit-ion of Fied-
erick G. Ward to the Chinese Government, going over the whole case.
   The action of my immediate predecessor with regard to the Ward
 claims is fully reported in No. 167, Mr. Youngto Mr. Frelinghuyseu: of
 date March 22, 1883.
   Mr. Young had succeeded in having the Ward claims and the Hill
claim referred to the Viceroy Li Hung Chang at Tientsin.
   In dispatch 102, of date January 13, 1883, Mr. Young gives a copy of
his confidential instructions to Mr. Holcombe. It will be seen that no
allusion was made to the Ward estate claim.
   Mr. Young reports the settlement reached by Mr. Holcombe and the
payment by the viceroy of $52,246.56. He says: "This payment is a
settlement in full of what are kno wn as the 'Ward claims,'principal and
interest at 9 per cent." The Hill claim was not settled, but the record
shows that Hill did not waive, nor did the minister, any of his rights.
Mr. Young says he was anxious to settle these claims, because "the ex-
istence of the controversy was an embarrassment in our relations with
China."
   In his report to Mr. Young of his acts at Tientsin, Mr. Holcombe says:
   I first acknowledged receipt in full, principal and interest, of all demands
of citi-
zens of the United States on account of the so-called Ward claims.
  He further says:
  Both of these last-named officials (the viceroys at Nanking and Tientsin.)argued
against the abstract validity of the claims, but proposed payment on the
ground of
the arbitrator's award and their friendly feeling towards the United States.
  It is to be noticed, as Mr. Holcombe explains, that the Hill claim was
rejected by the last arbitrators simply because it was not covered by
the articles of arbitration, not being against Woo Taotai. Woo Taotai
was in no wise responsible for the Hill claim. It was, therefore, not
considered by the arbitrators. Mr. Holcombe claims, also, that the sec-
ond arbitration was a mistake. But the fact that the Hill claim had
been submitted to the arbitrators was forcibly used by the viceroy:
  Li maintained that his action was beyond question ; that he paid the Ward
claims
because the arbitrators declared they were justly due, and refused to pay
the Keor
ieor claim because the same arbitrators said it ought not to be paid.
   Still Mr. Holcombe thinks that the fact of there being a surplus in our
hands of the "Chinese indemnity fund" operated strongly on the
mind
of Li in refusing to pay the Hill claim.
  In the memorandum of Mr. Holcombe it will be seen that he bases his
claim for payment distinctly and solely on the award. Thus, "as the
arbitrators decided that these claims should be paid in February, 1864,
without interest, none is claimed on them prior to March 1, 1864."
  The receipt given by Holcombe to Li is set out as inclosure 17 to Mr.
Young's dispatch 167. It contains this language:
  Received * * ' the suim of * * * in full and final payment of all demands
against the Government of China held by certain citizens of the United States,
and
commonly known as the Ward claims, the aforesaid amount being composed of
an
unpaid balance of an award in arbitration made by Messrs. Edward Cunningham
and
Thomas Hanbury upon the 18th of January, A. D. 1M64. + " *
  Of date February 22, 1883 (inclosure 18, No. 167), Holcombe writes to
Li that he has received his communication stating that-
  You are prepared to pay in full, principal and interest, the balance of
the same de-
dlared to be due and owing in the Ward claiuis by the arbitrators, Mesrs.
Cunning-
ha~im and Hanbury.
207.
CHINAe


Go up to Top of Page