Morning journal and courier., 1886-05-17
our Obligations to the Chinese.

MT. w. w. Phelps Republican, of New Jersey) in the debate on the Chinese indem- nity bill in the House spoke as follows:
 Their houses were burned; their goods were pillaged; twenty eight of them were killed and fifteen wounded. And the only provocation was that they would not join in strike. That is the case and the question is, "What are we going to do about itf' and the answer ought to be and I believe will be, ''Do what the administration recommends and what this bill provides for and pay for the property destroyed" Not for charity's sake, but for solid reasons. Because it is good policy, as urged by the gentleman from Illinois lMr. Worthington), because it is a single reciprocity for hundred cases where China has paid an indemnity to us, as urged by his colleague, Mr. Hit, and because it is an international obligation as urged by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr Rice) It is good policy because we have more prop erty in China than China has in the United States. We need millions to measure our property; thousands will measure theirs; and if we change the old rule of practice and adopt the new one, that the national govern ment may throw the obligation to defend the rights of foreigners on one of its members call it State, territory, province or vice-roy- alty, the United States will in the future lose a great deal more than China. If the new rule had prevailed in the East the great for tunes which have been brought to this coun- try, anA whose splendor is yet conspicuous in Wall street and Fifth avenue, would never have got across the Pacific. But there is moral obligation stronger than these consid- erations of policy. We ought to pay this in- demnity to China because China has paid in- demnities to us in a score, perhaps in hun dred cases similar to this, only less meritori- ous.
 The history of our diplomatic relations with China for nearly fifty years has been only the history of prompt and greedy claims for indemnity on our part, and of prompt and generous payment on it's part. It has paid for the rights of every American citi- zen when violated. It has paid for the vio lated rights of Chinese subjects when they were connected with ours; as when they paid Chinese landlord, whose house was de- stroyed by mob because all American leased it, and when they paid for the property and clothing of native helpers which were lost in the service of American missionaries. This is the way China paid indemnties up to 1858. In this fashion she pads paidds the.sab ip detail then she paid them in fbonssnd doiia22kk ii2k mpers than ls7Jnited States Government and said: STeke this and pay Your countrymen" We took it; we paid all claims generously with twelve per cent. 1n- terest. but the generosity of China was so A>-e one-third of the original sum to return to China. China did this and shamed the orudqing spirit in which Christian countries pay their international bills.
 This is the moral obligation, but there is legal one-the international obligation. The IJnited States has treaties with the empire of China In these treaties she promised to protect Chinese subjects. The United States has failed to keep it's covenants. It did not protect Chinese subjects and 1t IS liable III damages for 8 broken contract, unless IL can establish and maintain as a doctrine of ln- tArnational law that when a nation makes treaty with another nation and breaks one or
 its covenants, it ean shift it's liability by say | ing that lG the covenant and therefore the liability of one of its menIears
 ! Unfortunately 1t is easy to declare this l doctrine, but it seems impossible to establish | and maintain it. All writers on information | al law, from Grotius to Woolsey, have exam | ined and rejected it. We have accepted ii | in declaration, but have always rejected it in | practice. We have generally asserted this l doctrine most vehemently at the very mo- | ment we were about to transgress it. Ou1 habit has been to assert bad law and prac- l tice good We did this in the famous case l at New Orleans. A mob destroyed the prop erty of Spanish subjects. Her Spanish Ma. iesty demanded indemnity. The powerful | voice of Daniel Webster was heard i'll reply 1 He declared this bad law magnifcently and | referred them to the State of Louisiana and 1 it's courts. Her Spanish Majesty ignored all | this eloquence in declaration of bad law and
 asked for the usual good practice, and the I Secretary of State recommended Congress to
 vote the indemnity and say nothing more of l the States liability. But more significant yet was the case in China at the time of the Anglo Chinese war. China learning the | verbal tricks of civilization, concluded she | would declare bad law and the result. | She told our department of State that the | vice-royalty of Canton was the party liable,
 an that in it's tribunals the American claim
 ants must find redress. Our Secretary, Lew is Cass, said little against the bad law in the plea-how could he?-but insisted on the | usual good practice and China, the nation,
 the empire, paid the bill.
 And in European countries the same uni formity of action prevails, accompanied still l in some cases by the same declaration of the
 bad law that would relieve national obliga-
 tion and substitute local. Indeed, compre | hensive as was the claim made yesterday by the gentleman from Massachusetts CMr. Rice that no textbook in it's summary of princi ples and no civilized nation in it's practice
 had ever followed this bad law, I believe i i is the truth. If then in this we put
 this bad law for the first time into practic | against a semi-barbarous nation, public opin ion will say we did it because China wa | weak ard could not enforce it's rights, ant
 the world will compare the pagan civilization
 of the Chinese empire with the Christian
 civilization of the great American republic
 and not to our credit.