The Houma courier. (Houma, La.) 1878-1939, 1900-10-13
AND CHINA.
Why Uncle Sam viii Find It Hard
to Collect Indemnity.
Secretary Evarts' Letter OF December
so, 1850, to the Picking Govern
ment RIny Prove itself a Dip
lomatlc Boomerang.
Tspeelal WashIngton Letter.l

HERB is considerable talk in the
newspapers about Indemnity"
for the outrages which have
been committed in China against for
eigners temporarily resident in that
empire.
At the department of state the Of
fcials express the belief that there
will be neither indemnity, reparation
nor r~etribution for anything which
has been done. Of course these Of
feials do not talk for publication, be-
cause that would be contrary to the
rules and precedents of the depart
ment, but in private conversation with
personal friends they say that 'in-
demnity'' is practically out of the
| question,
Lii Hung Chang spoke for the i'm
perial government when he said that
the treasury of China is so depleted
that no cash indemnity can be paid,
and that the people of China will not
permit any further concessions of ter
ritory to the countries interested. The
word indemnity covers a great deal
of ground in international law. It
means a complaisant, friendly, frater-
nal effort on the part of the country
in which the outrages have been COM
mitted to bring the criminals to JUS
tice and r~etribution; an effort to in
demnify the sufferers for their wrongs,
or to indemnify their heirs if human
lives have been sacrificed; or repara-
ton in the form of abject apology, if
the national honor has been specific
ally involved.
The ]utterances of Ii Hung Chang
indicate that the Chinese government
does not intend to do any Of these
things, and the eminent oriental
statesman sp%eciously pleads the utter
inability of the government of Picking
to do anything more than publicly ex-
press regret for the consequences Of
the alleged instruction. Present in
dications are that there wIIl be no
recognition of the fact that the ma
tional honor of any country has been
involved.
What other nations may do under
these circumstances can only be con-
jectured. 1t is well known that all of
the powers Of the world cannot de-
mand an eye for an eye and a tooth
for a tooth, because the invasion and
destruction of the Chinese empire
would be impossible. The reasons for
this conclusion haze heretofore been
given with some degree of elaboration.
This republic is very unfortunately
circunstaneed in the matter. 1t has
always fought of the payment Of in
IDENTITIES, and the admission OF ma
tional responsibility for Outrages COM
mitted in violation Of treaty stipula-
tions. There is n specific case in
point which the Chinese government
may well cite, and which it will un-
doubtedly cite. On December 80, 1880,
William M. Evarts, our secretary of
state, wrote officially to the Chinese
minister in Washington as follows:
CT know Of no principle Of national obli-
! cation, and there is certainly none arising
from treaty stipulation, which renders it
incumbent upon the government of the
United States to make indemnity to the
Chinese residents of Denver who, in COM
mon with the citizens Of the United States,
suffered losses by the operations of The
mob. Whatever remedies may be offered
to the citizens Of Colorado, or to the cit
tzens of the United States from other states
in the union resident in Colorado, for losses
resulting from that occurrence are equally
open to the Chinese residents Of Denver
who may have suffered from the laWless-
ness of the mob"
Twenty years ago China was a small
factor in international affairs, and
every nauon snubbed her in diplomat
iC correspondence. The Chinese minis