Page images
PDF
EPUB

more than one-half of our whole representation in China are the messengers of the Christian system. These belong to a class who, in the pursuit of their work, are likely to meet difficulties. They go into the interior to preach and to reside, while our merchants confine their work essentially to the ports. Their business is to displace existing religious systems, and in doing so they must necessarily arouse antagonism. With them zeal is a duty, and the conservative disposition which grows up when property is at stake is wanting. In many of our mission establishments the central control is not strong, and each individual, be he discreet or not, is more or less free to work out the bent of his disposition.

Looking to these facts it may well be expected that for the future, as lately and in the past generally, missionary cases will continue to call for a great share of the efforts of the legation.

If such a remark should be predicated of any legation at our own capital, it would attract general attention, and the whole tendency involved would be subjected to anxious examination.

In making these remarks I recognize fully the leading facts, first, that the sympathies of the American people wait upon the efforts of the missionaries; secondly, that their efforts tend undoubtedly to the moral and physical advancement of the peoples among whom they are so generously expended; and, thirdly, that in my observation our missionaries are thoroughly imbued with the American idea that church and state should be separate, and that the former should rely upon spiritual weapons in conducting spiritual contests.

The fact remains, however, that missionaries do from time to time get entangled in difficulties. They are assaulted, their converts maltreated, their mission-houses, chapels, dispensaries, and bookshops are pillaged and destroyed, or if none of these things happen, they find difficulty in securing houses and lands from which to carry on their work. In all these cases they appeal to the consuls, and as a last resort to the legation. It will continue to be so, so long as the West is Christian and the East adheres to other systems.

We are all agreed, then, as to the facts, and in regretting the situation which virtually establishes our political representation as the

right arm of the propagandists of the Christian faith. What shall be done to make this condition of things as little to be regretted and as little awkward as possible?

I may say that the Government of the United States is not likely to forget that a missionary has the rights of an individual and that while we do not bring the power of the state actively into the advocacy of the Christian system, we can not consent that that power shall be exercised anywhere against our people who are its adherents, because of their religion, or that they shall be subjected to abuse for this reason. We accord freedom of conviction to all within our borders; and within the bounds of a just discretion, we appeal to all mankind to favor the same principle.

But there is always this just discretion to be observed, whether it be on the part of the state, the officer, or the missionary. The missionary of right views would not readily pardon the officer who should fail to grasp a given case in all its bearings, and should by the exercise of undue zeal, or undue caution, jeopardize his work. The liberal Christian desires only that the state shall give the religious element an open opportunity. And so in turn the state and the officer may ask the missionary to have some of the "wisdom of the serpent," to be forbearing and long-suffering, to avoid places which are dangerous, to deal respectfully with cherished beliefs, erroneous though they be, and generally to carry on his work with such good management, good feeling, and tact, as to arouse the least possible animosity, and to draw the Government as little as may be into the arena of discussion and conflict.

This letter has, then, this purpose, to represent to the missionary the ground which his Government and its officers may rightfully take. It is a plea that they shall not embarrass us unduly, and that they shall yield to us consideration as they expect it from us, to the end that the best results for all may be worked out.

I wish you to call together the missionaries at your port and to read this letter to them, or to bring it to their attention in some convenient way, and to say that I shall be glad to receive an expression of their views upon the subject, to be communicated to me in such manner as you and they may see fit.

I add a word to yourself as to the course to be taken in missionary troubles. Be content in searching out the facts and in putting these before the native authorities. Make no explicit demands for this or that mode of settlement. Deal with all cases as if the authorities were well disposed, and with patience, avoiding in every way all that is likely to cause unnecessary irritation. Procure settlements as promptly as possible, and do not scrutinize the terms over-rigidly. Refer as few cases as possible for the action of the legation, but keep it fully informed of each step of your procedure. In fact, exercise on your part at all points that discretion and tact which we ask from the missionaries, and for the lack of which no officer can be entirely excused.

You are at liberty to give a copy of this letter to any one wishing it. In doing so, however, it must be understood that it is not open for publication.

GEORGE F. SEWARD.

BULGARIAN INDEPENDENCE *

[Being the fourth part of a series of Studies on the Eastern Question. The preceding parts appeared in the January, April and July numbers of the JOURNAL for 1911.]

Since the publication of our last article, the political independence of Bulgaria has been juridically established from the constitutional point of view.

As we have already seen, the Bulgarian diplomatic and governmental situation had been developed in fact, without ever having been theoretically or diplomatically discussed. This is natural. The Bulgarian Government took great care not to raise that question, contenting itself from the internal point of view with Art. 17, of the Constitution of Tirnovo, which gave to the Prince, in general, the conduct of diplomatic negotiations. It might have been contended that Bulgaria, which was a vassal state, had no absolute right to make purely political treaties; and it is doubtful that King Ferdinand, before the establishment of Bulgarian independence, had ever entered into any written political treaties. Moreover, if he had, it would have raised an internal constitutional question; for, in such case, it would have been incumbent upon him to refer the matter to the Sobranjé.

With independence established, it became, therefore, important to modify in this respect the constitution, both from the internal and from the external point of view. And this has just been accomplished. The Great Assembly, entrusted with the revision of the constitution, which the Malinoff cabinet hesitated to convoke, was summoned to meet upon the fall of that ministry, June, 1911. It terminated its work on July 18, and despite the aggressive opposition of the agrarian and the social democratic wings of the Left, it voted in the first place to change the princely titles into royal titles, and

*Translated by courtesy of Dr. Theodore Henckels, of Washington, D. C.

then the proposed amendment to Article 17, thus granting to the King the absolute right to conclude secret political treaties.

The conquest of political independence is, thus, definitively accomplished.

But, we have still to see how, in part by progressive policies, and in part by sheer force, the conquest of the economic independence of Bulgaria was established.

ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE

Economic independence is not less necessary for a people than political independence. If it may not freely manage its financial resources, if it is not master over its customs imposts, over its foreign trade, over its transportation facilities; in a word, if it is under the economic dependence of one or several states, and especially of one or several neighboring states, then it participates only under their control, with such limitations as they may see fit to establish, in the international commerce, which is an essential right of every member of the community of states. To illustrate, we will consider Servia as an example. Servia, because of her geographic situation, is under the economic dependence of Austria, which, by closing her markets to Servia, can ruin the latter's exportation of staple goods, of cattle especially, and reduce her to impotency in the mast crucial political questions. Likewise, Bulgaria has suffered under certain economic servitudes, which, although not interfering absolutely with her liberty, were, nevertheless, a great handicap. The treaty of Berlin had woven the greater part of these bonds, the Rumelian revolution had allowed some of them to continue to exist, Bulgaria herself had created some of them.

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE, CUSTOMS

The bases of the Bulgarian economic régime (policy) are laid down in Art. VIII of the Treaty of Berlin. From the purely commercial viewpoint, Bulgaria was not free. In permitting the Christian sections to separate from the Turkish body, Europe performed at times showy acts, but never meant to sacrifice any of her materi·l

« PreviousContinue »