This is a dispatch from Mr. Chamberlain,[11] chief of the _Sun’s_
correspondence staff in Peking. It appeared in the _Sun_ last Christmas
Eve, and in referring to it hereafter I will call it the “C. E.
dispatch” for short:
The Rev. Mr. Ament, of the American Board of Foreign Missions, has
returned from a trip which he made for the purpose of collecting
indemnities for damages done by Boxers. Everywhere he went he
compelled the Chinese to pay. He says that all his native Christians
are now provided for. He had seven hundred of them under his charge,
and three hundred were killed. He has collected 300 taels for each of
these murders, and has compelled full payment for all the property
belonging to Christians that was destroyed. He also assessed fines
amounting to thirteen times[12] the amount of the indemnity. This
money will be used for the propagation of the Gospel.
Mr. Ament declares that the compensation he has collected is moderate
when compared with the amount secured by the Catholics, who demand, in
addition to money, head for head. They collect 500 taels for each
murder of a Catholic. In the Wen-Chiu country 680 Catholics were
killed, and for this the European Catholics here demand 750,000
strings of cash and 680 heads.
In the course of a conversation Mr. Ament referred to the attitude of
the missionaries toward the Chinese. He said:
“I deny emphatically that the missionaries are vindictive, that they
generally looted, or that they have done anything since the siege that
the circumstances did not demand. I criticize the Americans. The soft
hand of the Americans is not as good as the mailed fist of the
Germans. If you deal with the Chinese with a soft hand they will take
advantage of it.”
In an article addressed “To the Person Sitting in Darkness,” published
in the _North American Review_ for February, I made some comments upon
this C. E. dispatch.
In an Open Letter to me, from the Rev. Dr. Smith, published in the
_Tribune_ of February 15th, doubt is cast upon the authenticity of the
dispatch.
Up to the 20th of February, this doubt was an important factor in the
case: Dr. Ament’s brief cablegram, published on that date, took the
importance all out of it.
In the Open Letter, Dr. Smith quotes this passage from a letter from Dr.
Ament, dated November 13th. The italics are mine:
_This_ time I proposed to settle affairs _without the aid of soldiers
or_ legations.
This cannot mean two things, but only one: that, previously, he _had_
collected by armed force.
Also, in the Open Letter, Dr. Smith quotes some praises of Dr. Ament and
the Rev. Mr. Tewksbury, furnished by the Rev. Dr. Sheffield, and says:
Dr. Sheffield is not accustomed to speak thus of _thieves_, or
_extortioners_, or _braggarts_.
What can he mean by those vigorous expressions? Can he mean that the
first two would be applicable to a missionary who should collect from B,
with the “aid of soldiers,” indemnities possibly due by A, and upon
occasion go out looting?