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? EXHIBIT B