4
requirements is occasional dredging where the steamers usually lie. Butterfield and Swire have already solved their difficulties in the harbour by acquiring a large area of land and foreshore, where they have erected godowns and wharves. Jardine, Matheson, and Co. have their regular bunys, to which their steamers can always be moored, and a small outlay on dredging from time to time would secure them sufficient depth of water for their steamers.
As to the statement by the Companies that "the front door has been partly opened, leaving the inner as before," I fail to see that they have any ground for complaint.
Summarizing the situation, I have arrived at the following conclusions: Firstly, the Iron Barrier might well be removed entirely; the cost of the work would be practically insignificant. Secondly, the Chinese Government are no doubt bound by Treaty to provide for the total removal of all artificial obstructions, and it is a question for consideration that in accepting the proposed partial removal the Chinese Government should be called upon, as a quid pro quo, to undertake certain minor operations in the Canton harbour, such as dredging the accretions of the Honam Spit and the foreshore from Wong Sha along the front of the Foreign Settlement. It is along this length that foreign steamers generally lie, and in recent years it has begun to silt up owing to the mass of junks and hulks allowed to anchor at Wong Sha. Seeing that the Canton dredger, which has already done valuable service in removing the barrier, can be chartered for about 500 dollars a-day, a judicial expenditure of some 25,000 dollars would meet the requirements of the situation.
I observe that in his statement of accounts the Inspector-General enters a charge of 45,000 taels odd as expenses of Customs officers on special duty in connection with It covers the the work. I submit that this sum should not appear in the accounts. salary and wages of the regular Customs staff, which would have had to be paid to these men in any case. They were engaged in surveying the harbour and its approaches, a work which would have been necessary sooner or later, apart from any question of the removal of barriers. Moreover, the money, I understand, comes out of tonnage dues.
As regards the 111,329 taels charged for the removal, I know that the Canton dredger did nine-tenths of the work, and received some 80,000 dollars. Before her arrival, Chinese labour and appliances were employed on the barriers, but the work was found so unsatisfactory and expensive that Mr. Mayers, the Commissioner of Customs, took upon himself the responsibility of employing the dredger. The credit of the speedy removal of the barriers is due to his initiative.
I am forwarding a copy of this despatch to the Hongkong Government, and also to the Shipping Companies concerned.
I have, &c. (Signed)
Sir,
Inclosure in No. 1.
Admiral Noel to Governor Sir M. Nathan.
CC
JAMES SCOTT.
"Alacrity," at Hong Kong, February 24, 1906. WITH reference to your Excellency's letter of the 30th January last, regarding the removal of the barriers in the Canton River, I have the honour to inform your Excellency that it would appear from the reports accompanying your letter that sufficient depth of deep water has been provided to admit of the usual traffic, and it is suggested that further removal of the barriers is quite likely to cause a silting up of the present
ang channels.
I concur with the reports and opinions forwarded with your letter, but there is no doubt that the Mackay Treaty is not carried out; and although it is undoubtedly undesirable to remove the whole of the artificial barrier at the risk of causing the present deep channel to silt up, it is necessary that part of these barriers not wholly removed should be so cut away and destroyed as to render them practically useless in facilitating the re-erection of barriers in future.
I have, &c. (Signed) G. H. NOEL.
5
Inclosure 6 in No. 1.
288
Messrs. Arnold, Butterfield and Swire, and Jardine, Matheson, and Co. to Consul-General Scott.
Sir,
Hong Kong, March 14, 1906. WE beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 20th January requesting our opinion as to whether or not the work done in the removal of the barriers in the Canton River is such that Article V of the Mackay Treaty may be considered to have been duly carried out.
2. While we fully recognize that good work has been done in minimizing the risk of collision between steamers passing through the barriers, we consider that it would be incorrect to state that the conditions of the Treaty, even in the spirit thereof, have been fulfilled by what has been accomplished.
3. The Mackay Treaty provides for the entire removal of all the barriers in the front and back approaches to Canton, and we cannot consider that the removal of only a comparatively small portion of four of them is a final settlement of the matter.
4. While the widening of the opening in the Steel Barrier has undoubtedly been an improvement, the better way of carrying it out would have been to remove the section adjoining the northern bank altogether; at present in thick foggy weather, to a steamer feeling her way along the dimly discerned line of shore, it is a distinctly dangerous obstacle, as it is quite invisible until close to. Its complete removal is advisable.
5. Meantime, as the Chinese Government has benefited considerably in outlay by the modified programme carried out, we would suggest that at least part of the saving might be devoted to dredging channels through the shallow place near the Taishek Barrier, where steamers frequently stick; at Taimee, where there is a shoal of hard removable bottom, and where old pilots say stone junks were formerly sunk to obstruct the fairway; at the salt flats in the Front Reach; and at Sulphur Point, Whampoa.
6. We also beg to point out that nothing has yet been done to improve the harbour of Canton, which is now in a very unsatisfactory condition. Vessels in some of the berths are aground a considerable time before low water, and the river-steamers have frequently great difficulty in getting away. At present only ten "deep sea steamers can be accommodated, while, were the harbour dredged and the Pak Hin Hok, Honam, and Fati rocks removed, some sixteen steamers could be berthed and the harbour rendered much safer.
7. The point of the whole question is that, while what has been already done is decidedly favourable to the safer navigation of the river, it is of little practical value until the Taishek, Taimee Barrier, and salt flats are deepened, as vessels able to cross the improved barriers are unable to cross at the above points; in other words, the front door has been partly opened, leaving the inner as before.
8. We would recommend making these suggestions to the Chinese Government, holding out as an inducement to them the prospect that, if carried out, the British Government may thereby be eventually advised by those interested that they are satisfied with the interpretation of the Chinese Government as to their responsibility under the Mackay Treaty—construed in a liberal and reasonable spirit on both sides—thus enabling all concerned to give expression to the opinion desired in the first paragraph of this letter.
9. In conclusion, we should like to express our appreciation of the assistance rendered by Mr. Mayers in connection with the work which has been already done.
We are, &c.
(Signed)
TH. ARNOLD, Secretary, Hong Kong, Canton, and Macao Steam-boat Company.
BUTTERFIELD AND SWIRE, Agents, China Navigation Company (Limited).
JARDINE, MATHESON, AND Co., General Managers, Indo-China Steam Navigation Company.
N.B.—A letter identical with the above was sent by the China Association, Hong Kong, to the Hong Kong Government under date of the 5th March, 1906.
[2241 r-1]
C