Inclosure 7 in No. 1.
Governor Sir M. Nathan to Sir E. Satow.
(Telegraphic.) P.
Hong Kong, April 29, 1906.
YOUR telegram of the 24th April. After consideration of whole question recommend pressing for complete removal of north section of Iron Barrier and dredging of Channel of Taimee, where hard removable bottom said to have been produced artificially. These two works may reasonably be held to complete removal of barriers as far as they were artificial obstructions to navigation. Dredging of natural shoals not dealt with by Treaty, and cannot fairly be pressed for. Improvement of accommodation in harbour of Canton, if desired by merchants, should be treated as separate question in accordance with Article V.
Have reason to believe Chinese not averse to general improvement of river, especially below Whampoa, as funds can be made available, but this does not appear to me particularly in interests of Hong Kong or of proposed railway.
Page 289
I have been at some pains to trace the source of the statement of the Shipping Companies that stone junks were sunk at Taimee to obstruct the fairway. It appears that the story originated with the senior river pilot, Tungshing, whom I have questioned on the subject. He is 64 years of age, and says that during the operations against Canton, which resulted in the joint occupation in 1860, he was pilot of the emigration steamers. He had heard that two junks full of stones were sunk on the Taimee shoal to prevent men-of-war coming up. This must, I think, have been in 1858, when this pilot was 16 years old. He acknowledges that the depth of water over the Taimee Shoal is now little, if any, less than it ever was. It occurs to me that the stones round the beacon mentioned by Mr. Mayers may have been the contents of one of these junks used to shore up the beacon when it was erected later; but this is, of course, only a surmise.
It seems certain, however, that, though some of the soft sandstone of the Taimee shoal might be removed without serious difficulty, such operations would be useless unless the hard rock outcrop were also dealt with, which could only be done at an enormous expense.
I am sending copy of this letter to his Excellency the Governor of Hong Kong,
I have, &c. (Signed) R. W. MANSFIELD.
(No. 7.) Sir,
Inclosure 8 in No. 1.
Sir E. Satow to Consul-General Mansfield.
Peking, May 1, 1906.
I COMMUNICATED with the Governor of Hong Kong on the subject of Mr. Scott's despatch No. 23 of the 31st March, and his Excellency recommends, after careful consideration of the whole question, that the complete removal of the north section of the Iron Barrier and the dredging of the Taimée Channel should be pressed for. Sir M. Nathan says that the "hard removable bottom" of that channel is "said to have been produced artificially."
As you are aware, Article V of the Commercial Treaty entitles us to call for the removal of artificial obstructions," and, until I received this last expression of opinion from Sir M. Nathan, I was under the impression that the Taimee shoal was a natural barrier, which does not fall within the scope of Article V.
It is clear from p. 3 of Mr. Scott's despatch under acknowledgment that he was under the same impression. I shall be unable to make any representation to the Chinese Government in regard to this obstruction unless there is reasonable evidence to support the view that the "hard removable bottom" was "produced artificially."
I shall be obliged if you will make a careful inquiry into this question, and furnish me with a report.
I am, &c.
(Signed) ERNEST SATOW.
(No. 28.) Sir,
Inclosure 9 in No. 1.
Consul-General Mansfield to Mr. Carnegie.
Canton, May 17, 1906.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 7 of the 1st instant, directing me to make careful inquiry into the question as to whether the Taimee shoal is a natural barrier or an artificial obstruction of the channel of the river.
I found on inquiry that the only reliable information obtainable on the subject is the report of Captain Harris, the officer in charge of barrier removal and surveys, under date the 2nd October, 1905. He stated that the bed of the river was carefully examined by divers, who report that more or less the whole bed of the river at this particular spot is undoubtedly sandstone, with here and there an outcrop of hard rock.
Mr. F. Mayers, Acting Commissioner of Customs, further informs me that the correctness of the above report is borne out by the nature of the river's bank, which shows the rock outcrop. He adds that the stones round the beacon had apparently only been placed there to form a support for the beacon itself, and that there is no reason to suppose that the roof is in any way artificial.