254
4
weather are such as to consider it an obstacle to be removed in accordance with Article V of the Mackay Treaty,
Literally taken, there can, of course, be no question with regard to this; but, as Captain Tyler remarks in his Memorandum on the removal of the artificial obstructions in the Canton River, the literal wording can hardly be taken to denote what those who framed the Treaty actually meant should be done.
With regard to the barriers, Captain Tyler, in the same Memorandum, deals with them from the following point of view :-
"To what extent do the barriers embarrass navigation? What is necessary to remedy this?"
Taking this as the guiding principle, and treating the question of removing the northern section of the steel barrier accordingly, I am of the opinion that it cannot be considered an obstacle which embarrasses navigation to such an extent that it should be removed, as other adequate measures can be made to minimize the danger of colliding with it, and at the same time facilitate the navigation of the opening.
The most effective remedy is, I consider, to place a more powerful light on the southern end of this section, and to establish a reliable fog-signal which should be powerful enough to warn steamers in time to allow them to anchor at a safe distance from the barrier if the weather should be too thick to navigate the opening with a fair margin of safety.
In considering the proposal of removing the northern section, it should also be borne in mind that thick fogs are the exceptions, and that a light in the position now occupied by the present one is an excellent guide to navigation; and in connection with a good fog-signal, I consider it more valuable from a navigation point of view than the non-presence of the northern section of the barrier.
H. G. MYHRE,
True copy:
(Signed)
(Signed) J. A. M. CASTLE,
3rd Assistant.
Coast-Inspector's Sub-Office, Canton, October 8, 1906.
Deputy Coast Inspector,
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL,
[3106)
(No. 520.) Sir,
No. 1.
[January 28.]
SECTION 1
C.0. 5521
Reed Red 13 FEB 07
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.—(Received January 28, 1907.)
Peking, December 11, 1906. IN continuation of my despatch No. 505 of the 27th ultimo, I have the honour to forward to you herewith copy of a note which I have received from the Chinese Government on the subject of the proposed removal of artificial obstructions to navigation in the Canton River.
I have sent a copy of this note to the Governor of Hong Kong as well as to His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton.
I have, &c. (Signed)
(Translation.)
Tuclosure in No. 1.
Wai-wu Pu to Sir J. Jordan.
J. N. JORDAN.
Sir,
Peking, December 4, 1906. ON receipt of your Excellency's letter of the 24th September on the question of the removal of artificial obstructions to navigation in the Canton River, this Board at once directed the Inspector-General of Customs to give instructions for inquiries to be made into the matter, and to reply as soon as possible.
Sir Robert Hart has now laid before the Board a Report from the Commissioner of Customs at Canton, stating that on receipt of instructions to inquire into the question of removing the section of the iron barrier which still remains on the north bank of the river, he deputed the Assistant Coast Inspector, Captain Myrhe, to make a survey of the waterway above and below this point.
According to Captain Myrhe's Report the removal of that part of the iron barrier which has already been effected opened up a chanuel 570 feet wide, and no obstacle exists now to its free navigation. If the remaining section were removed, ships coming up-river would be liable to run ashore on the shallow, and thereby incur a danger caused by the removal of this section. Undor the circumstances he is therefore of opinion that it would be best not to remove this section of the barrier, but that another light should be placed there with a fog signal.
The Commissioner of Customs further consulted with other experts, and the unanimous opinion was that this section should not be removed. In making this Repert he also inclosed at the same time a tracing of the survey,
Sir Robert Hart is therefore of opinion that as the part of the barrier already removed affords a chaunel 570 feet wide, which is sufficient for the purposes of navigation, and that as insistence on the removal of the north section would involve ships in the danger of running ashore, it is evident that this section should not be removed.
Such being the result of the Inspector-General's inquiries, we have the honour to urge that the question need not be further considered, and to request your Excellency to communicate this view to the proper quarters.
We avail, &c.
(Prince Ching and Ministers of the Wai-wu Puj
[2324 #2-1]