R
1. La liste des terrains portés sur l'ébauche de projet émenant du Capitaine Marchand, Représentant de la Marine Française dans le nord de la Chine, a été copiée sur celle que M. le Major Nathan a lui-même remise à mon prédécesseur il y a environ deux ans; mais ainsi que je vous l'ai dit, cette liste n'est pas irréductible; et je crois pouvoir vous donner l'assurance qu'à Paris le Gouvernement Français ne ferait pas difficulté de ratifier une délimitation qui aurait été agréée ici par nos deux Légations.
commerce.
2. Un des principes de droit conventionnel de la France en Chine, cousigné dans l'Article XIV du Traité de Tien-tsin du 27 Juin, 1858, et à l'application duquel il a toujours depuis lors tenu la main, est qu'un monopole ne peut être exercé sur le Le Gouvernement Français ne peut donc admettre qu'un port tout entier soit monopolisé par une Société de commerce privilégiée. C'est pour cette raison que le Gouvernement Français, quand il fut saisi de la Convention signée par M. Dubail, refusa de ratifier celle-ci, à moins qu'il n'y fût inséré une clause portant: "La France aura le libre usage de ces terrains et pourra les concéder en tout ou en partie à des particuliers pour des entreprises commerciales ou industrielles."
3. Votre Excellence a bien voulu me dire que le Gouvernement Britannique, à la suite d'une sentence rendue par une Cour Suprême en Angleterre, considérait le droit de propriété de l'"Engineering and Mining Company" sur les terrains environnant la rade de Tsingvantao comme acquis, et qu'en conséquence il s'opposerait à toute revendication élevée par d'autres sur ces terrains. Je ne manquerai pas de notifier cette situation nouvelle à son Excellence M. Pichon,
Veuillez, &c.
EDMOND BAPST.
(Signé)
Inclosure 13 in No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to M. Bapst.
Mr. Minister and dear Colleague,
Peking, July 11, 1907. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 10th instant relative to the land in dispute at Chingwantao, and I hasten to point out to you a misunderstanding which appears to have arisen in regard to yesterday.
our conversation of
In the third paragraph of your note your Excellency represents me as having said that His Britannic Majesty's Government considered that the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company had established their right to the land round Chingwantao Harbour, and that they would oppose "toute revendication élevée par d'autres sur ces terrains."
Your Excellency will recollect that our conversation referred to the action of Sir Robert Hart, who, you stated, had arranged directly with the Chinese Government for customs accommodation at Chingwantao, and that you indicated the possibility of the French Government doing the same.
In reply, I thought it right to say that, though the French Government might, no doubt, take what steps they pleased with the Chinese Government, any attempt on the part of the latter to deprive the Company of the property which it held under title- deeds registered in His Majesty's Consulate-General would be strenuously resisted by His Majesty's Government.
My statement did not go further than this, but I added, and I have the honour to repeat now that my instructions are to do my utmost to arrange the matter amicably with your Excellency, and this I am most anxious to do.
The remaining points in your Excellency's letter I shall not fail to communicate to Major Nathan for his observations.
I avail, &c.
(Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
!!
Inclosure 14 in No. 1.
Major Nathan to Sir J. Jordan.}
Dear Sir John,
Tien-tsin, July 12, 1907. I HAVE to thank you for your letter of the 11th July, on the subject of the French seizure of land at Chingwantao. As M. Bapst says, the statement of land to be leased to the French Government, which is contained in the draft Agreement, is I do not appreciate copied from the original draft Agreement of M. Dubail.
M. Bapst's assurance that the French Government will make no difficulty about ratifying any delimitations which may be agreed upon between the British and French Legations, as I do not presume that the French would attempt to seize any more land, and the amount they at present occupy below the Bluff is not of very great commercial importance.
I fail to understand how the pretext put forward that, in accordance with the Tien-tsin Treaty of the 27th June, 1858, no monopoly could be exercised with regard to commerce has anything whatsoever to do with the case, or how a provision, that the French should have the right to lease a small portion of the land at Chingwantao to private individuals for commercial or industrial enterprises would in any way rectify the breach of this Treaty.
The land in question belongs to the Mining Company, and there is nothing in the Tien-tsin Treaty to preclude the Chinese Government from selling or disposing of land to any particular Company. The ownership of the land does not give a monopoly of the port. What does give a monopoly of the port, however, is that the pier and breakwater have been built at the expense of this Company. There is, however, nothing to preclude the French Government from buying land further along the coast, for instance at Rocky Point, where there are several suitable spots for building wharves at their own expense. I am also quite prepared to sell land to the French Government or to French commercial individuals at a reasonable tariff if they want to purchase it. The commerce of the port is in no way monopolized by the Mining Company, as witness the fact that at the present moment the only ocean-going line trading to Chingwantao regularly is the "Chargeurs Réunis," an entirely French Company.
The same arguments would in fact apply I think to the French Government, as were brought forward in my letter to His Britannic Majesty's Consul-General, dated the 25th November, 1905, copy of which I inclose, in answer to the claims of the other Shipping Companies with regard to the port,
The question now is whether the French have a right to hold the land on the Bluff, and it seems to me that M. Bapst's arguments entirely ignore this question and are principally concerned with other irrelevant matters.
Yours, &c. (Signed) W. S. NATHAN.
Inclosure 15 in No. 1.
Major Nathan to Consul-General Hopkins.
Chinese Engineering and Mining Company (Limited), Dear Sir,
November 25, 1905. WITH further reference to our various communications and conversations on the subject of the position taken up by the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company (Limited), vis-à-vis to the other British Shipping Companies trading to Northern China with regard to the port of Chingwantao, I now beg to forward a few remarks which I hope will elucidate this position.
As you are aware, the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company (Limited) took over certain lands and property at Chingwantao from a former Chinese Company whose property was purchased. The actual value of this property, as inventoried at the time of taking over and as now borne on the books of this Company, amounted to 600,000, which may be said to be represented by an issue of shares to that value, a proportion of the 1,000,000l. which formed the capital on which the Company was started.
Since that date, a capital expenditure of 1,554,665 dollars has been incurred. It
[2652 i-8]
D
253