503
2
Corroborating this is the protest addressed by the then Manager of the Company, Mr. Dugan, to the French Admiral dated the 27th October, 1901, and his reply dated the 1st December, 1901, expressing himself unable to deal with the matter and referring the former to the French Minister in Peking.
M. Dubail, the French Minister, withdrew all claim to these lands and caused the French boundary posts to be removed and the lands returned to the Company, After a period of eighteen months' undisturbed occupation by the Company of the same, the land was again forcibly seized by the French Government. The justification advanced in the French Memorandum is to be found on pp. 11 and 12, and reads as follows:---
"En fait, la situation de la France à Ts'in-ouang-tao est nette et son droit sur les terrains qu'elle occupe fort bien établi; d'accord avec les autres Puissances, elle déteint en vertu du droit de guerre et en exécution de l'Article 9 du Protocole de 1901 relatif à l'occupation des points nécessaires pour assurer les libres communications entre Pékin es la mer en toute saison, une partie des terrains de Ts'in-ouang-tao, au même titre que divers autres emplacements situés sur les lignes d'étapes entre Pékin et la mer, et nul ne peut légalement l'en déposséder."
The "droit de guerre" could give no right to the French Government to seize the private property of the subjects of a friendly Power six weeks after the Final Peace Protocol with the Chinese Government has been signed.
Article 9 of the Protocol confirms to the use of the Powers certain lands the occupation of which had been ceded by the previous Protocol of the 16th February, 1901, for the purpose of maintaining free communication between the capital and the sea. It affords no justification for the subsequent seizure of private property.
Except for the alleged "droit de guerre," no justification is offered by the French Memorandum beyond occasional references to the Tien-tsin Treaty of 1858, and an argument that the possession by this Company of its land constitutes a breach of that Treaty.
31
can
My Directors cannot understand how clause 14 of the Treaty of 1858 forbidding "toute coalition organisée dans le but d'exercer un monopole sur le commerce have any bearing on the case, or how, if a right were accorded to the French Govern- ment to lease a small portion of land at Chin Wang Tao to private individuals for commercial or industrial purposes, it could remedy a breach of this clause. The owner- ship of the land by this Company gives no monopoly of commerce, nor does the Company claim any. What gives this Company a special position at Chin Wang Tao (apart from its legal title) is the fact that the port has been created by the Company, that no natural port whatsoever existed there, but an artificial harbour has been created as the result of the expenditure of large sums of money by this Company in the construction of a pier and breakwater, &c. But for this expenditure the land would be worthless, as it was when first acquired by the Company.
No commercial monopoly is sought or exercised by this Company at Chin Wang Tao. The Agreement made with M. Dubail accorded to French nationals and shippers the same facilities at moderate rates as to those of any other Power, the same Agreement having been entered into with the German and Japanese Governments. In proof of this we need only mention that half-a-dozen different shipping lines, including the French "Chargeurs Réunis," are running to the port. The Company is, moreover, quite prepared to sell to French nationals as much land as they may require on exactly the same terms as are accorded to any others.
As regards the rights of this Company to its property at Chin Wang Tao under the Agreement of Purchase with the old Chinese Engineering and Mining Company my Directors do not consider that they are called upon to enter into any discussion, but I am to point out that Chang Yen Mao, in entering into the Agreement, acted not only as Director-General of the old Chinese Engineering and Mining Company, but also as Director-General of Mines of the Province of Chili, in which capacity he was second only to the Viceroy in rank and power.
On pp. 6 and 7, however, a definite pretext is assigned for taking the view that the Company's rights are open to question. It runs as follows:-
·
"La date seule du 30 Juillet, 1900, fait d'ailleurs tomber le contrat sous le coup d'une décision du Corps Diplomatique de Pékin (procès-verbal de la quatrième séance, le 5 Novembre, 1900), d'après laquelle aucun achat de terrains aux Chinois depuis le commencement de siège ne saurait être valable sans l'assentiment des Ministres étrangers. Cette mesure, qui visait spécialement les spéculations dolosives dans l'enceinte du quartier des Légations de Pékin, répondait à la préoccupation générale d'empêcher les
3
ventes fictives ou léonines. Ainsi le contrat provisoire du 30 Juillet, 1900, conclu sans titres suffisants, est des plus contestables en raison de sa date, qui le rend légalement sans valeur."
In reply, it is only necessary to point out that this decision of the Diplomatic Corps referred exclusively to land at Peking, as is well known to all concerned.
The fact remains that this British Company has twice been forcibly dispossessed, while in actual possession and occupation of certain lands, by the French Government without any warrant or justification, and that no satisfactory explanation is as yet advanced.
The French Government, in trying to prove that the position of this Company is not correct, is taking up a question which it is not in its province to adjudicate upon. This Company's contentions as to its rights are incontestable from the point of view of international law, and the action of the French Government cau only be considered as an act of aggression against British-owned property.
It is not, however, only because of the very material loss which acceptance of the French proposals would entail that the Company finds itself unable to accede to the French demands; it is because this Company is pledged to the British, Japanese, and German Governments to equality of treatment in all respects for their respective nationals, and is therefore unable to come to an agreement with the French Govern- ment by which French citizens would be placed at an advantage over those of any other Power.
That is the reason why this Company cannot consent to the transfer of further lands to the French Government beyond those near the railway station of which it already has the use, nor to the use of those lands for private and commercial purposes.
My Directors therefore beg to request that His Majesty's Government should urge upon the French Ministry for Foreign Affairs the acceptance of a similar arrangement to that made with the Governments of Japan and Germany.
I have, &c.
The Chinese Engineering and Mining Company (Limited),
(Signed) ALFRED W. BERRY, Secretary.