46
No. 52.
The Marquess of Lansdowne to Sir E. Satow.
(No. 192) (Telegraphic.) P.
Foreign Office, November 30, 1903. TSECHÓW-TAOKOW Railway. My telegram No. 176 of the 30th ultimo.
A copy of Mr. Jamieson's letter to you of the 26th ultimo has been communicated to us by the Peking Syndicate. They urge His Majesty's Government to endeavour to induce the Chinese Government to give immediate effect to the railway arrangement so far as the Tsechow--Tackow Railway is concerned.
How does the question stand at present?
It appears to us that Shông's attitude is outrageous.
(No. 197.)
47
No. 55.
The Marquess of Lansdowne to Sir E. Satow.
(Telegraphic.) P.
TSECHÓW-TAOKOW Railway.
Foreign Office, December 4, 1903.
565
I entirely approve the representations you have made, as reported in your telegram. No. 262 of the 3rd instant.
Sheng evidently intends to evade the fulfilment of the promises given to Mr. Townley, and to delay the settlement indefinitely. Steady pressure should be exerted on him from Peking.
(No. 262.)
No. 53.
Sir E. Satow to the Marquess of Lansdowne (Received December 3.)
(Telegraphic.) P.
PEKING Syndicate's Tsechow-Taohow Railway.
Peking, December 3, 1903,
Your Lordship's telegram No. 192. When I received Mr. Jamieson's letter of the 20th October, I complained of Sheng's attitude in a strong note addressed to Prince Ching, laying special stress on his demand for paid-up shares, and for an undertaking that the iron mines should not be worked. I reminded his Highness of the agreement which he had come to with Mr. Townley, and intimated that I should be obliged to ask that the negotiation be transferred to Peking and taken out of Sheng's hands.
The Prince promised to write to Sheng, but said that the negotiation must be left to Sheng, since the Syndicate's line was to be dealt with as a branch of the Luhan. Shéng had been able to come to terms with the British and Chinese Corporation, and would doubtless be able to arrange this matter also.
I replied that I had no doubts as to Shêng's ability, but as to his willingness, and I rsked the Prince to inquire of him whether the demands referred to had been made by him.
Copies of my notes, the Prince said, would be sent to him. The Foreign Board had already telegraphed.
I sent copies of the correspondence to Jamieson on the 23rd November, and telegraphed advising him to see Sheng in person.
The Foreign Board stated on the 1st instant that Sheng was away at his father's funeral.
I have now received a telegram from Jamieson, stating that Shêng will return about the 9th instant. I infer that no meeting has taken place.
(No. 196.) (Telegraphic.) P.
No. 54.
The Marquess of Lansdowne to Sir E. Satow.
Foreign Office, December 4, 1903. I AM informed by the Peking Syndicate that they learn from a source which they consider reliable that a Syndicate has been formed at Paris under the auspices of the French Government to obtain a Concession for a railway starting at Ichang, with the terminal point at Cheng-tu-fu in Se-Chouen, running along the Tsing-Kiang and the Kien-Kiang, crossing the Yang-tsze, a little below Chungking, and then along the Kia-ling up to Cheng-tu-fu,
Mr. de Marteau is to return to Peking at once for the purpose.
This application seems open to objection, and I should be glad if you will keep me informed of anything you may learn respecting its progress.
(No. 370.) Sir,
No. 56.
The Marquess of Lansdowne to Sir E. Satou.
Foreign Office, December 4, 1903. I HAVE received your despatch No. 341 of the 30th September, on the subject of the statement furnished by the Imperial Northern Railway's Administration of China, with regard to losses sustained by them in consequence of the Boxer disturbances in 1900.
In that despatch you state that Mr. Cousins reports that Item No. 11 (of the Statement of Claim) was exclusive of Item No. 12, that is to say, the amount given covers work done, or to be done, apart from the expenditure of 90,0001, by the British Railway Administration, so that there has been no double charge as at first appeared possible.
Mr. Cousins also stated that the sum of 121,655 14s. 11d. charged by the Adminis tration for damage to the extramural section of the railway is exclusive of any repairs executed by the Russians.
Mr. Ottewill, in the report inclosed in your despatch, has, after an examination of the accounts and vouchers, passed iterns amounting to 436,9127. 8s. 11d., and in my telegram No. 191, of the 28th ̄ultimo I have authorized the payment, out of the indemnity funds in the hands of the British Delegate on the Bankers Commission, of interest on that amount, less 90,000, the sum advanced from British army funds for repairs on the railway while it was under British Administration.
Mr. Ottewil has included the remaining items in:
(1.) Annex III. Among those as to which some decision would appear to be necessary.
(2.) Annex IV. Items in regard to which some further information is required before they can be considered as definitely settled.
(3.) The claim in respect of the Nanpiao mines.
There are only two items comprised in Annex III upon which it is necessary for me to express an opinion at the present time, viz., (1) Messrs. Jardine and Matheson's claim for expenditure on telegrams, and (2) Dr. Frazer Hurst's claim.
1. From Mr. Ottewill's remarks opposite the entry in Annex III of the Company's claim, it appears that the claim includes an item of 1,111, 17s. 3d. on account of telegrams paid by the British and Chinese Corporation previous to the Boxer outbreak, and from the Corporation's letter of the 7th July, of which a copy was inclosed in my despatch to Mr. Townley, No. 205, of the 17th July last, a statement appears to have been submitted which comprised telegrams sent from London commencing April, 1899. Such a claim may be a good one as against the Chinese Government, but it is not understood how telegrams sent previous to the outbreak can be included in the present account. You should inform the Administration that no telegramus should be charged for in this claim except those which were rendered necessary by the disturbances.
2. I am in communication with Dr. Frazer Hurst's solicitors with regard to his claim, and as soon as a settlement has been arrived at a separate communication will be addressed to you on the subject.
As this Department is not in possession of the terms of the Agreements under which the different officials of the Administration were employed, and as at this distance it is not possible to discuss each claim with the administration in detail, I am unable to express an opinion respecting the unsettled claims under Annex IV, nor with the exception of the two items mentioned, can any decision be come to here as to the