181
proposed is, therefore, a nominal one; and that they will
guarantee that International shipping interests will not
suffer thereby.
Finally, when considering this, and kindred
questions, it is well to recollect that the Inspector
General's authority is derived solely from the Chinese
Government, and that it is, of course, within the
competence of that Government to effect the above change
of control if they desire to do so, notwithstanding any
representations which the Inspector General may set for th
in what he conceives to be the general interest of trade and
navigation. Similarly, beyond giving friendly advice, it is
difficult for the Powers to take definite action in the
matter. It should be understood, furthermore, that there is no International engagement requiring the Chinese
Government to place the administration of the Lights' Service
in the Inspector General's hands; and, indeed, no reference
to the question in the Treaties, beyond the vague stipulation that the "maintenance of the Lights will be paid out of Tonnage Dues." (Tientsin Treaty (1858), Rule 10, Rules of Trade, made in pursuance of Article XXVI of the Treaty of 26th June, 1858). The Tonnage Dues, it may be incidentally stated, now aggregate about Hk.Tls. 2,900,000 per annum, a large proportion of which is absorbed by the cost of Lights' Service. If the adminis- tration of the Lights' Service, therefore, is assumed by the Board of Communications and efficiently maintained, it is not easy to understand what pecuniary advantage the Board would necessarily derive by obtaining direct control, and equally difficult to comprehend why they should desire control without pecuniary advantage! But would the Lights' Service, in- augurated and developed by the genius of Sir Robert Hart,
continue to be efficiently administered if the Inspector General's personal authority is eliminated?
Shanghai, 25th, March, 1929.