136
5322
No. 140.
Sir T. Wade to Earl Granville.-(Received March 7.)
259 26 MAR 31
Peking, January 6, 1881.
(No. 3. Confidential.) My Lord,
THE short Commercial Treaty negotiated by the United States' Commission Extraordinary, as I have stated in the foregoing despatch, was a quid pro quo against the modification of the Burlingame Treaty in the matter of immigration.
Article II, as I read the Chinese text, provides that China and the United States shall respectively prohibit the importation of opium by the nations of either Power into the ports of the other, or the carriage of it coastwise from one port to another. Neither shall the nationals of either Power charter vessels under their own flag, nor vessels under any other flag, nor allow vessels of their own to be chartered by other nationalities, for the purpose of carrying opium. This prohibition is to be irrevocable, nor are favoured-nation clauses to affect it.
By Article III American vessels, whether freighted with American or other foreign merchandise, when entering or leaving Chinese ports in the coast trade or on long sea voyages, are to pay tonnage dues at the same rate as Chinese vessels, or the vessels of any other flag, and no higher dues. This provision is reciprocally to affect Chinese vessels trading by long sea between America and China, or other countries, no matter what their route or cargo.
This concession will advantage Chinese steamers which could not otherwise enter San Francisco or any United States' port except under conditions comparatively onerous, and involving a special permission. This, at least, is what I have understood from the Americans.
Article IV has to me a certain importance, as it virtually endorses what I have considered a valuable provision of the Chefoo Agreement, namely, that in mixed cases proceedings must be had in the Court, and decision given according to the law, of the defendant's nationality. I am informed privately that there is a slight difference between the English and Chinese text of this Article, which may hereafter occasion discussion.
In Chinese it runs thus: If there be a dispute between a Chinese and an American, it should be tried and decided by officials of both nations. The Chinese Government agrees with the United States' Government that, in such cases, it belongs to the officer of the defendant's nationality to try the case and decide it. The officer of the complainant's nationality is free to appear as Assessor at the trial, and the officer whose business it is to try the case will treat the other with the forms due to an Assessor. If the officer of the complainant's nationality wishes to have additional witnesses called, or witnesses recalled for examination, and the officer in charge of the proceedings opines that such a course is not equitable, the issue can be discussed between the two, point by point, and representation can be made to the higher authorities on both sides. The officer hearing the case will be guided by the law of his own nationality.
There must be, I should imagine, something in the English text to limit the application of this rule to mixed cases occurring in China. I take it for granted that Chinese in America will not be tried in a Chinese Court.
I have a few words to add regarding opium which I shall reserve for the following despatch.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
THOMAS FRANCIS WADE.
!
0.
136
5322
No. 140.
Sir T. Wade to Earl Granville.-(Received March 7.)
259 26 MAR 31
Peking, January 6, 1881.
(No. 3. Confidential.) My Lord,
THE short Commercial Treaty negotiated by the United States' Commission Extraordinary, as I have stated in the foregoing despatch, was a quid pro quo against the modification of the Burlingame Treaty in the matter of immigration.
Article II, as I read the Chinese text, provides that China and the United States shall respectively prohibit the importation of opium by the nations of either Power into the ports of the other, or the carriage of it coastwise from one port to another. Neither shall the nationals of either Power charter vessels under their own flag, nor vessels under any other flag, nor allow vessels of their own to be chartered by other nationalities, for the purpose of carrying opium. This prohibition is to be irrevocable, nor are favoured-nation clauses to affect it.
By Article III American vessels, whether freighted with American or other foreign merchandize, when entering or leaving Chinese ports in the coast trade or on long sea voyages, are to pay tonnage dues at the same rate as Chinese vessels, or the vessels of any other flag, and no higher dues. This provision is reciprocally to affect Chinese vessels trading by long sea between America and China, or other countries, no matter what their route or cargo.
This concession will advantage Chinese steamers which could not otherwise enter San Francisco or any United States' port except under conditions comparatively onerous, and involving a special permission. This, at least, is what I have understood from the Americans.
Article IV has to me a certain importance, as it virtually endorses what I have considered a valuable provision of the Chefoo Agreement, namely, that in mixed cases proceedings must be had in the Court, and decision given according to the law, of the defendant's nationality. I am informed privately that there is a slight difference between the English and Chinese text of this Article, which may hereafter occasion discussion.
In Chinese it runs thus: If there be a dispute between a Chinese and an American, it should be tried and decided by officials of both nations. The Chinese Government agrees with the United States' Government that, in such cases, it belongs to the officer of the defendant's nationality to try the case and decide it. The officer of the com- plainant's nationality is free to appear as Assessor at the trial, and the officer whose business it is to try the case will treat the other with the forms due to an Assessor. If the officer of the complainant's nationality wishes to have additional witnesses called, or witnesses recalled for examination, and the officer in charge of the proceedings opines that such a course is not equitable, the issue can be discussed between the two, point by point, and representation can be made to the higher authorities on both sides. The officer hearing the case will be guided by the law of his own nationality.
There must be, I should imagine, something in the English text to limit the application of this rule to mixed cases occurring in China. I take it for granted that Chinese in America will not be tried in a Chinese Court.
I have a few words to add regarding opium which I shall reserve for the following despatch.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
THOMAS FRANCIS WADE.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.