2
On this decision being communicated to His Majesty's Consul by the Commissioner of Customs, the former pointed out to the Tartar General that the application of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co. was one which, by Article 7 of the Inland Waters Additional Rules in the British Commercial Treaty, should have been granted, and asked his Excellency to reconsider his decision. To this the Tartar General replied on the 27th December that he had referred the question to the High Commissioner for Southern Trade for consideration. Finally, in the hope of settling the question locally, His Majesty's Consul called on his Excellency on the 8th instant, and informed him with regard to the argument that Shach'eng was not a place within the scope of the Inland Navigation Rules, there were numerous cases of steamers plying under these Rules to places along the coast, and that, if an actual precedent was desired, one was afforded by the case of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire's steamer "Hoangho."
His Excellency contended that the present case bore no analogy to that of the steam-ship "Hoangho," and, after much deliberation, at length disclosed the true reason for refusing Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co.'s application. The principal export of Shach'eng was tea, which was carried overland to Santu. If steamers were allowed to call at Shach'eng they would carry off all the tea, and the occupation of the carriers would be gone.
Your Highness will observe that the first reason for refusing Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co.'s application was that the "Columbia" was not a small vessel. There is, however, nothing in the Regulations limiting their scope to vessels of any particular size, provided they are not of sea-going type. The "Columbia," according to the report of His Majesty's Consul, is a ship of 273 tons tonnage, which was built expressly as a river-going steamer, and she is therefore not of a sea-going type.
**
As regards the question of Shach'eng being on the coast, and therefore not a place on the inland waters, the Tartar General appears to have disregarded the definition of the words "nei ti" given in Rule 1, where it is expressly stated that these words have the same meaning as in Article IV of the Chefoo Convention, namely, that they "apply as much to places on the sea-coasts and river-shores as to places in the interior not open to foreign trade." This argument therefore also breaks down, and there remains the true reason of the Tartar General's refusal—the apprehension lest steamer traffic at Shach'eng should disturb the livelihood of the tea-carriers.
His Excellency must be aware that this cannot be taken as a valid reason for exempting this place from the application of the Inland Navigation Rules. Whenever a new venture is undertaken, such as the opening of railways or mines, some vested interest is sure to suffer, but these enterprises are not for that reason abandoned. On the contrary, they are pursued, and new wants and new modes of livelihood are thereby created. In this way the traffic of steamers to Shach'eng will doubtless throw open to the tea-carriers new ways of earning a living.
In the meantime, the Treaty rights of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co. are being curtailed by the action of the Tartar General, and I therefore have the honour to request that his Excellency may be called upon by telegraph to authorize the issue of a certificate to their vessel, the "Columbia," without further delay, in order that a claim for compensation may be avoided.
I avail, &c.
(Signed)
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Prince Ch'ing to Sir E. Satow.
ERNEST SATOW.
Kuang Hsü, 31st year, 4th moon, 18th day (May 21, 1905).
Your Excellency,
On the 25th April I had the honour to receive your Excellency's note with reference to the application of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co. to enable their steam-ship "Columbia" to ply between Foochow, Shach'eng, and Chapu, under Inland Waters Navigation Rules, and requesting the Board to call upon the Foochow Tartar General by telegraph to cause a certificate to be issued to them without delay.
Some correspondence by telegraph has now passed between this Board and the Tartar General on this subject, and the latter adheres to his statement that, after careful and repeated investigation, he considers that steamer traffic to those places would certainly be inexpedient.
3
In reference to the apprehension expressed by the Tartar General lest steamer traffic to those places should disturb the livelihood of the tea-carriers, your Excellency remarks that this cannot be taken as a valid reason for exempting those places from the application of the Inland Navigation Rules; that whenever a new venture is undertaken, such as the opening of railways or mines, some vested interest is sure to suffer, but these enterprises are not for that reason abandoned. Your Excellency's argument is very just.
But, by the 7th clause of the Additional Rules for Inland Waters Steam Navigation annexed to the Mackay Treaty, it is stipulated:
'As it is desirable that people living inland should be disturbed as little as possible by the advent of steam-vessels, to which they are not accustomed, inland waters not hitherto frequented by steamers shall be opened as gradually as may be convenient to merchants, and only as the owners of steamers may see prospects of remunerative trade.'
The Tartar General declares, in respect of Shach'eng, &c., that, besides tea, there is no other native produce of any kind to be exported, while the traffic in imports through those places is very limited; that inhabitants of those places are solely dependent on carrying tea to Santuao for their means of subsistence, of which they would be deprived, were this traffic diverted to steamers; and finally, that his reasons for opposing the steamer traffic were that steamers would have no prospect of a remunerative trade, and because he feared that the inhabitants would be involved in difficulties.
By the 7th clause of the Inland Waters Navigation Rules, the power to authorize the application is vested in the Ministers of Commerce, in conjunction with the Governor-General and Governor of the province, after careful consideration of the circumstances of the case.
Should the Governor-General and Governor consider that the circumstances are prejudicial to the granting of the application, this Board cannot compel them to give their consent.
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
Sir E. Satow to Prince Ch'ing.
Your Highness,
Peking, June 15, 1905. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Highness' note of the 21st May on the subject of the refusal of the Tartar General at Foochow to sanction the application made in July of last year on behalf of the British steamer "Columbia" to ply between Foochow, Shach'eng, and Chapu under the Inland Waters Navigation Rules. Your Highness quotes the 7th clause of the Additional Rules for Inland Waters Steam Navigation in support of the Tartar General's action, and, in addition, urges that the power to approve the application in question being vested by that clause in the Governor-General or Governor of the province, the Wai-wu Pu are unable to compel such approval if those high officers consider that under the circumstances the granting of the application would have a prejudicial effect.
I should remind your Highness that, as I stated in my note of the 25th April, the reasons originally put forward by the Tartar General for refusing the application were that the "Columbia" was not a small steamer; that Shach'eng and Chapu, being coast harbours, were not to be considered as inland waters; and that steamer traffic to Shach'eng would disturb the livelihood of the local tea-carriers.
The first two objections were easily disposed of by reference to regulation and precedent of which the Tartar General appeared to be unaware, and in my note of the 25th April I mentioned some obvious reasons why the third objection—disturbance of the tea-carriers' livelihood—should not be listened to. Your Highness is good enough to say that my reasoning is fair, but you appear to consider that the test of clause 7 furnishes the Tartar General with a reasonable excuse. I cannot admit that it does. The sentence that inland waters shall be opened "only as the owners of steamers may see prospect of remunerative trade" clearly means the owners shall be the judges of the prospect and not the Tartar General. Shacheng and Chapu are not towns in the far interior; they are sea-coast places accustomed to ocean traffic, and the inhabitants would be no more involved in "difficulties" than those of other sea-coast places to which steamers are plying under the Inland Navigation Rules. Under clause 8 the "Columbia" has a clear right to ply from a Treaty port to places such as Shach'eng and Chapu, and I desire to point out that it is only when steamers are
440
2
On this decision being communicated to His Majesty's Consul by the Commissioner of Customs, the former pointed out to the Tartar General that the application of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co. was one which, by Article 7 of the Inland Waters Additional Rules in the British Commercial Treaty, should have been granted, and asked his Excellency to reconsider his decision. To this the Tartar General replied on the 27th December that he had referred the question to the High Commissioner for Southern Trade for consideration. Finally, in the hope of settling the question locally, His Majesty's Consul called on his Excellency on the 8th instant, and informed him with regard to the argument that Shach'eng was not a place within the scope of the Inland Navigation Rules, there were numerous cases of steamers plying under these Rules to places along the coast, and that, if an actual precedent was desired, one was afforded by the case of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire's steamer "Hoangho."
His Excellency contended that the present case bore no analogy to that of the steam-ship "Hoangho," and, after much deliberation, at length disclosed the true reason for refusing Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co.'s application. The principal export of Shach'eng was tea, which was carried overland to Santu. If steamers were allowed to call at Shach eng they would carry off all the tea, and the occupation of the carriers would be gone.
Your Highness will observe that the first reason for refusing Messrs. Jardine, was not a small vessel. Matheson, and Co.'s application was that the "Columbia There is, however, nothing in the Regulations limiting their scope to vessels of any Columbia," according particular size, provided they are not of sea-going type. The to the report of His Majesty's Consul, is a ship of 273 tons tonnage, which was built expressly as a river-going steamer, and she is therefore not of a sea-going type.
**
As regards the question of Shach'eng being on the coast, and therefore not a place on the inland waters, the Tartar General appears to have disregarded the definition of the words "nei ti" given in Rule 1, where it is expressly stated that these words have the same meaning as in Article IV of the Chefoo Convention, namely, that they "apply as much to places on the sea-coasts and river-shores as to places in the interior not open to foreign trade." This argument therefore also breaks down, and there remains the true reason of the Tartar General's refusal-the apprehension lest steamer traffic at Shach'eng should disturb the livelihood of the tea-carriers.
His Excellency must be aware that this cannot be taken as a valid reason for exempting this place from the application of the Inland Navigation Rules. Whenever a new venture is undertaken, such as the opening of railways or mines, some vosted interest is sure to suffer, but these enterprises are not for that reason abandoned. On the contrary, they are pursued, and new wants and new modes of livelihood are thereby created. In this way the traffic of steamers to Shach'eng will doubtless throw open to the tea-carriers new ways of earning a living.
In the meantime, the Treaty rights of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co. are being curtailed by the action of the Tartar General, and I therefore have the honour to request that his Excellency may be called upon by telegraph to authorize the issue of a certificate to their vessel, the "Columbia," without further delay, in order that a claba for compensation may be avoided.
I avail, &c.
(Signed)
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Prince Ch'ing to Sir E. Satow.
ERNEST SATOW.
Kuang Hsü, 31st year, 4th moon, 18th day (May 21, 1905).
Your Excellency,
ON the 25th April I had the honour to receive your Excellency's note with reference to the application of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co. to enable their steam- ship
"Columbia" to ply between Foochow, Shach'eng and Chapu, under Inland Waters Navigation Rules, and requesting the Board to call upon the Foochow Tartar General by telegraph to cause a certificate to be issued to them without delay.
Some correspondence by telegraph has now passed between this Board and the Tartar General on this subject, and the latter adheres to his statement that, after careful and repeated investigation, he considers that steamer traffic to those places would certainly be inexpedient.
3
In reference to the apprehension expressed by the Tartar General lest steamer traffic to those places should disturb the livelihood of the tea-carriers, your Excellency remarks that this cannot be taken as a valid reason for exempting those places from the application of the Inland Navigation Rules; that whenever a new venture is under- taken, such as the opening of railways or mines, some vested interest is sure to suffer, but these enterprises are not for that reason abandoned. Your Excellency's argument is very just.
But, by the 7th clause of the Additional Rules for Inland Waters Steam Navigation annexed to the Mackay Treaty, it is stipulated :-
'As it is desirable that people living inland should be disturbed as little as possible by the advent of steam-vessels, to which they are not accustomed, inland waters not hitherto frequented by steamers shall be opened as gradually as may be convenient to merchants, and only as the owners of steamers may see prospects of remunerative trade."
The Tartar General declares, in respect of Shach'eng, &c., that, besides tea, there is no other native produce of any kind to be exported, while the traffic in imports through those places is very limited; that inhabitants of those places are solely dependent on carrying tea to Santuao for their means of subsistence, of which they would be deprived, were this traffic diverted to steamers; and finally, that his reasons for opposing the steamer traffic were that steamers would have no prospect of a remunerative trade, and because he feared that the inhabitants would be involved in difficulties.
By the 7th clause of the Inland Waters Navigation Rules, the power to authorize the application is vested in the Ministers of Commerce, in conjunction with the Governor- General and Governor of the province, after careful consideration of the circumstances of the case.
Should the Governor-General and Governor consider that the circum- stances are prejudicial to the granting of the application, this Board cannot compel them to give their consent.
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
Sir E. Satow to Prince Ch'ing.
Your Highness,
Peking, June 15, 1905. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Highness' note of the the 21st May
on the subject of the refusal of the Tartar General at Foochow to sanction the application made in July of last year on behalf of the British steamer “Columbia " to ply between Foochow, Shach'eng, and Chapu under the Inland Waters Navigation Rules. Your Highness quotes the 7th clause of the Additional Rules for Inland Waters Steam Navigation in support of the Tartar General's action, and, in addition, urges that, the power to approve the application in question being vested by that clause in the Governor-General or Governor of the province, the Wai-wu Pu are unable to compel such approval if those high officers consider that under the circumstances the granting of the application would have a prejudicial effect.
1 should remind your Highness that, as I stated in my note of the 25th April, the reasons originally put forward by the Tartar General for refusing the application were that the "Columbia was not a small steamer; that Shach'eng and Chapu, being coast harbours, were not to be considered as inland waters; and that steamer traffic to Shach eng would disturb the livelihood of the local tea-carriers.
The first two objections were easily disposed of by reference to regulation and precedent of which the Tartar General appeared to be unaware, and in my note of the 25th April I mentioned some obvious reasons why the third objection-disturbance of the tea-carriers' livelihood-should not be listened to. Your Highness is good enough to say that my reasoning is fair, but you appear to consider that the test of clause 7 furnishes the Tartar General with a reasonable excuse. I cannot admit that it does. The sentence that inland waters shall be opened "only as the owners of steamers may see prospect of remunerative trade" clearly means the owners shall be the judges of the prospect and not the Tartar General. Shacheng and Chapu are not towns in the far interior; they are sca-coast places accustomed to ocean traffic, and the inhabitants would be no more involved in difficulties" than those of other sea-coast places to which steamers are plying under the Inland Navigation Rules. clause 8 the Columbia" has a clear right to ply from a Treaty port to places such as Shach'eng and Chapu, and I desire to point out that it is only when steamers are
Under
440
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.