287
2
indicated generally under the term "artificial obstructions to navigation" in Article V of the Mackay Treaty. I inclose copy of His Highness' note and Memorandum, and request you to inform me whether it can now be considered that the Article in question has been duly carried into execution.
I am, &c.
(Signed)
ERNEST SATOW.
3
The expenditure incurred on account of removing barriers—not including salaries, &c., of a number of Customs officers detached for the special duty of planning and directing the operations during a period of many months (15,306·07 taels)—amounted to 111,329·27 Haikwan taels. (Total, 126,635·34 taels.)
J. F. OIESEN, Chief Secretary.
(Signed)
Inspectorate-General of Customs, Peking, November 18, 1905.
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Prince Ching to Sir E. Satow.
Your Excellency,
Peking, December 26, 1905. BY the Vth Article of the Mackay Treaty the Chinese Government undertook to remove within the next two years the artificial obstructions to navigation in the Canton River,
The Board has repeatedly consulted the Viceroy of Canton with regard to effecting this work in accordance with Treaty and at the proper time, and directions were sent by the Inspector-General of Customs to the Commissioner of Customs at Canton to take the necessary steps for the removal of the obstructions.
I am now in receipt of a letter from the Inspector-General reporting that the removal of the barriers in the Canton River has been completely effected, in which he shows what measures were taken, and incloses a Memorandum in English for communication to your Excellency.
I have therefore the honour to inclose the Memorandum herewith for your information.
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
MEMORANDUM showing what has been done, in accordance with the provisions of the Vth Article of the Mackay Treaty, by the removal of artificial barriers in the Canton River to facilitate communication along two routes between the city of Canton and the sea.
THE two channels selected to be cleared of obstructions were the Back Reach and the Front Reach. In the Back Reach, which is the principal approach to Canton, were three barriers—the Iron Barrier, Bridge Barrier, and Taishek Barrier. In the Front Reach, which is 4 miles shorter, but, owing to shoals, is little frequented by foreign vessels except river-steamers coming up at certain stages of the tide, were two barriers—the Cambridge Barrier and Whampoa Barrier.
Operations for improving the passages through these barriers were begun on the 5th October, 1904, and were completed on the 15th August, 1905. The work involved the removal of enormous masses of stones, iron piles, timbers, and sunken junks laden with stones.
Before improvement the width of the channel through each barrier was—
Iron Barrier 150 Bridge Barrier 200 Taishek Barrier 100 Cambridge Barrier 300 Whampoa Barrier 200The work done has secured the following results:—
Width Depth at Low Water Iron Barrier 670 16 Bridge Barrier (entirely removed) 16 Taishek Barrier 400 12 Cambridge Barrier 450 16 Whampoa Barrier 400 9Inclosure 4 in No. 1.
Consul-General Scott to Sir E. Satow.
(No. 23.)
Canton, March 31, 1906. Sir,
I BEG to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 26 of the 28th December, 1905, regarding the removal of barriers in the Canton River, in which you direct me to inform you whether it can now be considered that Article V of the Mackay Treaty for the removal of "artificial obstructions to navigation" has been duly carried out.
I beg to report that on receipt of your despatch I duly communicated with the Hong Kong Government with a view to obtaining expert opinion—and more particularly the views and wishes of the naval authorities and the Shipping Companies—on the subject. So far I have not succeeded in obtaining any expert opinion, but I beg to inclose copy of a despatch from his Excellency the Admiral, and also a joint letter from Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co., Messrs. Butterfield and Swire, and the Hong Kong and Canton Steam-boat Company.
According to Admiral Noel's letter, sufficient depth of water has now been provided to admit of the usual traffic, but he records his opinion that the Mackay Treaty has not been carried out. Admiral Noel admits, however, that the total removal of the barriers might lead to a risk of causing the deep channel to silt up. He further suggests that the parts of the barriers left should be so cut away as to render them practically useless in facilitating the erection of barriers in future.
The Steam-ship Companies, on their part, acknowledge that good work has been done in facilitating navigation, but claim that the provisions of the Treaty have not been fulfilled, only a comparatively small portion of the barriers having been removed. They suggest that the Iron Barrier to the north should be wholly removed, and in this view I entirely concur. There should be little difficulty in the operation, and the material is evidently of some value, for I understand that a Chinese had offered to remove it free of cost. The Companies further suggest that the Taishek Barrier be also removed, and that further dredging operations might be carried on in the Front Reach and at Sulphur Point, Whampoa.
In regard hereto I have merely to observe that these places cannot come under the category of "artificial obstructions," as understood in the Mackay Treaty, and the suggestions need not therefore be discussed.
The shallow place near the Taishek Barrier which the Shipping Companies wish to have removed is more or less a moving shoal, which disappears with the floods and reappears during the dry season. The only question to be considered is how far the deepening and widening of the Taishek Barrier will affect this shoal permanently, and this can only be ascertained by future observation.
In paragraphs 6 and 7 of their joint letter the Shipping Companies raise the question of the improvement of the harbour of Canton, and especially the removal of the Pak Hin, Honam, and Fati rocks. This question, however, is separately provided for, under Article V of the Mackay Treaty, by a special arrangement between the merchants and the Customs, and by a tax on goods landed and shipped.
The underlying idea of the Companies is, no doubt, that, in consideration of the only partial removal of the barriers and the consequently lessened cost to the Chinese Government, the latter will forgo their claim and will improve the harbour at their own expense.
I would point out that the removal of the rocks in question must prove a tedious and expensive operation, and the benefits to be derived from the removal can never be commensurate, as far as British interests are concerned, to the cost, nine-tenths of which would fall on British trade. The Norwegian and German tramp steamers would be the sole gainers. The reason is: the Hong Kong and Canton Steam-boat Company already possess their wharves and landing-stages, and all that is necessary to meet their
287
2
indicated generally under the term "artificial obstructions to navigation "in Article V of the Mackay Treaty. I inclose copy of His Highness' note and Memorandum, and request you to inform me whether it can now be considered that the Article in question has been duly carried into execution.
I am, &c.
(Signed)
ERNEST SATOW.
3
The expenditure incurred on account of removing barriers-not including salaries, &c., of a number of Customs officers detached for the special duty of planning and directing the operations during a period of many months (15,306-07 taels)-amounted to 111,329-27 Haikwan taels. (Total, 156,635 34 tacls.)
J. F. OIESEN, Chief Secretary.
(Signed)
Inspectorate-General of Customs, Peking, November 18, 1905.
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Prince Ching to Sir E. Satow.
Your Excellency,
Peking, December 26, 1905. BY the Vth Article of the Mackay Treaty the Chinese Government undertook to remove within the next two years the artificial obstructions to navigation in the Canton River,
The Board has repeatedly consulted the Viceroy of Canton with regard to effecting this work in accordance with Treaty and at the proper time, and directions were sent by the Inspector-General of Customs to the Commissioner of Customs at Canton to take the necessary steps for the removal of the obstructions.
I am now in receipt of a letter from the Inspector-General reporting that the removal of the barriers in the Canton River has been completely effected, in which he shows what measures were taken, and incloses a Memorandum in English for communi- cation to your Excellency.
I have therefore the honour to inclose the Memorandum herewith for your information.
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
MEMORANDUM showing what has been done, in accordance with the provisions of the Vth Article of the Mackay Treaty, by the removal of artificial barriers in the Canton River to facilitate communication along two routes between the city of Canton and the sea.
THE two channels selected to be cleared of obstructions were the Back Reach aud the Front Reach, In the Back Reach, which is the principal approach to Canton, were three barriers--the Iron Barrier, Bridge Barrier, and Taishek Barrier. In the Front Reach, which is 4 miles shorter, but, owing to shoals, is little frequented by foreign vessels except river-steamers coming up at certain stages of the tide, were two barriers-- the Cambridge Barrier and Whampoa Barrier.
Operations for improving the passages through these barriers were begun on the 5th October, 1904, and were completed on the 15th August, 1905. The work involved the removal of enormous masses of stones, iron piles, timbers, and sunken junks laden with stones.
Before improvement the width of the channel through cach barrier was---
Iron Barrier..
Bridge Barrier
Taishek Barrier
Cambridge Barrier
Whampoa Barrier
The work done has secured the following results :-
Feet.
150
200
100
300
200
Width.
Depth at Low Water.
Feet.
Feet.
Iron Barrier
670
16
Bridge Barrier (entirely removed)
16
Taishek Barrier
400
12
Cambridge Barrier
450
16
Whampoa Barrier
400
9
Inclosure 4 in No. 1.
Consul-General Scott to Sir E. Sutow.
(No. 23.)
Canton, March 31, 1906. Sir,
1 BEG to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 26 of the 28th December, 1905, regarding the removal of barriers in the Canton River, in which you direct me to inform you whether it can now be considered that Article V of the Mackay Treaty for the removal of "artificial obstructions to navigation" has been duly carried out.
I beg to report that on receipt of your despatch I duly communicated with the Hong Kong Government with a view to obtaining expert opinion--and more particularly the views and wishes of the naval authorities and the Shipping Companies--on the subject. So far I have not succeeded in obtaining any expert opinion, but I beg to inclose copy of a despatch from his Excellency the Admiral, and also a joint letter from Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co., Messrs. Butterfield and Swire, and the Hong Kong and Canton Steam-boat Company.
According to Admiral Noel's letter, sufficient depth of water has now been provided to admit of the usual traffic, but he records his opinion that the Mackay Treaty has not been carried out. Admiral Noel admits, however, that the total removal of the barriers He further suggests that might lead to a risk of causing the deep channel to silt up. the parts of the barriers left should be so cut away as to render them practically useless in facilitating the erection of barriers in future.
•
The Steam-ship Companies, on their part, acknowledge that good work has been done in facilitating navigation, but claim that the provisions of the Treaty have not been fulfilled, only a comparatively small portion of the barriers having been removed. They suggest that the Iron Barrier to the north should be wholly removed, and in this view I entirely concur. There should be little difficulty in the operation, and the material is evidently of some value, for I understand that a Chinese had offered to remove it free of cost. The Companies further suggest that the Taimee Barrier be also removed, and that further dredging operations might be carried on in the Front Reach and at Sulphur Point, Whampoa.
In regard hereto I have merely to observe that these places cannot come under the category of "artificial obstructions," as understood in the Mackay Treaty, and the suggestions need not therefore be discussed.
The shallow place near the Taishek Barrier which the Shipping Companies wish to have removed is more or less a moving shoal, which disappears with the floods and reappears during the dry season. The only question to be considered is how far the deepening and widening of the Taishek Barrier will affect this shoal permanently, and this can only be ascertained by future observation.
In paragraphs 6 and 7 of their joint letter the Shipping Companies raise the question of the improvement of the harbour of Canton, and especially the removal of the Pak Hin, Honam, and Fati rocks. This question, however, is separately provided for, under Article V of the Mackay Treaty, by a special arrangement between the merchants The underlying idea of and the Customs, and by a tax on goods landed and shipped.
the Companies is, no doubt, that, in consideration of the only partial removal of the barriers and the consequently lessened cost to the Chinese Government, the latter will forgo their claim and will improve the harbour at their own expense.
I would point out that the removal of the rocks in question must prove a tedious and expensive operation, and the benefits to be derived from the removal can never be commensurate, as far as British interests are concerned, to the cost, nine-tenths of which would fall on British trade. The Norwegian and German tramp steamers would be the sole gainers. The reason is: the Hongkong and Canton Steam-boat Company already possess their wharves and landing-stages, and all that is necessary to meet their
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.