12
view, taking all these points in consideration, the Company is, and must be until the port has advanced far further than it is at present, in a worse position with regard to general trade than outside Companies.
It has, I believe, been stated that the giving of the concession of low rates by the Imperial Chinese Railways is wrong in principle, and that consequently the concession should be withdrawn. This is not so, and abundant examples can be given where railways in other countries assist firms and Corporations in this manner for work undertaken by which the railways benefit. In this case the Mining Company has drawn to the Railway, by the outlay at Chingwantao, a large body of traffic, to have attracted which the Railway would have had to incur the expenditure itself. Not having participated in the outlay, the Railway has sought in part to meet the obligations imposed on it by granting preferential rates, which in fact may be considered as their contribution--a small one, be it remarked-to the Company, in lieu of a direct supply of capital. That this arrangement is equitable and absolutely defensible is beyond dispute, and I consider that any attempt to interfere with it by political or other influence would be an unjust act.
I regret that the importance of this subject to the Company which I represent has necessitated my dealing with this matter at some length. To my mind, stated in as brief terms as possible, the position may be summed up as follows:-
The Mining Company has incurred a beavy expenditure which, so far as results show, was not commercially justified. This has been of considerable benefit to the Railways, who have attempted to a small extent to reimburse the Company by allowing preferential rates. Other Shipping Companies, or persons acting on their behalf, appear to have approached the Foreign Office with a view to obtaining the advantages that the works afford for nothing, on the pretext that a port should not be controlled by a private Company. The remedy for these Companies is obvious; they should either subscribe the necessary amount of capital to purchase part of the Mining Company's interests in the works, proposals for which I am prepared to consider and recommend to the Board of the Company in London, or they should make arrangements for the erection of their own accommodation.
Yours, &c. (Signed)
W. S. NATHAN,
Agent and General Manager.
13
land at Chingwantan itself to the French Government or to French commercial individuals at a reasonable tariff, if they desire to purchase it.
The commerce of the port is in no way monopolized by the Company, as is proved by the fact that the "Chargeurs Réunis," an entirely French Company, trades to Chingwantao regularly at the present moment. The Mining Company's berths and godowns and the railway are open to the traffic of all shipping and trading firms, & moderate charge being made for the use of the conveniences established at the Company's expense.
The Company do not claim to have any prior right to the port itself, but they do claim the right to exercise control over property purchased or paid for out of the funds of the shareholders. They have built wharves and a branch railway line, and There is no have purchased land, a proceeding open to any other commercial concern. reason why other Companies should not expend capital at Chingwantao itself in the erection of their own piers, railway sidings, and godowns.
So far as I can understand the situation at present, it is that the French Government occupied certain land belonging to a British Company for reasons of military necessity, and they now desire to justify its retention and even its disposal to others, on the ground that its possession by the original owners would constitute an infringement of the French Treaty with China of 1858.
I have endeavoured to show that no infringement of Treaty has taken place, but it appears to me that in any case the two questions are distinct. The real question at issue is the ownership of the land, and to decide this your Excellency and I agreed that an examination should be made of the title-deeds registered at the British Consulate- General in Tien-tsin. I would remind your Excellency that I have not yet had the honour of receiving any communication as to the results of that examination, which was held on the 17th ultimo.
I trust that your Excellency will take the above observations into your favourable consideration with a view to arriving at the amicable settlement of this question, which is so greatly desired by His Britannic Majesty's Government, the Company, and myself.
I avail, &c. (Signed) J. N. JORDAN,
Inclosure 16 in No. 1.
Inclosure 17 in No. 1.
M. Bapst to Sir J. Jordan.
Sir J. Jordun to M. Bapst.
Mr. Minister and dear Colleague,
Peking, July 17, 1907, WITH reference to my note of the 11th instant, I have the honour to inform your Excellency that I have now received a reply from Major Nathan to my letter asking him for his observations on the note which you were good enough to address to me on the 10th instant, in regard to the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company's land at Chingwantao.
Major Nathan agrees that the statement of land to be leased to the French Government which is contained in Captain Marchand's draft Agreement is the same as that contained in the original draft communicated by him to your Excellency's predecessor. He does not, however, fully appreciate your assurance that the French Government will make no difficulty about ratifying any delimitation which may be agreed upon between our two Legations, as he does not presume that your Excellency's Government desire to occupy any more land, and that which they have at present below the Bluff is not of very great commercial importance. As regards your Excellency's contention that the Company's position at Chingwantao constitutes an infringement of Article XIV of the Treaty of Tien-tsin of the 27th June, 1858, I trust that the following observations will serve to convince you that no such infringement has taken place, and that no monopoly in the sense of that instrument can be held to exist.
The land at Chingwantao was acquired by the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company from the old Chinese Company in a regular way which was held valid by the British Courts after full and due consideration. The possession of the land in itself constitutes no monopoly. It is open to any Government or any Company to buy land further along the coast-for instance, at Rocky Point, where there are several suitable spots for building wharves. Apart from this, the Company are quite prepared to sell
M. le Ministre et Cher Collègue,
Pékin, le 18 Juillet, 1907. LA lettre que vous m'avez fait l'honneur de m'adresser hier, et dont je m'empresse de vous remercier, appelle tout d'abord une remarque.
L'an dernier, lorsque j'étais muni de pleins pouvoirs pour traiter de la question de Tsingvantao avec la "Chinese Engineering Company (Limited)," l'agent de cette Compagnie refusa d'entrer en rapports avec moi, et préféra porter plainte à Paris au Ministère des Affaires Étrangères contre mes actes par l'intermédiaire de l'Ambassade Britannique. Vous savez quel a été le résultat de cette démarche du Major Nathan ; elle a déplacé de Pékin à Paris le siège de la négociation; et je ne suis plus dans cette affaire qu'un Agent de renseignement, dont les dires ne peuvent avoir de valeur que celle que peut leur conférer son autorité personnelle. A ce point de vue, M. le Major Nathan est parfaitement en droit de ne pas partager la confiance que je vous avais exprimée et de me refuser à Paris le crédit nécessaire pour y faire ratifier une délimi- tation qui aurait été préparée d'un commun accord entre nos deux Légations.
Ceci dit, j'ai l'honneur de confirmer à votre Excellence la nouvelle que je lui ai donnée verbalement, à savoir, que le 4 Juin dernier, M. Pichon a adressé à" Sir Francis Bertie une note donnant la théorie du Gouvernement Français au sujet de la situation légale des terrains de Tsingvantao et proposant, d'autre part, une transaction pour sortir de la difficulté. On attend maintenant à l'aris la réponse de Sir Francis Bertie.
A la fin de sa lettre, votre Excellence, se référant à l'examen fait récemment à Tien-tsin par des mandataires de nos deux Légations, des titres possédés par la "Chinese Engineering Company (Limited)," veut bien me demander quel a été, au point de vue du droit Français, le résultat de cet examen. Ainsi qu'il est exposé dans la note de M. Pichon à Sir Francis Bertie, si ces titres sont valides au regard de la loi Anglaise, ils ne le sont point, vu l'absence de toute formalité d'enregistrement ou de transfert, au regard de la loi Chinoise; et cette circonstance les rend non-opposables
285
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.