331
?
422
As to the discrepancies in the Chinese and English texts of the original Agreement, the first contention is that the English text gives the Syndicate "the sole right" to mine, and the Chinese text is held to mean only a "special privilege." In the "State- ment of the Agent-General of the Peking Syndicate" the agent makes "chuan pan to equal "sole right," and "chuan ch'uan" to equal sole control."
"
I think that any one who knows Chinese will tell your Excellency that "chuan pan means "sole management," and "chuan chʻuan means "sole power," "autho- rity," or "right."
contention.
The Chinese text, then, gives the Syndicate "sole management," and the Agent- General contends (or should contend by the romanized Chinese he uses) that this "sole management" is equivalent to "sole right "-a perfectly correct and legitimate
"Chuan pan" certainly does not mean * special privilege." The word, above all others, for "special" is "teh." As for "privilege," it is a difficult word to translate, and is rendered by some such specimens of circumlocution as "position of interest and advantage," "unusual grace,
principle of liberty," &c. Such phrases could, of course, never be covered by the word "pan." The second contention as to discrepancy in the texts, however, is correct. The English text has provided "the proposed works are not injurious to the place." The Chinese has this addition, " to the conditions of the place," and certainly the Chinese, from their point of view, could make any amount of capital out of that statement. So far as to the words.
When we come to the spirit and principle of the Agreement, I feel with Dr. Morrisson that the action of the British Government in demanding 200% a-day from the 1st January for every day's delay in the issue of a permit to begin work is owing to a want of knowledge of the whole facts of the case, and specially of the "local conditions."
The forcing of a large population for sixty years to continue their primitive methods of mining, not permitting them to buy and use foreign machinery without the said population being consulted at all, is surely as un-British a proceeding as can be imagined.
To ignore the people's rights and enrich themselves at their expense is characteristic of the Chinese bureaucracy, and Signor Luzzatti simply took advantage of this fact in the original Agreement.
To avoid constant friction, ever-deepening hatred of the British in these parts, and not a little bloodshed in the future (not confined to the "killing of an engineer or two" --so Luzzatti), I humbly suggest that the whole question should be reconsidered and a compromise made in which the people of Shansi should be fully taken into account.
They are determined to oppose the Syndicate's claims, and have it in their power to do so. They care not to avail themselves of the Syndicate's generosity, seeing it is an offset to injustice. Take, for example, the departure of twenty-five Shansi students to learn mining in England. In the statement of the Agent-General he suggests that "Shansi students will be able to learn this important business (of engineering and mining) on the spot, without going abroad, far from their own homes and relatives," &c. They, however, have not risen to this bait.
At the present rate of progress, before the railhead enters Tsêchow-fu, it would seem likely that some of these students (among whom is a native of Tsechow-fu) will have returned as qualified engineers, or mining experts, able to work independently of the Syndicate.
From the first among the Peking Syndicate authorities there seems to have been constant bungling.
If they had carried out their original idea, which was to connect this city of Tsêchow-fu, in Shansi, with Pukou (opposite Nanking, on the Yang-tsze) by rail, this would have brought the Great River and, indeed, Shanghae, after the completion of the Shanghae-Nanking Railway-within two days' journey (600 miles) of perhaps the richest mining area of the world. Being thus connected with the South Shansi mining district, it would have been unnecessary to work the comparatively very poor Honan mines.
Their Agreement should have had no word which could in any way be construed to mean the crippling of the native industry. The field is ample enough for both to do their utmost. The capital which the Syndicate could have secured and controlled--if from the first its matters had been managed competently-would have made it secure against all native competition.
Their railway would have insured them a monopoly of South Shansi mining, as against foreign opposition.
3
I think this letter probably expresses the sentiments of the Missionary Body of Shansi.
Apologizing for having made this call on your Excellency's patience in thus addressing you, I am, &c.
STANLEY P. SMITH.
(Signed)
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to the Rev. S. P. Smith.
Sir,
I AM in receipt of your letter of the 7th instant, in which you enter into the
Peking, August 15, 1907. question of the interpretation of the Peking Syndicate's Agreement and comment upon the action of His Majesty's Government in supporting a demand for compensa- tion, which you regard as due to "a want of knowledge of the whole facts of the case."
I cannot enter into a discussion of the matter, but I deem it my duty to your own criticism appears to me to be based upon a necessarily imperfect knowledge of that all the circumstances.
I am, &c. (Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
say
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.