2
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Statement by Chinese Engineering and Mining Company.
M. PICHON'S letter might give the impression that this Company has adopted an unconciliatory attitude in dealing with the question of the French occupation. So far from this being the case, the Company has throughout expressed it willingness to concede to the French Government exactly the same advantages which have been accepted by the German and Japanese Governments. The Company, in fact, expressed its willingness to meet the demands made by the French Minister for land for naval, military, and Government purposes, although these demands exceeded those of either the Japanese or the German Governments. Moreover, the Company's proposals were accepted as satisfactory by M. Dubail, the former Minister at Peking, who concluded an Agreement accordingly on the 5th October, 1904. It was only after a lapse of eighteen months that the Company received information that this Agree ment was rejected by the French Foreign Office.
M. Pichon's letter proposes as an equitable compromise the very conditions which from the first have been rejected as unacceptable to this Company,
The French Memorandum may be divided into four sections :--
1. The justification of the French action and position.
2. The alleged history of the port and the Company, and a discussion of its rights.
3. An announcement of possible action with the Chinese Government hostile to the Company.
4. A reiteration of proposals for a settlement, which from the first have been rejected by this Company.
The French Government are at present in occupation--
(a.) Of certain lands near the railway station.
These lands were occupied by the French Government at the end of 1900 or the beginning of 1901, simultaneously with the temporary occupation of land at Chin Wang Tao, effected by the other Powers. This area of ground, in the occupation of the French authorities, is far greater than that occupied by the other Power, and only a small portion of it is actually required for their naval and military depôts. The Company has always expressed its willingness to its retention of this extended area by the French Government for Government purposes.
The only issue with respect to these lands, therefore, is their assignment by the French Government to their nationals for private or trading purposes. This is dealt with later, where it is shown that the Protocol of the 7th September, 1901, Article IX, on which the French Government's claim is based, expressly recognizes "le droit d'occuper certains points pour maintenir les communications libres entre la capitale et la mer," but only for that special purpose.
(b.) Of certain lands on the Bluff, at Chin Wang Tao.
These lands were forcibly seized by the French Government in October 1901, at a time when they were indisputably in the possession of this Company, and some time subsequent to the signing the Peace Prococol of the 7th September, 1901. It is surprising that the French Memorandum makes no reference to this nor affords any justification of their action.
Completely independent and reliable evidence of this seizure and its date is to be found in the Report of Captain H. W. Cruddas, Officer Commanding Chin Wang Tao, addressed on the 20th October, 1901, to the Chief Staff Officer of the British China field force in 'Tien-tsin.
Corroborating this is the protest addressed by the then Manager of the Company, Mr. Dugan, to the French Adiniral, dated the 27th October, 1901, and his reply dated the 1st December, 1901, expressing himself unable to deal with the matter, and referring the former to the French Minister in Peking.
M. Dubail, the French Minister, withdrew all claim to these lands, and caused the French boundary-posts to be removed and the lands returned to the Company. After a period of eighteen months' undisturbed occupation by the Company of the same, the land was again forcibly seized by the French Government. The justification advanced in the French Memorandum is to be found on pp. 11 and 12, and reads as follows:--
3
"En fait, la situation de la France à Ts'in-ouang-tao est nette et son droit sur les terrains qu'elle occupe fort bien établi; d'accord avec les autres Puissances, elle détient, en vertu du droit de guerre et en exécution de l'Article IX du Protocole de 1901 relatif à l'occupation des points nécessaires pour assurer les libres communica- tions entre Pekin et la mer en toute saison, une partie des terrains de Ts'in-ouang-tao, au même titre que divers autres emplacements situés sur les lignes d'étapes entre Pekin et la mer, et nul ne peut légalement l'en déposséder.”
The "droit de guerre " could give no right to the French Government to seize the private property of the subjects of a friendly Power six weeks after the final Peace Protocol with the Chinese Government has been signed.
Article IX of the Protocol confirms to the use of the Powers certain lands, the occupation of which had been ceded by the previous Protocol of the 16th February, 1901, for the purpose of maintaining free communication between the capital and the sea. It affords no justification for the subsequent seizure of private property.
Except for the alleged "droit de guerre no justification is offered by the French Memorandum beyond occasional references to the Tien-tsin Treaty of 1858, and an argument that the possession by this Company of its land constitutes a breach of that Treaty.
The Directors of the Company cannot understand how Clause No. XIV of the Treaty of 1858 forbidding "toute coalition organisée dans le but d'exercer un monopole sur le commerce" can have any bearing on the case, or how, if a right were accorded to the French Government to lease a small portion of land at Chin Wang Tao to private individuals for commercial or industrial purposes, it could remedy a breach of this clause. The ownership of the land by this Company gives no monopoly of commerce, nor does the Company claim any. What gives this Company a special position at Chin Wang Tao (apart from its legal title) is the fact that the port has been created by the Company, that no natural port whatsoever existed there, but an artificial harbour bas been created as the result of the expenditure of large sums of money by this Company in the construction of a pier and breakwater, &c. But for this expenditure the land would be worthless, as it was when first acquired by the Company.
No commercial monopoly is sought or exercised by this Company at Chin Wang Tao. The Agreement made with M. Dubail accorded to French nationals and shippers the same facilities at moderate rates as to those of any other Power, the same Agreement having been entered into with the German and Japanese Governments. In proof of this we need only mention that half-a-dozen different shipping lines, including the French "Chargeurs Réunis," are now running to the port. The Company is, moreover, quite prepared to sell to French nationals as much land as they may require on exactly the same terms as are accorded to any others.
As regards the rights of this Company to its property at Chin Wang Tao under the Agreement of Purchase with the old Chinese Engineering and Mining Company, the Directors of the Company do not consider that they are called upon to enter into any discussion, but I am to point out that Chang Yen Mao, in entering into the Agreement, acted, not only as Director-General of the old Chinese Engineering and Mining Company, but also as Director-General of Mines of the Province of Chili, in which capacity he was second only to the Viceroy in rank and power.
On pp. 6 and 7, however, a definite pretext is assigned for taking the view that the Company's rights are open to question. It runs as follows:-
"La date seule du 30 Juillet, 1900, fait d'ailleurs tomber le contrat sous le coup
d'une décision du Corps Diplomatique de Pékin (procès-verbal de la quatrième séance, le 5 Novembre, 1900), d'après laquelle aucun achat de terrains aux Chinois depuis le commencement du siège ne saurait être valable sans l'assentiment des Ministres étrangers. Cette mesure, qui visait spécialement les spéculations dolosives dans l'enceinte du quartier des Légations de Pékin, répondait à la préoccupation générale d'empêcher les ventes fictives ou léonines. Ainsi le contrat provisoire du 30 Juillet, 1900, conclu sans titres suffisants, est des plus contestables, en raison de sa date, qui le rend légalement sans valeur."
In reply, it is only necessary to point out that this decision of the Diplomatic Corps referred exclusively to land at Peking, as is well known to all concerned.
The fact remains that this British Company has twice been forcibly dispossossed, while in actual possession and occupation, of certain lands, by the French Government, and that no satisfactory explanation is as yet advanced.
531
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.