584
2
6. At my farewell interview with the Viceroy on the 8th March, his Excellency entered very fully into the case, and evidently was greatly perturbed about it. He said that he had given his word to me to do his best to put down piracy, but that his efforts would be frustrated if arms were smuggled into the country from Macao, and that he had every reason to believe that this was constantly done.
He had no wish to detain the vessel, but only wanted an inquiry under the rules, and he asked my opinion in the matter.
I told his Excellency that the case certainly seemed to require investigation, that if arms were smuggled into the country it would be very difficult to put down piracy, that if the "Tatsu Maru" were released without inquiry his position would be difficult, and, in reply to his request that I would help him in the matter, I undertook to telegraph his views to London and to our Ministers at Peking and Tôkið.
Our meeting was most cordial, and I think the Viceroy was pleased at my visit.
7. Shortly afterwards I received their Lordships' telegram of the 8th instant informing me that my services might be required as Arbitrator, and, therefore, at the time, I took no further action.
On my return to Hong Kong I received the communication from the Viceroy inclosed, and having carefully considered the matter and having regard to this communication and what had been said at the interview, I came to the conclusion that it was not desirable that I should act as Arbitrator, and I dispatched my telegram of the 12th instant accordingly.
**
8. My sympathies go entirely with China in this matter, and I do not think the Japanese authorities were justified in refusing an inquiry; it is common knowledge that arms are smuggled into China from Macao, and it is probable that this attempt was made in consequence of the more stringent regulations of the Hong Kong Government. The Tatsu Maru has been released and is now at Hong Kong, and I believe that Messrs. Butterfield and Swire will sue the owners for breach of contract and consequent losses. Having regard to the fact that the master of the vessel deliberately avoided Hong Kong in order to land his arms and ammunition at Macao, it would appear to be only right and proper that the owners of the vessel should pay for this breach of their charter.
I have, &c.
Your Excellency,
(Signed)
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Mr. Wen Tsung-Yao to Admiral Sir A. Moore.
A. W. MOORE.
Canton, March 8, 1908.
I AM directed by his Excellency the Viceroy to send you herewith a written statement in support of the conversation between your Excellency and his Excellency in regard to the "Tatsu Maru" case at to-day's interview.
His Excellency tenders his sincerest thanks to your Excellency for your good offices in this matter, which not only concerns China alone, but concerns the trade of all foreign nations.
WEN TSUNG YAO, Secretary.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
Memorandum respecting the "Tatsu Maru Case."
THE "Tatsu Maru" draws more than 23 feet of water. Macao waters do not admit of vessels drawing more than two fathoms of water. Therefore the Japanese contention that the "Tatsu Maru was only exercising her right to remain outside Macao for reason of tide, weather, &c., cannot be maintained.
2. When the Chinese official boarded the "Tatsu Maru" he clearly recognized—in fact, it was admitted by the master—why the vessel was anchored there, viz., in order to await a boat from Macao into which it was intended to discharge 94 cases of arms and 40,000 cartridges.
3. Pending delimitation, although agreed upon in principle, China has not recognized the waters round Macao outside a certain courtesy limit as public waters. The Chino-Portuguese Convention says that, pending delimitation, matters remain in their original condition. Therefore outside waters have always been considered as Chinese waters. The "Tatsu Maru," when about to discharge the arms into a Chinese cargo boat, was outside the courtesy limit and in waters over which the Canton Government has always exercised control.
4. China, finding an operation in arms about to take place on her waters between a ship flying the Japanese flag and a Chinese junk, intervened in order to obtain an explanation. When cargo is shipped outwards, e.g., prepared opium to an American mail steamer lying outside the courtesy limit, it is the invariable rule for the Portuguese authorities to apply for a permit from the Lappa Customs. Similarly, it would appear that, for inward cargo sought to be discharged outside the courtesy limit, under precisely similar circumstances, an inward permit should equally have been applied for.
5. With regard to licences to import arms issued to Chinese merchants in Macao by the Macao Government, China can only say that such a system opens an easy way for arms to get into China to be used to the detriment of the Chinese Government and its people. It is well known that the Hong Kong Government, no doubt for sufficiently good reason, has restricted the trade in arms between Hong Kong and Macao. In view of this action on the part of the British Government, it would be a painful surprise to the civilized world to learn that Japan and Portugal have apparently agreed together to perpetuate a trade in arms which the Hong Kong Government has seen fit to curtail. To gain publicity for these facts was one of the main reasons for the Canton Government's earnest desire to have the whole case investigated by means of the Joint Investigation Rules.
6. The Japanese contend that the arms and ammunition seized by the Chinese authorities were perfectly legal, because they had been examined by the water police at Kobe before the "Tatsu Maru" left Kobe, and because the Portuguese authorities had issued a permit for their importation into Macao. The contention of the Canton Government is that, as far as the Japanese and Portuguese Governments are concerned, the arms and ammunition are legal. But from the Chinese standpoint, they are illegal, because in the absence of an inward permit, or "huchao," such as is required by law in China for all movements of arms within her waters, the arms in question were not being legally conveyed, and it was therefore incumbent on the Canton Government to take such steps towards public investigation as seemed to be necessary. To deny China's right to seize contraband anywhere and everywhere within her own territories and waters is practically to tie China's hands and to render nugatory, if not impossible, any honest effort to prevent the sin against humanity contained in the proposition that any nation has the right to dump arms in the convenient proximity to Chinese territory, if not within that territory itself, in full knowledge of the disturbed condition of large portions of the two Kwang provinces and the terrible consequences likely to ensue by the possession of modern arms of precision in the unscrupulous hands of pirates, fanatics, and revolutionaries. This is a question which concerns not China alone, nor even Japan and Portugal, but is one which might easily and in the near future be fraught with peril to the peace of the whole world.
7. The "Tatsu Maru" was seized in the act of attempting to discharge in Chinese waters contraband not covered by a Chinese Government permit, action which constitutes clandestine trade from the Chinese standpoint, and in accordance with Article V of the Japanese Treaty, the vessel was seized and brought to Canton for investigation.
8. It is true that joint investigation can only take place with the consent of both parties, but the Rules also say that vessels or goods seized become confiscated if no official demand for joint investigation is received within six days of delivery of notice of seizure. The Rules also provide that protests against confiscation must be made after the joint investigation has taken place.
9. The system of joint investigation was instituted many years ago for the purpose of ascertaining facts and settling such cases equitably and publicly. This is exactly what China desires in this case. If the Japanese Consul had been willing to investigate this case by the Joint Investigation Rules, it could, in the event of disagreement, have been settled locally within six days by the release of the ship and cargo under bond, in which event the whole case would have been referred by the Chinese and Japanese local authorities to Peking for final decision. Thus the cause of and responsibility for any delay in settlement rests with the Japanese Consul at Canton, who made no demand for joint investigation, as required by the rules thereof.
584
2
6. At my farewell interview with the Viceroy on the 8th March his Excellency entered very fully into the case, and evidently was greatly perturbed about it. He said that he had given his word to me to do his best to put down piracy, but that his efforts would be frustrated if arms were smuggled into the country from Macao, and that he bad every reason to believe that this was constantly done.
He had no wish
to detain the vessel, but only wanted an inquiry under the rules, and he asked my opinion in the matter.
I told bis Excellency that the case certainly seemed to require investigation, that if arms were smuggled into the country it would be very difficult to put down piracy, that if the "Tatsu Maru" were released without inquiry his position would be difficult, and, in reply to his request that I would help him in the matter, I undertook to telegraph his views to London and to our Ministers at Peking and Tôkið.
Our meeting was most cordial, and I think the Viceroy was pleased at my visit. 7. Shortly afterwards I received their Lordships' telegram of the 8th instant informing me that my services might be required as Arbitrator, and, therefore, at the time, I took no further action.
On my return to Hong Kong I received the communication from the Viceroy inclosed, and having carefully considered the matter and having regard to this con- munication and what had been said at the interview, I came to the conclusion that it was not desirable that I should act as Arbitrator, and I dispatched my telegram of the 12th instant accordingly.
**
8. My sympathies go entirely with China in this matter, and I do not think the Japanese authorities were justified in refusing an inquiry; it is common knowledge that arms are smuggled into China from Macao, and it is probable that this attempt was made in consequence of the more stringent regulations of the Hong Kong Government. The Tatsu Maru has been released and is now at Hong Kong, and I believe that Messrs. Butterfield and Swire will sue the owners for breach of contract and consequent losses. Having regard to the fact that the master of the vessel deliberately avoided Hong Kong in order to land his arms and ammunition at Macao, it would appear to be only right and proper that the owners of the vessel should pay for this breach of their charter.
I have, &c.
Your Excellency,
(Signed)
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Mr. Wen Tsung-Yao to Admiral Sir A. Moore.
A. W. MOORE.
Canton, March 8, 1908.
I AM directed by his Excellency the Viceroy to send you herewith a written statement in support of the conversation between your Excellency and his Excellency in regard to the "Tatsu Maru" case at to-day's interview.
His Excellency tenders his sincerest thanks to your Excellency for your good offices in this matter, which not only concerns China alone, but concerns the trade of all foreign nations.
WEN TSUNG YAO, Secretary.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
Memorandum respecting the " Tatsu Maru
"
Case.
THE "Tatsu Maru" draws more than 23 feet of water. Macao waters do not admit of vessels drawing more than two fathoms of water. Therefore the Japanese contention that the "Tatsu Maru was only exercising her right to remain outside Macao for reason of tide, weather, &c., cannot be maintained.
2. When the Chinese official boarded the "Tatsu Maru" he clearly recognized--in fact, it was admitted by the master-why the vessel was anchored there, viz., in order to await a boat from Macao into which it was intended to discharge 94 cases of arms and 40,000 cartridges.
3. Pending delimitation, although agreed upon in principle, China has not recog- nized the waters round Macao outside a certain courtesy limit as public waters. The Chino-Portuguese Convention says that, pending delimitation, matters remain in their
3
original condition. Therefore outside waters have always been considered as Chinese waters. The "Tatsu Maru," when about to discharge the arms into a Chinese cargo boat, was outside the courtesy limit and in waters over which the Canton Government has always exercised control."
4. China, finding an operation in arms about to take place on her waters between a ship flying the Japanese flag and a Chinese junk, intervened in order to obtain an explanation. When cargo is shipped outwards, e.g., prepared opium to an American mail steamer lying outside the courtesy limit, it is the invariable rule for the Portuguese suthorities to apply for a permit from the Lappa Customs. Similarly it would appear that, for inward cargo sought to be discharged outside the courtesy limit. under precisely similar circumstances, an inward permit should equally have been applied for.
5. With regard to licences to import arms issued to Chinese merchants in Macao by the Macao Government, China can only say that such a system opens an easy way for arms to get into China to be used to the detriment of the Chinese Government and its people. It is well known that the Hong Kong Government, no doubt for sufficiently good reason, has restricted the trade in arms between Hong Kong and Macao. In view of this action on the part of the British Government, it would be a painful surprise to the civilized world to learn that Japan and Portugal have apparently agreed together to perpetuate a trade in arms which the Hong Kong Government has seen fit to curtail. To gain publicity for these facts was one of the main reasons for the Canton Government's earnest desire to have the whole case investigated by means of the Joint Investigation Rules.
6. The Japanese contend that the arms and ammunition seized by the Chinese authorities were perfectly legal, because they had been examined by the water police at Kobe before the "Tatsu Maru" left Kobe, and because the Portuguese authorities had issued a permit for their importation into Macao. The contention of the Canton Government is that, as far as the Japanese and Portuguese Governments are concerned, the arms and ammunition are legal. But from the Chinese standpoint they are illegal, because in the absence of an inward permit, or "huchao," such as is required by law in China for all movements of arms within her waters, the arms in question were not being legally conveyed, and it was therefore incumbent on the Cauton Government to take such steps towards public investigation as seemed to be necessary. To deny China's right to seize contraband anywhere and everywhere within her own territories and waters is practically to tie China's hands and to render nugatory, if not impossible, any honest effort to prevent the sin against humanity contained in the proposition that any nation has the right to dump arms in the convenient proximity to Chinese territory, if not within that territory itself, in full knowledge of the disturbed condition of large portions of the two Kwang provinces and the terrible consequences likely to ensue by the possession of modern arms of precision in the unscrupulous hands of pirates, fanatics, and revolutionaries. This is a question which concerns not China alone, nor even Japan and Portugal, but is one which might easily and in the near future be fraught with peril to the peace of the whole world.
7. The "Tatsu Maru was seized in the act of attempting to discharge in Chinese waters contraband not covered by a Chinese Government permit, action which con- stitutes clandestine trade from the Chinese standpoint, and in accordance with Article V of the Japanese Treaty the vessel was seized and brought to Canton for investigation. 8. It is true that joint investigation can only take place with the consent of both parties, but the Rules also say that vessels or goods seized become confiscated if no official demand for joint investigation is received within six days of delivery of notice of seizure. The Rules also provide that protests against confiscation must be made after the joint investigation has taken place.
9. The system of joint investigation was instituted many years ago for the purpose of ascertaining facts and settling such cases equitably and publicly. This is exactly what China desires in this case. If the Japanese Consul had been willing to investigate this case by the Joint Investigation Rules, it could, in the event of disagreement, have been settled locally within six days by the release of the ship and cargo under bond, in which event the whole case would have been referred by the Chinese and Japanese local authorities to Peking for final decision. Thus the cause of and responsibility for any delay in settlement rests with the Japanese Consul at Canton, who made no demand for joint investigation, as required by the rules thereof.
:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.