32
2
Enclosure 1 in No. 1.
Memorandum communicated to the Wai-chiao Pu by Sir J. Jordan.
HIS Majesty's Minister begs to remind the Wai-chiao Pu that on the 9th May he presented a claim for 7,181265 taels and 500 dollars representing losses, fine, and other expenses connected with the illegal seizure and detention of Indian pium in the province of Chekian, that the claim was again presented on the 30th May, and that nearly a month has elapsed without reply or payment.
Sir John Jordan would remind the Wai-chiao Pu that this is a claim against the Central Government for failure to enforce treaty rights in Chekiang and that it is to the Central Government and to the Central Government alone that he looks for immediate payment. This procrastination in payment of a legitimate claim is inconsistent with the professions of the Central Government that the treaties made between the Manchu dynasty and foreign Powers will be upheld. It is unjust that sufferers from broken treaties should not be compensated and Sir John Jordan has now for the third time to demand immediate payment in order that the parties interested may have their losses made good.
J. N. JORDAN,
Peking, June 29, 1912.
Enclosure in No. 1.
Memorandum communicated to Sir J. Jordan by the Wai-chiao Pu.
THE Wai-chiao Pu have had under consideration Sir John Jordan's memoranda of the 30th May and the 29th June on the subject of the seizure and detention of Indian opium in the province of Chekiang.
In both instances the Indian opium seized and detained in Chekiang has long since been released; if the merchants concerned suffered losses in consequence of the detention, they should also have demanded compensation from the provincial officials at the time of release, or else refused to take the goods back. As it is, the merchants having taken the goods back at the time without expressing any objection, it would seem that His Majesty's Minister, in specially putting forward after the event a heavy claim for compensation, and in repeating the demand, is not exacting compensation for losses on behalf of the importers, but that he has deen induced to come forward and raise difficulties in consequence of the Indian opium-merchants' dissatisfaction with Chekiang's measures of opium suppression.
Touching the statement that "this is a claim against the Central Government for failure to enforce treaty rights in Cheking," the Wai-chiao Pu are quite unable to admit their liability for this compensation.
The final paragraph of article 7 of the Opium Agreement stipulates very clearly that there shall be no derogation in any manner from the force of the laws published to suppress opium. It is impossible for the Wai-chiao Pu to adopt the entirely one-sided policy of compelling Chekiang to conform to the treaties in the matter of the rights of British merchants to dispose freely of Indian opium, while at the same time disregarding the terms of the final paragraph of article 7 of the Opium Agreement.
In conclusion, the attitude of the Wai-chiao Pu in regard to the carrying out of the Opium Agreement has been uniformly just; in every case which has come to their notice of failure of the provincial officials to observe it implicitly, they have at once dispatched telegrams of reprobation. This must surely be also appreciated by His Majesty's Minister, but excessive demands the Wai-chiao Pu certainly cannot admit, and they earnestly trust that His Majesty's Minister will not again raise the question.
LU CHENG-HSIANG. July 4, 1912.
Enclosure 3 in No. 1.
Memorandum communicated to the Wai-chiao Pu by Sir J. Jordan.
HIS Majesty's Minister begs to acknowledge the receipt of the Wai-chiao Pu's memorandum of the 4th instant, refusing to admit the claim for compensation for the illegal seizure and detention of Indian opium in the province of Chekiang, on the
}
3
ground that the opium has long since been released, and that, if the merchants con- cerned suffered losses, they should have demanded compensation from the provincial authorities at the time of the release, or else refused to take back the goods. The memorandum goes on to say that as the merchants took back the goods without expressing any objection, it would appear that His Majesty's Minister in specially (putting forward after the event a heavy claim for compensation, and in repeating the demand is not exacting compensation for losses on behalf of the importers, but that he has been induced to come forward and raise difficulties in consequence of the Indian opium merchants' dissatisfaction with Chekiang's measures of opium suppression.
In reply, His Majesty's Minister begs to refer the Wai-chiao Pu to his numerous memoranda in which he stated that claims for compensation would inevitably result from the illegal action of the Chekiang authorities in regard to Indiau opium, and that these claims would be lodged as soon as the amounts of the losses had been ascertained. The losses sustained by the merchants interested in the nine chests of Indian opium illegally seized and detained at Chiang-t'ou and in the 14 piculs of Indian opium illegally seized and detained at Hangchow, were duly ascertained, and, in accordance with instructions received from His Majesty's Government, a claim for payment thereof was lodged with the Wai-chiao Pu on the 9th May. There was not the slightest delay in forwarding this claim of which due warning had been given locally as well as in Peking. As regards the Wai-chiao Pu's airy statement that if the merchants concerned suffered losses in consequence of the detention they should have demanded compensation from the provincial authorities at the time of release, His Majesty's Minister must again point out that the nine chests of opium seized and detained at Chiang-t'ou were not released in the proper sense of the word; they were not allowed to proceed to destination; the men in charge were fined 500 dollars because they were not in possession of irregular documents; and the opium was com- pulsorily removed from the province under export certificates illegally imposed by Mr. Chu, the civil administrator, who has throughout either been supported by or has defied the Central Government. It would have been ridiculous for the carriers of the opium to demand compensation from the provincial authorities, who have been allowed to violate treaties with impunity, and who are still allowed to act as if Chekiang were independent of the Government of China.
As regards the accusation that His Majesty's Minister in specially putting forward after the event a heavy claim for compensation, aud in repeating the demand is not exacting compensation for losses on behalf of the importers, but that he has been induced to come forward and raise difficulties in consequence of the Indian opium merchants' dissatisfaction with Chekiang's measures of opium suppression, Sir John Jordan is astonished that such a charge has been made against him in an official document and by a responsible Minister, and he demands its prompt and immediate withdrawal. His Majesty's Minister's one and only object in regard to the opium question is to see that the solemn engagements concluded between the British and Chinese Governments on the subject are respected. Of late they have been openly violated by China, and in spite of Sir John Jordan's repeated protests they continue to be violated in many of the provinces.
The Wai chino Pu further state that it is impossible to adopt the entirely one- sided policy of compelling Chekiang to conform to the treaties in the matter of the rights of British merchants to dispose freely of Indian opium, while at the same time disregarding the terms of the final paragraph of article 7 of the Opium Agreement. His Majesty's Minister would point out that the interpretation of that paragraph admits of no quibbling. The laws referred to therein are laws to suppress the smoking of opium, and are to be published by the Chinese Government and not by provincial authorities.
In conclusion, His Majesty's Minister regrets that he cannot comply with the wish of the Wai-chiao Pu to drop the question of compensation, and for the fourth time he has to request that the sums of 7,181-265 taels and 500 dollars be promptly paid by the Central Government, which, although it may have at once dispatched telegrams of reprobation in cases of failure of the provincial authorities to observe the treaties and agreements, has itself failed to prevent their repeated violation.
Peking, July 22, 1912,
J. N. JORDAN,
on
dia
V
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.