June 9, 1900.]
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE. REPORT. out for intervention. France and Bel-clined to do so and there are those that gium will no doubt support British_de-are disinclined-there is apparently no power mands in this instance, for they have to make them comply with it. Under these both suffered wrongs. But whatever they conditions it is not difficult to imagine that may do, however the other Powers may a disaster such as occurred to the Chebine | decide to act, the British Government is might at any time overtake one of these ves- clearly called upon to speak out promptly and sels, and this is a condition of things, which decisively. If the other Treaty Powers will the Times, and justly so, thinks should not join, well and good; if not, then let Britain be allowed. But the question is whether once more play a lone hand and play it the remedy lies with the British Government fearlessly. We want nothing but justice and or the Government of the country whence a guarantee for the safety of those British the vessels in question trade? It appears subjects whom business or duty has brought to us that the initiative lies with the latter into the Central Kingdom; but these we To force British vessels to conform to regula must have even if we have to overthrow the tions and restrictions which are not compul present rotten Government at Peking to sory on those of other nationalities engaged secure them. Has not the time arrived in the same trade would be to place the Bri | when something better, more stable, and tish vessels at a serious disadvantage. The more amenable to reason than the existing real remedy, as far as the Far East is con Administration should be set up in the cerned, is one which might well occupy the capital of this Great Empire-a Government attention of the British Government, and with more enlightened views, possessing that is the institution of reforms in China | some sense of duty to the toiling millions, which would result in the gradual introduc- and imbued with a genuine desire to help tion of such laws as would regulate without the country on the road to progress? impeding the great and growing traffic car- ried on to, from, and between the ports of THE BRITISH FLAG AND THE the Chinese Empire. It is only by some
RIGHT TO USE IT.
such measure that equal treatment will be secured to vessels of all nationalities. while at the same time the safety of the travelling public, Chinese and foreign, will be safe- guarded.
"
<<
*
+
6+
"
(Daily Press, 4th June.) The Times, in a recent leader, calls attention to the loss of the ship Chebine in the Red Sea whilst conveying pilgrims to Mecca. Occasionally spasmodic efforts to do some- The vessel belonged to an English com- thing of this sort are made by the staff of 'pany; it flew the British Flag and was the I. M. Customs; e. g. at Amoy in 1899 commanded by a British certificated officer; where the Customs attempted to enforce the and it was registered as a British vessel. substance of the Hongkong Passenger Ordi- The Court which investigated the disaster nance on the inland water steamers trading made a report discreditable to those respon- from that port; a proceeding which the sible for the defects of the vessel, which it British Consul there did not think they were was said had left Suez, not properly found justified in doing. Considering the manner nor in good seaworthy condition." The Times further on says:
in which that concession has been shorn of It does not mend its value the Consul's objection does not matters that the company took up the posi- seem to be altogether uncalled for. But tion, apparently warranted, that the Chebine, spasmodic efforts of this sort are useless or though a registered British vessel, was not worse than useless. General reform, of the subject to the regulations for the safety of laws applicable to shipping in China or passenger ships in as much as she did not rather, as we said before, the introduction ply to or from any ports in the United King-of some laws which will secure equality of dom. The definition of passenger steamer in the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 ap- 'plies only to every British steamship carry- ing passengers to, from, or between any places in the United Kingdom and every foreign steamship carrying passengers be tween places in the United Kingdom.' This definition needs reconsideration in the light of the history of the Chebine.
14
+
In the last sentence the situation is sum-
treatment to all, are absolutely necessary, and until they are introduced there will al- ways be the risk of a case similar to that of the Chebine and with it a tendency, when it takes place and the vessel is British, to throw blame on the British Government which properly attaches to that of the country whence she trades. Where we think the Government are to blame, is for the loose and almost indiscriminate manner
mned up but it is by no means so easy to in which the British Flag is allowed to be point out the remedy for a state of things used by vessels, more especially tl.ose under which every right-thinking person would the inland water concession; and in view desire to see amended. It is no doubt an of the fact that it was a question of this anomaly that British ships should come un- sort which was the means of precipitating der the Merchant Shipping Act when they the China War--the celebrated Arrow Case trade to, from, or between British ports and in 1856—it would be well for H. M.'s Minis- should apparently be allowed to go uncon-ter, in conjunction with the Government trolled when on the high seas or out of Bri- tish waters; but it, like most other things, has a certain reason for its being. From this Colony, of course, all registered British vessels have to conform to one rule, but to take another instance familiar to our readers, namely, the trade on the Yangtsze. There are British vessels running there if not exactly under the same conditions as the Chebine at least sufficiently close to render the comparison applicable. No supervision is maintained over them as to the number of passengers carried; whether the vessels carry certificated officers or not and whe- ther they carry any British subject at all as member of the crew. The great bulk of shipowners, no doubt, find it necessary from motives of self-interest, if for no other reason, to act up to the spirit of the Mer- chant Shipping Act, but if they were disin-
of this Colony, to draw up explicit in- structions with regard to what constitutes their right to fly the British Flag. A recent case occurred where a steamer had apparently the right to fly the British Flag outside the waters of the Colony, but not the right to do so within them, as was evidenced by the harbour authorities pulling it down. The piracy of the Wo On affords another illustration of what might well resolve itself into a question of hostilities and yet what, on enquiry, might as in the case of the Arrow-turn out to be a technical question as to whether she was legally an English vessel or not? Not so long ago it was the practice of a certain class of vessels trading from this colony to fly the British Flag when in China- and the Chinese when in the waters of the Colony. And again, there are other craft that apparently have
A
(895 no nationality at all, but which trade up the West River under what is known as River Flag, for which they pay $100 * West to the Chinese. Government. An explans- tion of the reason for these craft is given in the recent. Blue Book, and is to the effect that while such vessels are really Chinese-owned they are forced to find pro- tection under the wing, as it were, of the foreigner owing to the impossibility of ob- taining a fair recognition from their own Government. If such is the case it merely emphasizes the need we have referred to for Great Britain to insist on reform through- out China. It is to be hoped that the visit of H. E. the Governor to Peking will have the effect of putting a stop to the present anomalous state of affairs whereby a vessel British in China and is refused recognition is recognized by the Consular Officials as in this Colony. A little common sense is all that is needed to remedy if.
THE "KOW-SHING" CASE.
(Daily Press, 7th June.) AMONG the correspondence published in the latest received Blue Book on affairs in China none is perhaps more instructive of the diffi- culties in the way of getting a claim on the Chinese Government recognised than that relating to the Kow-shing case. This corres pondence has been proceeding for the past five years, the bulk of the time being con- sumed in vain endeavours on the part of the Indo-China Steam Navigation Company to get their claim considered by the Peking Government. This Blue Book (which only addressed by Mr. MACANDREW, the Chair-. covers 1899)
opens with a despatch
man, under date 6th January, 1899, to Lord SALISBURY in which-after stating that the Board of his Company had refrained for some months from troubling his lordship with further correspondence on their case, as they recognised that the time might not be opportune owing to other questions then pending with the Chinese Government— he recalled the fact that a letter had been written by the Foreign Office to the Chinese Minister in the previous August pressing for an answer as to what were his instruc- tions from his Government with reference to the Company's claim. Mr. MACANDREW goes on to add that "nothing further having been heard on this subject, the Board can only conjecture that, as in previous instances, the Chinese Minister has not thought proper to take any notice of the communication from Her Majesty's Government.” conclusion, though a very natural one under the circumstances an unbroken silence, of more than four months-proved incorrect, for on the 21st January the Foreign Office wrote in reply, to the effect that, since the last communication made to the Company, Lord SALISBURY had received a note from the Chinese Minister stating that the Tsung-li Yamen, after having given full and careful consideration to the case, are unable to see how the Chinese Govern- "ment can fairly be called upon to com- pensate the owners of the Kow-shing for "the result of a series of acts on the part of a Japanese warship Naniwa, all of which, as they were advised, were in violation of the law of nations."
*The
**
(+
C
64
This
letter went to say that the arguments which LO FENG LUH advanced in support of this position were briefly to the effect that a state of war, imposing neutral duties on the subjects of third Powers, could not be held to exist until formal notification of the fact of wat had been made by one or both of the belligerents to the Governments of such Powers, while in the present instance this notification was only made on the Ist
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.