October 29, 1904. }
RAILWAY ENTERPRISE IN CHINA, The following items are gleaned from Chinese paperst―
The protest made by the gentry of Hunan against the transference of the Hankow-Canton Railway Concession to a Belgian syndicate is endorsed by the President of the Railway Administration, but the attitude of Sheng Kungpao seems to be that of sitting on the fence. He is not sure that the Chinese Govern ment could legally cancel the agreement.
The original concession of the Chengting-fu Tai-Yuan-fu Railway was given to the Russo
Chinese Bank for the sum of ten million francs
of railway bonds, but now the concession has been transferred to a Franch syndicate for 40 million francs in bonds,
The railway between Taechow and Taokow has been built by the Peking Syndicate, but the Chinese Government does not allow the carrying of passengers or cargo and the line does not pay. The syndicate has tried to sell the line to the Chinese Government and has consulted with Sheng Kungpao. Sheng on the other hand tried to sell the Hanyang Iron Works, but the Peking Syndicate refused to accept that offer; thus the matter has fallen through. It has now been de- cided to sell the railway line to Lu Han Railway at 7,000.000 taels.
THE CURRENCY QUESTION
IN CHINA.
The following letter has been received by the Chairman of the Tientsin Chamber of Com- merce from Sir Ernest Satow, H.M.'s Minister at Peking:-
Peking. 15th September. 1904. SIR.I have received your communication of the 12th inst. enclosing copy of a Memorial from the Chambers of Commerce of Shanghai, Hongkong and Tientsin to the Doyen of the Diplomatic Body on the subject of the pressing need for the establishment of a uniform National Coinage in China.
In reply I beg to inform you that correspon- dence has already passed between the Hongkong Chamber of Commerce and myself on this subject.
In view of the scheme for the adoption of the gold standard laid before the Chinese Govern- ment by Professor J. W. Jenks of the United States Commission on International Exchange,
which is now under the consideration of the
Chinese Government, I do not see my way at present to do more than give it my general support by taking such opportunities as may present themselves of urging its adoption.
I would, however, take the liberty of pointing out to the Chairmen of the respective Chambers that the reference in paragraph 2 of the memorial to the establishment of a uniform national coinage as provided by Treaty" is not likely to have the same weight with the members of the Diplomatic Body, since the majority of the governments represented at Peking have not thought it necessary to enter into treaty stipulations with China in regard to this question. Your obedient servant,
J. M. DICKINSON, Esq..
Chairman of the
י
ERNEST SATOW..
Tientsin General Chamber of Commerce. The French Minister replied that he would with the greatest pleasure give his attention to the subject when it comes to be discussed by the Corps Diplomatic. The reply of the American Minister was purely formal.
SHANGHAI AND THE FRENCH MAIL SERVICE.
A minute of the last committee meeting of the Shanghai General Chamber of Commerce reads:-
في
This question, which was deferred from the previous meeting, is further illustrated by the arrival of two French Mails, one of the 6th August occupying 42 days and being delivered 4 days after the English Mail of the 12th August, and the other dated 3rd September reaching here on 10th October, one day ahead of the English Mail of 9th September-37 days being occupied in transit.
CHINÁ OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
merce.
323
It is decided to address the Chambers of tive menace even to legitimate American com. London and Manchester, with a suggestion that they approach the Postal Authorities on the subject, and the Secretary is instructed to simultaneously advise the Chambers of Sings. pore. Hongkong Tientsin and Hankow of the action of this Chamber.
THE
"AHABIA"
JUDGMENT.
TEXT OF UNITED STATES PROTEST.
The following is the text of the protest of the United States Government against the decision of the Russian Government with regard to the cargo of the steamship Arabia. It is in the form of a Despatch from Mr. Hay to the
American Ambassador at St. Peterburg, dated August 30, and communicated by him to Count
Lamsdorff:
"The Department has carefully considered the Note of the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs dated July 27 last, a copy of which is enclosed with your Despatch, with reference to the decision of the Prize Court in the case of the steamship Arabic, containing American cargo, seized by the Russian Naval forces and sent to Vladivostock for adjudication.
As communicated to you by the Minister, the decision of the Court was that the steamer Arabia was lawfully seized that the cargo. composed of railway material and flour, weigh ing about 2.336 4000 livres. destined to Japanese ports, and addressed to different commercial houses in said ports, constitutes contraband of that the cargo hound for Japanese ports should be confiscated as being lawful prize.
war
In communicating the said decision, the Minister observed, in response to the request of this Government for the rele ise of the non- contraband portion of the cargo. that the question could only be decided throngh judicial channels on the basis of a decision of the Prize Court.
•1
This is the first authentic information which the Department has received of the precise grounds on which the Prize Court decided to confiscate the railway material and flour in question. The judgment of confiscation appears to be founded on the mere fact that the
goods in question were bound for Japanese ports and addressed to various commercial houses in said ports. In view of its well-known'
attitude. it should hardly seem necessary to say
that the Government of the United States is
unable to admit the validity of the Judgment, which appears to have been rendered in dis regard of the settled law, of nations in respect to what constitutes contraband of war. If the Judgment and the communication accompany ing its transmission are to be taken as an ex- pression of the attitude of his Imperial Majesty's Government, and as an interpretation of the Russian Imperial Order of February 29 last, it raises a question of momentous import in its bearing on the rights of
commerce.
nentral
The Russian Imperial Order denounces as
absolutely contraband of war telegraph tele. phone, and railway materials, and fuel of all kinds without regard to the question whether destined for Military or for purely pacific and industrial uses.
Clause 5. Article 10. of the Imperial Order
denounces as contraband of war all articles
destined for war on land or sea, as well as rice, provisions and horses, beasts of burden and others (autres) capable of serving a warlike pur- pose, and if they are transported on account of or to the destination of the enemy.
The ambiguity of meaning which charac terises the language of this Clause, lending it. self to a double interpretation. left its real intendment doubtful. The vagueness of the
language used in so important a matter, where a just regard for the rights of neutral com. merce required that it should be clear and explicit, could not fail to excite inquiry among American shippers, who, left in doubt as to the significance attributed by his Imperial Majesty's Government to the word enemy uncertain as to whether it meant ; enemy Government or forces, or enemy parts or territory-have been compelled to refuse the shipment of goods of any of the terms used seemed to contain a destruc- character to Japanese ports. The very obscurity
In the interpretation of Clause 10 of Article 5, and having regard to the traditional attitude of his Imperial Majesty's Government, as well as to the established rule of International Law with respect to goods which a belligerent may or may not treat, as contraband of war, it seemed to the Government of the United States incre- dible that the word 'autres' or the word l'ennemi' could be intended to include as con- traband of war goods, stuffs, fuel, cotton, and all other articles destined to Japanese ports, irrespective of the question whether they were intended for the support of a non-combatant population or for the use of the Military or Naval forces. In its 'Circular of June 10 last, communicated by you to tlie Russian Govern- ment, the Department interpreted the word 'enemy' in a mitigated sense, as well as in accordance with the enlightened and humane principles of International Law, and therefore it treated the word 'enemy,' as used in the context, as meaning enemy Government or forces, and not the enemy ports or territory.'
But if a benign interpretation was placed on the language used, it is because such an interpretation was due to the Russian Govern- ment. between whom and the United States a most valued and unbroken friendship has always existed; and it was no less due to the commerce of the latter, inasmuch as the broad interpreta. tion of the language used would imply a total inhibition of legitimate commerce between Japan and the United States, which it would be impossible for the latter to acquiesce in, meaning of the Imperial Order has been Whatever doubt could exist as to the apparently removed by the enclosure in your Despatch of the Note from Count Lamsdorff, stating tersely and simply the sentence of the Prize Court.
•
The communication of the
decision was made in unqualified terms, and the Department is, therefore, constrained to take notice of the principle on which the con- demnation is based, and which it is impossible either a principle of law or a policy which a for the United States to accept, as indicating belligerent State may lawfully enforce or pursue
towards the United States as neutral.
"With respect to articles and material for necessary hardship is imposed by treating them telegraphic and telephonic installations, un-
all as contraband of war even those articles for merely domestic or industrial uses. With which are evidently and unquestionably intended
the Court appears to proceed in plain violation respect to railway material, the Judgment of
to which they are to be deemed to be contraband of the terms of the Imperial Order, according of war only if intended for the construction of railways. The United States Government regrets that it could not concede that telegraphic, telephonic, and railway materials are confiscable simply because destined to the open commercial ports of a belligerent.
When war exists between powerful States, it is vital to the legitimate maritime commerce of neutral States that there be no relaxation
of the rule-no deviation from the criterion- for determining what constitutes contraband of war, lawfully subject to belligerent capture, namely warlike nature, use, and destination. Articles which, like arms and ammunition, ars by their nature of self-evident warlike use, are contraband of war, if destined to enemy's ter- ritory; but articles which, like coal, cotton, and capable of warlike use, are not subject to cap- provisions, though of ordinarily innocent are
ture and confiscation unless shown by eyidence to be actually destined for the Military or Naval forces of a belligerent.
"This substantive principle of the law of nations cannot be overridden by a technical rule of the Prize Court that the owners of the
captured cargo must prove that no part of it may eventually come to the hands of the enemy's forces. The proof is of an impossible nature; and it cannot be admitted that the absence of proof, in its nature impossible to tion. If it were otherwise, all neutral commerce make, can justify the seizure and condemna- with the people of a belligerent State would be impossible; the innocent would suffer inevit able condemnation with the guilty:
admits of no relaxation or refinement. It must The established principle of discrimination between contraband and non-contraband goods
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.