File No. 1571/19–21.
Chargé Fletcher to the Secretary of State.
Peking, July 2, 1909.
Sir: Referring to my No. 792, of December 26, 1907, and the department’s instruction in reply, No. 400, of January 21, 1908, I have the honor to report that the question of the conservancy of the Whang-poo has again been raised by the German consulate at Shanghai and the German legation here.
On May 4 last the German consul at Shanghai proposed:
- (a)
- To write to the diplomatic body at Peking suggesting that the Chinese Government be approached to devise means and ways to raise funds necessary for the completion of the Whang-poo conservancy.
- (b)
- To write to the conservancy board that, in his opinion, in accordance with Article III of the Peking agreement of 1905, public tenders would have to be invited for the undertaking of any dredging work which will still be left to be done after the expiration of the dredging contract with the E. A. D. Co., the present contractors, or, if account is taken of the 250,000 cubic yards to be dredged free by the E. A. D. Co., as proposed by the consular body, after the expiration of the said contract and free extra dredging of these 250,000 cubic yards.
Mr. Denby voted in favor of this proposition at this meeting, but at the next meeting of the consular body, held on May 25, changed his vote for reasons which he reported to the legation as follows:
The consular corps considered a letter from the chamber of commerce, in which it was stated that the committee of said chamber had been authorized at the last general meeting to obtain a full report from an engineer of high standing on the work now in progress of improving the river approaches to Shanghai. They further state that their object in taking this step is not due to any want [Page 81] of confidence in the carrying out of his scheme by Mr. de Rijke, but rather that the good work done by him may be confirmed by a competent expert. Sir Pelham Warren, British consul general, submitted also a letter from the China association corroborating the letter of the chamber of commerce.
Upon consideration of these two letters it was decided not to forward to the diplomatic body at Peking the resolution adopted in the meeting of May 11. It appears from the discussion that it was the opinion of the majority of the members that this letter would create unnecessary difficulties and be subject to misapprehension. Though I had voted for the motion, I changed my opinion, and voted with the majority at the meeting on the 25th instant. My reason for doing so was that if the chamber of commerce is to take into its own hands the investigation of the condition of the work, they would not fail to discover any danger that might exist in Mr. de Rijke’s program in ample time to prevent any harm resulting therefrom. My intention with regard to the work carried on was simply to prevent the condition of the river becoming worse through failure of funds, and as I am assured that the Shanghai community will not allow lack of funds to prevent the carrying on of the work under any circumstances, there seems no occasion for interfering in any way with the carrying out of the scheme of Mr. de Rijke.
Not satisfied with this action of the consular body, the German minister, under date of June 14 last, submitted to his colleagues here the following proposition:
- (1)
- That there should be a revision of Mr. de Rijke’s scheme by an independent technical expert.
- (2)
- That the “ship channel” should be maintained in the present condition until a sum sufficient for the completion of the work had been assured.
The letter containing these proposals was circulated by the dean for an expression of opinion by the diplomatic corps. Sir John Jordan, to whom the circular was first sent, stated that he regretted that he could not concur with his German colleague in these proposals. On the contrary, he pointed out that British shipping and commercial interests generally were satisfied with the progress of the conservancy work, and approved of Mr. de Rijke’s scheme. In proposing to appoint an expert the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce had taken this step, not from the want of confidence in the carrying out of his scheme by Mr. de Rijke, but rather that the good work done by him might be confirmed. He did not see, therefore, any reason for adopting the first proposal, and as regards the second, he considered the diplomatic body scarcely in a position to issue instructions respecting the technical execution of the work.
Mr. Oudendijk, chargé d’affaires of the Netherlands, the next to express his opinion, pointed out that the diplomatic body had unanimously approved the choice of an engineer by the Chinese Government, and did not see on what grounds we should suggest another. If, he argued, the diplomatic body were to assume the responsibility of interfering in the technical execution of the work, the result would be that the conservancy board and the Chinese Government would be freed from all responsibility. The circular was then transmitted to this legation. I agreed with Sir John Jordan and Mr. Oudendijk.
With the exception of the Austrian minister and the Japanese minister, the latter of whom desired a conference on the subject, the other members of the diplomatic body concurred with the opinion of the British minister.
The subject will no doubt come up for discussion at a subsequent date in a meeting of the diplomatic corps, and I have the honor to request the department’s approval or disapproval of my action.
[Page 82]Bearing in mind the department’s instruction referred to, and agreeing with the opinion of Mr. Denby, above quoted, I did not feel that any action should be taken by the diplomatic corps at this time which could be construed as an interference in the conservancy work, nor tend to relieve the Chinese Government of its responsibility.
The agreement under which the conservancy work is being carried on by China was forwarded to the department in dispatch No. 122 of October 12, 1905.
In this connection I inclose clippings1 from the North China Daily News of June 28, showing the satisfactory results of an inspection of the work so far accomplished.
I have, etc.,
- Not printed.↩