No. 39.
Mr. Seward to Mr. Fish.

No. 52.]

Sir: I have the honor to recur to the matter of the railway now being constructed at Shanghai, of which I wrote you in February, and to transmit to you a letter and its inclosures which I have received from Mr. Bradford, and my response.

You will see that Mr. Bradford has very carefully observed the instructions which I gave him in February; a copy of which I sent to you at the time.

I have not altogether approved the course taken in starting this enterprise. It presents, nevertheless, so many elements of promise, that I have felt disposed to give to it such support as I could, without departing from sound principles. In this I have been encouraged by the indications that the Chinese authorities are, from behind the veil, looking with interest for the result.

Under these circumstances I hope for your approval of the course which I have pursued.

I have, &c.,

GEORGE F. SEWARD.
[Inclosure 1 in No. 52.]

Mr. Bradford to Mr. Seward .

No. 470.]

Sir: Inclosed I have the honor to hand you, in duplicate, a copy of my correspondence with Fëng, Taotai, at this port, on the subject of the railway to Woosung.

I am, &c.,

O. B. BRADFORD, Vice-Consul-General.
[Page 51]
[Inclosure 1 in inclosure 1 in No. 52.]

Feng, Taotai, to Mr. Bradford.

As foreigners have presumed to build a railroad to Woosung, I have frequently called upon and requested Her Britannic Majesty’s consul to stop the work on the road, but he has not agreed to do so. Some responsibility in the matter rests with his excellency the United States consul-general. I therefore have a few things to say below, and I have to request that you will, without delay, give orders for the work on the road to be stopped until an answer can be received from Peking, and have to request that you will favor me with an answer.

First. To build a railroad from Shanghai to Woosung and run a steam-engine on the road is not only not in accordance with the expressed will of, but it is a direct insult to, the government.

Second. In every country all public works, including the making of roads, is done by the authority of the government. Examine the globe, country by country, and there is no nation that would allow the people of any other nation to come in and of their own accord build a railroad on their territory. Take the case of Japan; she borrowed money from a foreign country and built a railroad, but it was done by her own authority. If the Chinese government should allow men of other nations to come upon her territory and build a railroad, all the nations under the sun would laugh at her. Moreover, if this precedent should be established, I apprehend that other nations will not acquiesce in it.

Third. The attempt to build in England or America a railroad that should injure the property of the people, or interfere with the public roads or water-courses, without the permission of the constituted authorities, would not be allowed.

Fourth. When persons from one country become the real possessors of real estate in another country, such real estate is subject to the laws of that country, according to treaty stipulations.

Fifth. The treaty between England and China nowhere grants the privilege of purchasing land for the purpose of making a railroad, neither does it specify that a road can be built from Shanghai to Woosung.

Sixth. The railroad which has thus far been built has already shut up or damaged many public roads, and interfered with the water-courses, and greatly inconvenienced those who live near it.

Seventh. The bridges which have been built over the creeks interfere with the boat traffic.

Eighth. In the 11th year of Tung Che, 1873, Mr. Alabaster and your excellency, in behalf of some foreigners, wrote to the Taotai asking his sanction to the purchase of certain lands. At that time, if that foreigner knew perfectly well that land for an ordinary road could not be obtained without the sanction of the local officials, how much more a railroad.

Ninth. At the time application was made to purchase land, it was for an ordinary ma-loo.

Tenth. The Taotai’s letter, Tang Che, 12th year, 2nd moon, 28th day, (March 26th, 1873,) did not grant the privilege of enlarging, adding to, or diverting from the object therein specified, or a right to levy a toll on the road.

Eleventh. The consul, in applying for the right to purchase land, did not explain to the former Tantai the real object that the company had in view in purchasing land (for a road.) If the Taotai had known that the road was intended for a railroad, on which to run steam-cars, he never would have given his consent.

Twelfth. Your excellency and Mr. Alabaster, at the first, applied for land to make a ma-loo; therefore the Taotai stamped the deeds. Now, to change the design and to build a railroad is at variance with the design specified in the joint letter of application. Therefore the acts of the Taotai, in stamping the title-deeds and issuing a proclamation in regard to the road, are null and void.

Thirteenth. That which has been done (in regard to this road) has been the result of a secret scheme that would not be tolerated in any other country without the consent of the constituted authorities. Therefore, as Taotai, I, according to law and reason, write to protest against the road; for, on examining the letter asking the Taotai to sanction the building of the road, I have detected the selfish and false scheme. Even, when Her Britannic Majesty’s consul applied to have the material, &c., for the road exempted from duty, he did not explain the matter, but still called it a carriage-road.

Whereupon I challenged him. Moreover, when he sent in title-deeds of the road, I declined to stamp them. And as there is a considerable portion of the road the title-deeds for which have not been stamped, how can such land be considered the property of the road company?

I, according to law and reason, oppose the road with all my ability; not with force

Fourteenth. In discussing this matter, I wish to state clearly to all the consuls, and [Page 52] especially to your excellency, that, according to the 8th article of the Burlingame treaty, the introduction of railroads in China was left to the discretion of the Chinese government.

Now, the Chinese government has given no order or permission to build a railroad. If, therefore, the consul still persists in his delusive course, and accomplishes the work under way, it will be in violation of the treaty stipulation and of international law. And to support an underhanded scheme, that is deluding and insulting, is to inflict an injury upon the Chinese government and people. Moreover, to maintain such a position unmoved is to inflict an injury upon the Chinese government and upon all the treaty powers.

Fifteenth. The 39th article of the English treaty with the Chinese government specifies that English merchants in shipping and landing goods must first get the permission of the superintendent of trade; otherwise the goods may be confiscated. Again, the 46th article specifies that the Chinese authorities at each port shall adopt the means they think most proper to prevent the revenue suffering from fraud or smuggling. Again, in the rules regulating trade, the 61st specifies that at each port the limits of the port within which goods may be shipped or landed shall be defined by the customs. The limits of the port of Shanghai within which goods may be shipped or landed were fixed by the customs to be from the new dock to the Temple of the Queen of Heaven. Merchant-vessels are not allowed to take in or discharge cargo outside of these limits.

The mouth of the Woosung River is not a place where cargo can be received or discharged.

Moreover, the whole region about the river is protected by dikes for the protection of the people; works of the first importance, that no one has the right to appropriate to his own use and sell for house-lots or jetties, &c. Now, what is the meaning of foreigners building a railroad and running steam-cars from Shanghai to Woosung, since cargo cannot be received or discharged at Woosung? If the customs regulations are violated, there would be nothing left for me to do but to seize and punish any violation according to law. I beg, then, to inquire what is the use of this railroad?

Sixteenth. There are the English, French, and American concessions at Shanghai, extending from the Yang King Pang to Hong Kew. The mouth of the Woosung River is in the Pan Shan Hien, and not within the concessions at Shanghai. In the treaties of the various nations there is specified the port of Shanghai, but nothing is said about the port of Pan Shan Hien. In which of the concessions is this railroad located?

Seventeenth. I suppose the movement of foreigners to build a railroad and run steam-cars is because the Chinese have never had anything of the kind before, and that their intention is to attempt to extend it to regions beyond. But steamers, guns, and small-arms, the product of the West, the Chinese can make for themselves, and if they want railroads and steam-cars it would not be difficult for them to make them. Moreover, if foreigners make railroads, they must purchase or lease the land, which would make it very expensive. If Chinese make railroads, it will not be necessary for them to purchase the land. Thus, one is difficult and the other is easy. If foreigners wish to build the road for the purpose of deriving a profit, that cannot be done; and as the whole movement is a violation of treaty-stipulations, I beg to inquire what is your object? In view of the above considerations, I have to request your excellency to request Her British Majesty’s consul to give orders for the railroad company to stop work until answers are received from the English minister and the Tsung li Yamen, and I shall thank you very much.

I have, &c.

M. T. Y.

[Inclosure 2 in inclosure 1 in No. 52.]

Mr. Bradford to Feng, Taotai

Sir: I have received your excellency’s letter of the 4th day of the 3d moon, on the subject of the railroad to Woosung.

As you state therein that this business has been referred by you to the government at Peking, I will send to the United States minister there a copy of your letter and of this my reply thereto.

I shall not undertake to traverse the various statements and arguments advanced by you in your letter. I may remark, however, that the matter does not in my opinion merit the very serious treatment which you seem disposed to accord to it. If foreigners, [Page 53] who have purchased a roadway of only a few miles in length, choose to lay some rails and run cars over it, the whole public, foreign and native, will receive advantage. Why, then, should any objection be made? That this business has been conducted in fraud, I cannot admit. It is a matter of my knowledge that your predecessor in office knew that the road was intended for a railroad, and you will remember that nearly eighteen months ago a conversation was held with your excellency in this office, Mr. Kreyer acting as interpreter, when the purpose of the owners of the road was discussed with you at considerable length by Mr. Seward.

Indeed, the whole population of this port, native and foreign, have perfectly understood the matter from its inception.

This business, moreover, is in the hands of Her Britannic Majesty’s consul. I have no reason to doubt that he fully understands the sovereign rights of your government.

I am not aware that there is any intention in any quarter to violate customs-regulations by the landing of cargo at Woosung.

If, however, steamers should be detained there by a lack of water on the bar, and it becomes convenient to load or discharge cargo there, I see no reason why you should object to such cargo being transported over the road.

The object of all concerned should be to facilitate general interests and to promote harmony. Please send copies of this letter to the higher officials of your government, to whom, you inform me, you have represented the matter; also, please find it appropriate to give directions that those who have been permitted to examine your excellency’s letter to me may see this reply.

I am, &c.,

O. B. BRADFORD.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 52.]

Mr. Seward to Mr. Bradford.

Sir: I have received your dispatch No. 470.

I approve the answer which you have made to the Taotai’s letter. I believe it to be true that the purpose of the purchasers of the land over which the Woosung Railway is now being constructed was generally understood at the time when the purchase was made, or soon thereafter. That purpose was not, however, as I believe, declared formally in any of the letters which passed with the authorities, and some pains were taken not to defeat the object in view by drawing attention to it unnecessarily.

I may say to you that I told the viceroy at Tien-tsin, on the 17th ultimo, that I had held the conversation with Feng, Taotai, in the fall of 1874, of which your letter makes mention, and that the viceroy admitted that the Taotai reported the subject to him soon afterward. I learn here that Mr. Mayers, of the British legation, spoke of the project openly at the foreign office on one occasion. The matter was brought up by one of the Chinese ministers, and no objections were raised on their part.

I feel sure that many of the high officers of the government wish to see the road completed, and that their opposition is formal only.

The British minister tells me that he has recently dispatched Mr. Mayers to Shanghai, with instructions to effect, if possible, an understanding with the Taotai upon which the construction of the road may go forward without further annoyance. He is, I believe, specially charged to admit the sovereignty of China in matters of this sort. As the government here may have written to the provincial authorities in a favorable way, the chances of his being successful may be good.

I shall take occasion to say to the minister of the foreign office that the Taotai has used unbecoming language in his dispatch, and that his course in printing it in the Chinese newspapers at Shanghai is very objectionable.

I have, &c.,

GEORGE F. SEWARD.