No. 173.
Mr. Angell
to Mr. Blaine.
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, August 18, 1881.
(Received October 3.)
No. 201.]
Sir: In my No. 186, I inclosed a copy of a
communication to Prince Kung, stating, in compliance with the request of the
ministers of the foreign office, my objections to the proposed concessions
to the Northern Telegraph Company. That communication was sent in on July
17.
Having occasion to visit the foreign office on July 29 on other business, I
took occasion to ask if they had received from the viceroy any reply to my
communication which they had forwarded to him. They said they had, and that
there was no intention of preventing the landing of a cable from America.
When I asked whether there would be any obstacle to landing a cable which
should touch at Japan, they hesitated, but expressed the opinion that the
viceroy would arrange for that in some way. They promised to send me a paper
upon the subject.
After waiting more than a week, I sent Mr. Taylor, acting interpreter,
[Page 293]
to inquire when I could expect the
promised paper and to explain my desire for it by assuring them of the
profound interest my government feels on the subject. The next day I
received the communication, a copy of which I inclose.
I think you, will agree with me in the opinion that it is a feeble, shuffling
evasive, and entirely unsatisfactory document. Nothing could be more
unworthy of the viceroy’s vigorous mind than the passage extracted from his
letter.
I may properly say in this connection that while awaiting this reply from the
Tsung-li Yamên, I had the statement from one of the telegraph company’s
officers that the Tsung-li Yamên assented to the monopoly scheme before the
viceroy entered into it. They assured me at the outset that the viceroy made
the arrangement without consulting them. I am sorry to believe that there
has been a deal of prevarication somewhere in this business.
Deeming it desirable to commit the ministers on paper to whatever they are
willing to promise, I addressed to Prince Kung a series of questions, which
I inclose. A reply, which I inclose, was sent me on the 14th inst.
The whole agreement for which I had asked was not sent to me, but only the
second article, which the viceroy said he feared had been mistranslated.
When I say that the article was exactly as I had it in my copy, further
comment on this part of the transaction seems unnecessary.
My question whether the agreement has received imperial sanction is evaded,
but I am informed that the viceroy has sanctioned it.
The answers to my third and fourth questions amount to this, that when an
American company wishes to lay a line from America to China, “an
arrangement” can be made for the line, but the foreign office cannot inform
me what that arrangement is to be.
My question as to whether if the viceroy Li promises to make an arrangement
for the American cable, his successor will be bound by the promise in case
of the viceroy’s death—a question which the prince criticises—was asked
because all through our interviews and correspondence the ministers have
carried the idea that Li Hung Chang had managed the business with the
Northern Telegraph Company, and would see to it in some way that a door was
left open for an American cable to enter China. As the language used about
“an arrangement” has been so vague, it is quite possible that a successor of
Li Hung Chang might not consider himself so bound by these indefinite
promises as to overcome any special difficulties in order to accommodate
us.
On a visit to the Tsung-li Yamên on the 16th, I asked whether the
“arrangement,” which was to be made for the American cable, contemplated the
payment of money to the Northern Telegraph Company. The ministers (their
excellencies Mao, Wang, Ch’ung Li, and Hsia being present) very emphatically
assured me that it did not. They reiterated the assurance that the viceroy
would complete the arrangement whenever the American company should be
ready.
I told them that the plan was a less generous one than I had expected from
this govermnent, but that without pursuing the discussion of the subject
further at present, I should report to my government.
In this interview, as in previous interviews, the ministers sought to convey
the impression that the whole of this telegraph business is in the hands of
the viceroy, Li Hung Chang. No doubt this is substantially true, and
although the present adjustment (if it can be so called) of the question is
not what we could wish, it is probable that when an
[Page 294]
American company is ready to lay a cable the viceroy
will enable the company to land and work the wire without too onerous
conditions.
Though the results of my labors on this subject are far from satisfactory, I
trust it will prove that my efforts have not been altogether in vain, and
that my course will meet the approval of the Department.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 201.]
Prince Kung to Mr.
Angell.
Referring to the proposed telegraph arrangement between the northern
superintendent of trade and the Great Northern Telegraph Company, your
excellency has had several consultations with us on the subject, and
lately you sent us a communication setting forth three points wherein
the arrangement was of doubtful expediency for China herself. We sent a
copy of your dispatch for Li Chung T’ang’s consideration and have
received a reply from him in which he says with regard to the three
points (of doubtful expediency):
- “‘1st. * * * In case of war between some western nation and
Denmark or China the northern company’s lines might be
destroyed, and China would lose telegraphic connection with the
world.’ * * * ‘In case of war with any foreign power, the ports
of China would be blockaded, and if the cable is cut at sea it
will be no great damage to China.’
- “‘2d. China cuts herself off from constructing land lines to
Foochow, Canton, and other points in the south.’ * * * ‘There is
no such language in the second article of the general rules; I
fear it must be an error of translation.’
- “3d. The agreements made between the Great Northern Telegraph
Company and France and Russia, and the general rules to which
sanction has been given in this case are in the main very much
alike in this case. Moreover the said company have only begged
that their request be granted, but no agreement has been made
which can be likened” (to a contract), &c.
The viceroy having thus clearly stated his views on the foregoing three
points, it would seem that no disadvantage is likely to result to
China.
The request made by the Great Northern Telegraph Company has special
reference to their cable already landed in China. If your country (i. e. any American company) proposes to lay a
cable across the Pacific Ocean to China, it will of course not come
under these rules. Your dispatch also says the Danish company has never
proposed to lay a line between America and China. This is true. A line
from America to China would be a different route. The northern and
southern cables of the Great Northern Telegraph Company are lines from
China to Europe and are different from an American line. If hereafter an
American company lays a cable from San Francisco via the the Sandwich
Islands to Japan it can, in no way, concern the Great Northern Telegraph
Company; but when a cable from Japan to China is contemplated it will be
well to communicate in advance with this office that we may write to the
viceroy Li who will order the Great Northern Telegraph Company to
consult thereon and make a compromise. It never was intended, as your
dispatch intimates, to make a compromise, by treating the Danish company
generously to the exclusion of an American company.
Peking, August 7, 1881.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 201.]
Mr. Angell to
Prince Kung.
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your imperial highness’s
communication of the 7th instant, concerning the telgraph question. If I
venture to trouble you again on the subject, I beg you will believe that
it is only because of the great importance to the United States of a
proper settlement of the question.
Permit me then, to make a few further inquiries, as briefly as
possible.
- 1st.
- Since in the viceroy’s reply to me, embodied in your
communication, it is stated
[Page 295]
that my copy of the second article of the agreement is incorrect,
may I ask if you can properly furnish me with a correct copy of the
agreement?
- 2.
- May I ask whether the agreement has yet received imperial
sanction, and so is definitely settled.
- 3.
- Am I to understand that an American company, notwithstanding the
arrangement of the Chinese Government with the Northern Telegraph
Company, is at liberty to lay a line when it chooses, directly from
America, or from the Sandwich Islands to China. I understood the
ministers of the Tsung-li Yamên, to say so in my last interview with
them.
- 4.
- I do not understand clearly, what is meant by your statement:
“When a cable from Japan to China is contemplated, it will be well
to communicate in advance with this office, that we may write to the
viceroy Li, who will order the Great Northern Telegraph Company, to
consult thereon and make a compromise.”
Am I to understand this as an assurance that some arrangement will
certainly be made, by which the American company can continue its line
from Japan to China? If so, may I ask what is the nature of the
arrangement? And if unhappily the viceroy Li should die, is his
successor held to the same promise, provided this is a promise.
With sentiments of the most distinguished consideration,
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 3, in No. 201.]
Prince Kung to Mr.
Angell.
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s letter
concerning the telegraph question, in which you ask a few farther
questions on certain points wherein this business is of the greatest
importance to your government.
In answer to your first inquiry, viz, “Since the viceroy replies that my
copy of the second article of the agreement is incorrect, may I ask you
to furnish me with a copy of the agreement?” We send herewith for your
inspection a copy of the second article of the company’s petition.
2d. These general rules have been sanctioned by the viceroy Li in
compliance with the petition of the Great Northern Telegraph
Company.
Your third question is, “I gather from the purport of your communication
that an American company, notwithstanding the arrangement of the Chinese
Government with the Northern Telegraph Company, will be allowed to lay a
cable when it chooses, directly from America, or from the Sandwich
Islands to China. I beg you to say clearly if this is your meaning.”
In answer we have to say, if hereafter an American company proposes to
lay a cable from America to China, as this is a different route (from
those of the Great Northern Telegraph Company), a compromise can be
made.
Again you ask “* * * if this is an assurance, may I ask what is the
nature of the arrangement?” As your country does not propose just now to
lay a cable, we have nothing on which to propose a mode of arrangement.
But, as we have distinctly stated in our former letter that there is no
intention to cause disappointment to an American company, therefore when
the time comes a satisfactory arrangement can certainly be reached after
consultation.
Finally you ask, “If unhappily the viceroy Li should die, is his
successor held to the same promise?” We cannot help saying this is being
too particular. In all questions of intercourse between China and
foreign countries, it is the propriety or otherwise of a question that
is considered, without reference to whether the official who originally
deliberated the question be in office or be succeeded by some one
else.
We send this special reply with compliments.
