The Acting Secretary of State to Minister Rockhill.
Washington, March 2, 1906.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 200, of January 18 last, inclosing a copy of Prince Ch’ing’s reply to your protest of December 23 last, to the Chinese foreign office, against the enforcement of the provisions of Article VII of the new Chinese mining regulations.
The reply states that the article in question was made to prevent people from making such private sales among themselves as would lead to fraudulent practice, and that it in no way conflicts with the commercial treaty between the United States and China. The reply further states that “if American citizens, in accordance with the seventh article of the American-Chinese commercial treaty, make application for permission to open mines, it shall be the duty of the local Chinese officials to delimit the concession and consult with the owner of the property as to the price to be paid.”
The proof of this interpretation of the objectionable rule remains to be furnished in actual practice. If no discrimination be made against Americans or other foreigners, and the consent of the authorities be not made the pretext for exorbitant demands, but shall be found to operate in fact in such a way as to do away with fraud and corrupt practices, as promised in the reply of Prince Ch’ing, no great inconvenience may result. It should, however, be pointed out to the Prince that the just and nondiscriminatory treatment offered to Americans in this regard is merely a matter of interpretation, hidden away in correspondence between the board of commerce and the Wai-wu Pu.
Amendment of the regulations, or public announcement having the effect of such amendment, would appear to be the necessary and proper way to make this interpretation known to all concerned and thus avert the differences and friction which may readily be foreseen if the business were suffered to rest as it now is and the local authorities were left to interpret and apply two conflicting sets of regulations. That these regulations are in conflict among themselves appears from the report of the board of commerce, and it does not appear sufficient merely to state as the opinion of the board that when considered together the provisions of one of them do not conflict with American treaty rights. More than this is needed, and the possibility of conflict of local interpretation to the prejudice of American rights should be authoritatively excluded.
I am, etc.
Acting Secretary.