File No. 893.631/4.
No. 364.]
American Legation,
Peking,
September 11, 1914.
The reply thus communicated does not appear satisfactorily to dispose of
the objections above referred to. Unless instructed to the contrary,
however, the Legation will make no further rejoinder inasmuch as the
objections are now a matter of record and the meetings of the Diplomatic
Body, on which the acceptance of the Mining Regulations depends, have
been indefinitely suspended on account of the present European War. The
Legation has forwarded a copy of the enclosed reply to the Dean of the
Diplomatic Body.
[Inclosure.]
Foreign Office,
Peking,
August 12, 1914.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your note No. 191 of July 23, 1914, in which you stated
that you had received instructions from your Government in which
objections were raised to Articles 94–105 and to Articles 86 and 87
of the Mining Regulations.
Upon receipt of this note this Ministry sent a communication to the
Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce requesting a reply, which has
now been received, as follows:
The “decision” referred to in Article 93 falls within the
category of administrative settlements, and, being limited
to disputes in mining affairs, is distinct from a legal
decision. This has already been explained in a communication
previously sent (see Diplomatic Circular No. 142).
Furthermore, in accordance with clause 2 of Article 7 of the
Detailed Regulations for Mining Enterprises the
representative of a Chinese-foreign joint mining enterprise
must be a Chinese. Therefore, in case there should be a
dispute in mining affairs the punishments inflicted under
Articles 93 to 105 would still be borne by a citizen of the
Republic of China, would in no way affect foreigners, and
would certainly constitute no violation of the principle of
extraterritoriality.
[Page 139]
In regard to the provisions of Article 86, by which the
employment and dismissal and the qualifications of the
experts fall within the scope of the mine policing
arrangements, the idea in drawing up this law was nothing
less than to protect merchants engaged with limited capital
in mining enterprises, who work for a small profit and who
employ men improperly, thereby causing loss to themselves
and to others. Educated and experienced engineers employed
by large mines would be treated with the utmost respect by
the Ministry and by the various supervision offices, who
would not interfere with the arrangements for their
employment and dismissal. This Ministry would not be very
strict as regards the qualifications of experts of the kind
referred to. The law regarding the policing of mines has now
been drawn up. Problems of this sort are especially
considered therein. The experts and advisers of this
Ministry have gone over the law item by item as a precaution
and not with the idea of framing excuses. After the law has
been promulgated the matters in question will be clearly
explained.
The provisions of Article 87 are the customary general
provisions of all civilized countries; that is, when
merchants are engaged in mining they must naturally assume
the responsibility of guarding against danger. In case,
however, within one year after the cancellation of the
rights in a mining enterprise there should be no one
succeeding thereto, and if at such a time unexpected dangers
should occur, affecting injuriously either the life or
property of the original owner or the safety of the holders
of neighboring mining rights, under such circumstances if
the original holder of the mining rights were not to take
the responsibility, then upon the appearance of the danger
who would be responsible?
But it is clearly stipulated in the article in question that
“the provisions for precautions against danger shall
continue to have force”; thus, after the cancellation of the
rights in a mining enterprise, responsibility is confined to
precautions against danger. Aside from this no other
obligations will be incurred. Both Chinese and foreign mine
owners will all keep the law equally and there will be no
danger of discrimination.
It was requested that the above statement be transmitted to the
American Legation.
I have the honor to state that as the articles referred to in the
Legation’s note have been clearly explained in order by the Ministry
of Agriculture and Commerce, there should be ho further
misunderstanding on the points in question. I have the honor to
request that you will be so good as to transmit the contents of this
note to your Government. With compliments.
Seal of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
