Chester Holcombe to Prince Kung, February 11, 1879

Mr. Holcombe to Prince Kung.

(Red note.)

Sir: His excellency the minister for France has furnished me with a copy of your Imperial Highness’s note of the 11th ultimo, to him, in the matter of the rules for the conservation of the harbor at Shanghai. In this note Your Imperial Highness states that these rules were enacted by China herself, with a view to the protection of the harbor at Shanghai, and that if there are local obstacles to their exact application, they ought to be modified so as to be satisfactory, &c.

I notice with regret and surprise that Your Imperial Highness is of opinion that the rules in question should be modified, and that such modification is possible without the consent of the various diplomatic representatives in this capital.

These rules as proposed by Your Imperial Highness, and agreed to by the several foreign representatives in January, 1878, gave certain powers and authority to the harbor-master at Shanghai, over a class of Chinese and foreigners, and put a portion of the river under his immediate jurisdiction. Your Imperial Highness was well aware; that in order to make the rules in question operative within the foreign concessions and generally in their application to foreigners, the consent and co-operation of the foreign representatives was necessary. That consent was asked, and without exception the ministers resident at Peking, believing the rules to be formed with a view to the conservation of the harbor at Shanghai, and in the interests of foreigners and natives alike, cordially granted the concessions, and gave the necessary instructions to their respective consuls. And further, they reported their action to their several governments and received their approval. Hence the rules stand in the light of a convention agreed to between China and the several powers represented at Peking, and, this being the case, it is self-evident that no modification is possible without the previous consent of both parties to the original agreement.

As representing one of the parties to the convention, I am unable to give my consent to the modification of the rules in question.

By reducing the area of the application of the rules we not only lessen their practical utility, but it even becomes doubtful whether their enforcement in the remaining district will serve any useful purpose.

The intendant at Shanghai, in his note as quoted by Your Imperial Highness, fails utterly to give any valid reason for the modification which he proposes. The harbormaster, to whom the rules give a certain limited jurisdiction over the area in question, is not a foreign official, but a Chinese employé and directly under the control and direction of the Government of China. The area mentioned and the shipping and other interests within it would therefore come in no sense under foreign control. The Taotai manifestly mistakes the situation and exaggerates the opposition of the people when; he represents that disturbances are likely to result from an attempt to apply the rules to the area mentioned. There are perhaps foreign ship-owners and masters who object to the enforcement of the rules against them, but this of itself would hardly cause any foreign representative to withdraw from the convention, so long as he believed that; the rules were well calculated to preserve and protect the general interests of the port, and of the large amount of shipping which frequents it.

Confident that the rules in question, if faithfully enforced, will be of great benefit to the harbor of Shanghai and to natives and foreigners alike, and, resolved on my part to conform strictly to the terms of these rules as originally agreed to, I beg leave to request Your Imperial Highness to instruct the intendant at Shanghai to conform on his part, as the local representative of Your Imperial Highness’s government, to their stipulations, and thus to end the discussion of the subject.

I have, &c.,