Prince Kung to To His Excellency Benj. P. Avery , United States, February 15, 1875

Prince Kung to Mr. Avery.

Prince Kung, chief secretary of state for foreign affairs, herewith replies:

I have had the honor to receive your excellency’s dispatch of the 1st instant, in which you refer to the matter of the submarine cable along the coast, acknowledging my previous communication and its implied approval of the enterprise, adding that you do not think it worth while to discuss the remarks made in the first part of that note in relation to former deliberations, but informing me that you will give the necessary orders to your consular officers to co-operate with the Chinese authorities for the efficient protection of the cables mentioned.

In reply to this I may remark that my explanations as to the extent to which the foreign office had given its sanction to a submarine coast-line cable reached only to an expression of good-will toward it, and by no means to a promise to protect it, or take the responsibility of it. As to requiring the local authorities in those provinces to take measures to prevent injuries being done to the cable, the foreign office expressly adduced the facts stated in the first half of my previous dispatch, not that you might discuss them, but to show conclusively what had been done in this matter during past years, and the circumstances which still obstructed the whole enterprise.

In my former dispatch I mentioned, speaking of the injuries to winch the cable is exposed, either by native boats accidentally fouling and breaking it, or thieves purposely stealing it, that no prohibitions or orders would effectually stop the first, and that however much the officials might wish to seize the thieves, it was nearly impossible to do so. These attendant difficulties all presented themselves to us from the first; and were the chief causes why we were loath to assume any responsibility for the cable.

When we first discussed the proposal of a submarine cable with Mr. Wade, the British minister, we plainly stated in the reply to him that the end of the line could not be allowed to be brought ashore, and it must not be connected with any of the open ports by being worked on land. This was in order to clearly define the limit of its action. After it was laid along the coast the government would then have trouble enough in giving such protection as could be extended to it, but whatever injuries it might suffer, the local authorities were not to be held responsible, and no reclamations were to be made to restore or repair it.

Though this government has now sent its directions to the authorities in the maritime provinces, it still declines all responsibility for the safety of the line; and sees no reason for further discussing the points spoken of in the first part of my last dispatch. When replies to the orders already sent to the various officers on this subject have been received I will again address your excellency, and now content myself with this preliminary reply.