The following correspondence has taken place on this question Foreign Office, th Jan., 1888.
Sir,—I am directed by the Marquis of bury to inform you that, in compliance with the application made by you on the 14th ult., inguities were addressed to Her Majesty's Minister at Peking with repeat to your com-fai had granted a monopoly to the China Mer-aint that the Chinese Authorities at Shang.
chants' Steam Navigation Company for esta-lishing Bonded Warehouses to the detriment of the "Kasociatod Wharves, in which Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Ca. interested.
From Sit J. Walsham's reply, it appears that in order to give effect to the special stipuations annexed to the German Treaty with China of 3ist March, 1880, a Government bonded warehouse, under the Foreign Customs Ing rate, has been established on the Chinese Company's wharf at Shanghai, that it is available for all nationalities; but that for the joint it is merely an experiment Sir J, Walsham states that the German Minister endeavoured to have the Associated Wharves included in the scheme, but without success, and that the whole question is under the consideration of the Foreign Representatives at Peking, but that the right of the Chinese Government to establish such a bonded warehouse is not open to question. sent experiment is' known, the Foreign Re-As soon, however, as the result of the Ree: presentatives will be ready to apply for an Extension of the principle.
(Signed) Jases Fencvssos, Ww. Keswick, Esq.
3, Lombard-street, London, Jan, 20, 1888.
Sr,—I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 11th instant, and to thank you for informing me of the result of the application to Sir John Walsham in regard to the Bonding monopoly in Shanghai accorded to the Hongkew Wharf and Godowns of the China Merchants' Steam Navigation Company. From the information I possess I regret to say Iam unable to accept the explanation given as in any respect satisfactory, and indeed much fear Sir John Walsham is not acquainted with the facts, The ion, a8 I understand it, is—The German Minister, in introducing the stipulation into the German Treaty concerning Bonded the principle to the Associated Wharves and Warehouses, had in view the application of other similar. property, and_not to the property of the China Merchants' 8. N. Company exclusively. Delay was of course inevitable in giving practical effect to the provisions of Germans (4 re become lessees of the China the Treaty of 1880. Now, however, that
Merchant' S. N. Company's Hongkew property, ation is taken, and that property Recorded an exclusive privilege to the very serious detriment of the property of the Associated Wharves; and the reason seems obvious. German interests are pushed to the utmost when opportunities occur, or the moment is favourable, and under the influence of the Minister are safeguarded and strength: ened, while to the representations addressed reply was, of course, that we would always by the mercantile community to the British be willing to let George Gould's father Minister replies even are not vouchsafed, Sir John Walsham states that the German comply with the terms of the law, which enables him to make restitution of the Minister endeavoured to have the Associated Wharves included in the scheme, but without Pestled" If he wanted to arrange a basis property that he is accused of having em-success. Why the German Minister and not the British representative? British interests of settlement, this way would always be are admittedly the greatest, and surely merit, open to him. As these negotiations pro-the consideration and active support of the Minister. By treaty the most favoured con. grossed, George Gould endeavoured to bribe
ditions aeconled to other nations become the the counsel for the [ingd by offering them large fees on the condition that they right of Great Britain, and the privileges just would sacrifice the interests of theirclients—_ grunted to Chinese property leased 1o German in other words, if they would abandon the Subjects are surely not to be denied to the case against Russell Sage. and the Corsair. property of the subjects of the other Treaty (Here George Gould's father was named.)
Sir John Walsham states that the Chinese These offers were made by George Gould Company's Wharf is available for all nation-in person, They were promptly rejected. alities; but it does not appear to have occurred George Gould offered $30,000 in one sum tothe Minister that the transfer of the business to one of the counsel, and he also said he of the other wharves and godowns would be would buy the District Attorney. Parties unjust, and would inflict a serious injury to are ready to make affidavit to all the cir-British interests of great magnitude, which cumstances connected with these nego-have grown up and been developed under the in connection with the negotiations took tiations. The most important interviews influence of equal privileges, and on the faith of treaties securing in every way identical place between George Gould and myself, treatment. or between myself and a prominent lawyer, The question is one involving such great who, as intermediary in the matter, was issues, and touches so nearly the vital priuciple of equality in trade, that its importance busily engaged upon it for some eke, we must be my excuse for urging strongly, but supposing all the time that they intended most respectfully upon your attention the restitution. I shall withhold the name of necessity of not leaving the subject in its pre-the prominent lawyer for the present, He sent position, even though it be asserted that is not one of the Corsair's regular counsel." the scheme is only an experiment, This article seems to have been tuo much (Signed) Wat, Keswick, called a controversy began, of which the for the father of George Gould, and what is To the Right Hon, Sir James Fergusson, Foreign-otice. following is probably the most 2 libellous part, as it is the only one that has Foreign Ottice, 2ud Feb., 1888. been telegraphed to San Francisco Srm,—I am directed by the Marquis of Salis-"New York, Ist April. bury to inform you that upon receipt of your The Gould—Herald controversy was en-letter of the 20th ult, farther inquiries were Aukreael to Her Majesty's Minister at Peking open letter fro: Gould to James Gor-livened to-day by the publication of an with rej to the brit ut the Chinese authorities at Shanghai tothe China don Bennett, making many uncomplimen-Merchants' Steam Navigation Company forthe tary allusions to Mr. Bennett's personal establishment of Bonded Warehouses. Sir J. career. Gould refers to the time when Walsham has explained, in reply, that the Bennett was arrested with other inmates complaints made at Shanghai are not founded of a house of ill-fame, and when taken to upon any violation of treaties by the Chinese the station he declared that he was James Government, whose actual right to establish Gordon Bennett, proprietor of the Herald, experimentally a Bonded Warehouse under and demanded his freedom, but the officer the treaty with Germany of flat March, 1880, and Customs control, i3 not contested. The ground of complaint was that the wharves of One company were selected for the experiment to the complete exclusion of all others, and that such a course is contrary to public pol and to the vested interests of a port was created and is. maintained by the enterprise of foreigners. The Shanghai Chamber Commerce have been informed that if they report unfavourably on the working of the experiment as regards the interests of trade gud property, the matter will be taken up b the foreign representatives, who will do their utmost to have it remedied. Sir J. Walsham concludes by pointing out that whatever excoption may be taken to the action of the Chinese Government it cannot be held to constitute breach of treaty, and that the Bouded Warehouses are open to all alike.
(Signed) 'P. W. Connie, To Wa. Keswick, Esq.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.