We must not attach too much importance to the attempt of energetic Chinese officialdom to "jump a claim"
on the Bund foreshore. "Such attempts have ever been a recurring feature in the records of the Settlements. The history of the Public Garden and of the Soochow Creek foreshore, the Ince case and Browett incident, the records of the Bubbling Well, Woosung, and Sinza Roads, all tend to show clearly that few, if ay, Chinese officials have ever realised the nature' and rights of the foreign settlements or the meaning of the Land Regulations; they cannot realise the existence of any form of honest local government, and only recognising in the Municipal Council a body of merchants engaged in plundering for their own ends, they see no reason why they, the local officials, should not share in the plunder. Their attempts in the past, however, have usually been tentative and" half-hearted, requiring only a little firmness for their defeat. That the present case, (though possibly representing more money and more scientific tactics than have hitherto been brought to bear) will prove a serious one, we do not believe; for on the face of it, it has no locus standi whenever. But the booty apparently in sight is tempting enough to make any native official's mouth water.
The present therefore appears to be a fitting moment to recall briefly so auch of the history of the Bund foreshore as bears on the case. 'I'hat history, like most public matters in Shanghai, has suffered from lack of continuity and the absence of a clearly-defined policy, and the final definition of, foreshore rights under all their aspects has always been postponed on the "let sleeping dogs lie" principle. "It is probably this fact that has given rise to the present laudable scheme but its promoters would do well to remember that the difficulty of defining the Bund's status has hitherto been entirely with regard to the rights of the original lot holders vis-@-vis the public (or the Council) and concerning their respective tights. The position of the Chinese authorities in the matter presents no such difficulties.
Into the history of all the slow steps by which the refuse-strewn foreshore of former days became the lawn promenade of the present, we have not space to go. All we can do is to recall a few points which bear clearly on the case in hand. And first of all we would refer our readers to the remarks addressed by Consul Winchester to the Landrenters' Meeting of March, 1866, in which he clearly states that the surrender of the lots by the original holders "for the public use" means a right of way along the river-bank for ever. The Bund and its foreshore were made by the public, and improved at the public expense and the then Taotai himself contributed obtain near the junk anchorage at Tun-'Tls. 20,000 towards the work as a gift kah-doo, where I am informed taxes are to the Community. actually paid by the owners of the front This aspect of the case was, however, lots, upon land for several tens of feet soon forgotten. Officials and Councils under water. They do this as willingly chenged, and in 1871 and 1873 we as the foreign renter, who asks that un find this very question of the ownership accretion be surveyed and added to his of the foreshore raised by the Taotai title deed.
who advanced certain pretentious to it, "Moreover, in a despatch from the only to abandon them later on. Again Taotai about the 12th September, 1873, in 1877 we find Liu Taotai asking that he returned, after examination, to the the Municipal Council be " enjoined from taking unauthorised possession of Consular body, a plan of the proposed ativer's bank" and we cannot do better bund line and bunding, prepared for the mouth of the Soochow creek. He made than to quote from the very able one or two suggestions as to the width despatch of U.S. Consul Bradford, dated of the channel. The plan so modified the 21st of June, 1877, in reply "'The southern or river boundary of was submitted to the Municipal Council, and in October, 1878, Mr. Seward inthe land is the 'Whampoa river, and formed the T'aotai that the Council had the mouth of the Soochow Creek,' accepted his amended plan, The matter which, as I understand the law of your honourable country in this point, clearly has therefore been fixed long since, and permits the foreshore to attach to the the records seem complete. ~The filling land in the rear, for is it not an old in of which you speak is clearly within established rule that land on a river's the lines deiined and accepted by the bank follows the course of the stream Taotai, the Consuls, and the Municipal Council. Why. should it then become in its shiftings, and only the landholder has the benefit of any accretion, he necessary or expedient to pronounce against a settled scheme made for the however, paying to the Government the tax thereon. In the case in point, it is public good, or to agitate a subject possible that the accretion has not been in the discussion of which from your added to the area called for in the title premises, no good result is likely to be obtained? When such matters are deed, but that may easily be done, and the additional area ascertained for pur-brought to your notice by those who pose of taxation. are not fully informed, if you will ask "The question of ownership which information it will always "be gladly you raise, has been brought up on given you from reliable quarters, and thus much time would be saved and several occasions by one or more of your honourable predecessors, and several useless speculative theories avoided, and the public interest will not be harmed, precedents are on record in this office and in your yamen, and I was hopeful "TI trust that in view of these and thas the principle was clearly established other premises which might be cited thereby. I will cite one or more. In the established precedents, and your 1871, the point came up in respect of knowledge of the law, you will agree title deeds Nos. 268 and 270, and in with me that to insist upon the right 1873 in the case of title deed No. 246. to control the foreshore of the lot in The Taotai at that time proposed in question would be against precedent, his view of the case to fix a price per which is supported by accepted plans, mow for the accretions, but so untenable and would be contrary to law and custom."
4 position was upon examination abandoned by him, he finding that under Consul Bradford's argument that the the law his authority was to ascertain foreign landrenters rights vis-d-vis the area of such accretion for purpose the Chinese government are the same as of taxation. In one case, having the those enjoyed by a Chinese holder report of his deputy, he not only added is an extremely strong and valid the area of accretion to the measurement one; and it must be borne in on the old deed, but went so far as to mind that the Eastern boundary as embrace it in the consideration expressed given on the Bund lot title-deed is for the last purchase. If yea will con-prut'an, the "river beach, or sult the records of about April, 1873, }mud flat." As was pointed out by Dr. you will find the report of the deputies Yates (who agreed with Mr. Bradford) in the instance referred to, as communi a meeting of ratepayers in May, cated to this office by the Taotai. In 1869, the meaning of such a boundary this connection I desire to remark that jin Chinese title-deeds is "to low water I consider the title deeds for land held mark," and he says, "so that if the by foreigners are simply leases or grants {river filled up to Pootung, the land from the Imperial Government, and I would still belong to the Bund lot-know of no clause in them whereby any holders... All the owner of the Bund tights are reserved or abridged, which would be enjoyed by a Chinese holder, has to do to secure his title is to register the increase and pay the land who I understand enjoys the right to tax." Now the foreshore having been the alluvial deposit of the river. This deposit is esteemed both in your honour table country, and in mine, to be a natural result, consequent upon the peculiar situation of the land so fronting the stream. The principle seems to surrendered for public use, the question whether the municipality is bound to pay government land tax thereon is an open and a complicated one, which has before now been referred (uselessly) to Peking. It is, however, unimportant,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.