New-York tribune., 1903-01-08
TIE CHINESE INDEMNITY.

The present dispute over the Chinese lndefn'
nitv is merely renewal of that which raseo
six months ago, when the preceding INSTRUMENT
fell due. These are III brlef, It's cohuiuohe'
China owes the powers an indemnity lhstaimeht
of 1O9oO 600 Haikwan taels- She wants 10 pay
il in silver at the rate of exchange with soiu
which nrevaiIed at the time the treaty was
made and the amount of the indemnity was
fixed Great Britain and the United States are
willing that she should do so-or at least the
United States is and Great Britain was SIN
months ago and is supposed to be Wiling now
But the other powers demand payment at the
present rate of exchange, which China declares
herself unable to make.
The difference between the two modes of pay
mept is considerable When the treaty was
made and the sum of the indemnity was h&ed
the Hakwan silver tael was worth a little more
than - cents in gold-74.2 cents, to be exact
1t is now worth about 62.7 cents The differ
ence between the instalment at the former ana
at the latter rate is therefore S1,255SOO That
is tidv sum- which would undoubtedly cut
un wcII'' among the powers which have already
exacted and conveyed" so much from emma
Tt is also one that is of much weight TO emma
herself and one which she cannot find grow
ing in every rice field. The powers want TO
get that million and quarter, and China
wants to keep it. That is the case in a nut
she'll
The treaty or protocol of September 1. 1901
is not entirely clear upon the subject 1t de-
cIares that the indemnity is TO be considered r
sgold debt But it says nothing whatever
about the rate of exchange, whether it shall
uniformly be the one prevailing at that time
or shall be subject to fluctuations from time to
time according to the variations in the price of
silver. 1t is pity it was not made explicit
upon that point, that it did not fix the
amount of indemnity in English pounds, or
German marks or French francs, or American
dollars, or some coin having an 1nVarlabie
value. Upon the strict letter of the protocol
the powers consider themselves entitled to in
sist upon payment at the current rate. On the
other hand, IT is widely declared, and we are
not sure that it has been authoritatively de-
MED, that the general understanding at the
time of the making of the protocol was that all
payments might be made at the rate of eX-
change then existing.
The course of the United States seems to be
the wise one-to deal literally with China, so
that she may be able TO meet her obligations
and rehabilitate herself. rather than to op-
press and spolate her. 1t would be well if the
European claimants would follow the lead Of
the United States in this they have in other
and even more important things, and always
to advantage and eproit But if they cannot
agree to do. why not submit the dispute to
the tribunal at The Hague, in which China and
all her creditors represented? Article
XVI of the Treaty of The Hague of which
China and all the powers are signatories, de-
clares that especially in questions of the in
'terpretation or application of treaties arbi-
'tration is acknowledged by the signatory pow
"ers as the most efficacious and most just
method of deciding controversies which have
mot been determined by diplomacy" 1t re-
mains, therefore only for these signatories to
settle their controversy over the Interpretation
| and application of Article of the protocol of
September Z, 1901, in the manner which they
themselves acknowledge to be the most eftica-
cious and most just.