No. 158.
Mr. Seward
to Mr. Evarts.
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, March 16, 1880.
(Received May 11.)
No. 623.]Sir: I have the honor to hand to you herewith a
dispatch (No. 135, of 27th ultimo) which I have received from Mr. De Lano,
reporting that the customs authorities at his port have notified by circular
to the merchants there their intention to levy a tonnage due, or in lieu
thereof, at the merchants’ option, a registration fee upon boats used in the
lighterage of cargo in process of shipment or landing.
My colleague, Sir Thomas Wade, has received the same information from his
consul at Foochow, and also from his consul at Chefoo.
My colleagues generally, before whom the subject has been placed by Sir T.
Wade and myself, agree with us in the opinion that all such levies would be
in contravention of the treaties. They agree with us also in the opinion
that customs regulations generally should be promulgated by the direction of
the central government and in a formal manner. One, at least, goes so far as
to declare that he cannot consider any rules binding upon his countrymen
which have not been communicated to him by the government and received his
assent; while another declares that the practice of the Chinese in putting
out at the ports rules affecting trade, regardless of a right construction
of the treaties and with a view to hampering trade, is becoming inveterate,
and should be met by opposition at the ports, and by claims for indemnity
vigorously urged, in case they are put into operation notwithstanding such
opposition.
My own view is that we cannot deny the right of the Chinese Government to
make rules and regulations affecting all matters within their sovereignty,
but that we may scrutinize all rules and regulations made or proposed by
them which affect our nationals, and object to them if we find them in
contravention of treaty stipulations, or suggest their withdrawal or
modification if they appear burdensome and unnecessary.
Holding to this view, I think also that we may, without offense, endeavor to
lead the Chinese to communicate to us in advance all such rules and
regulations, in order that we may examine them and state in advance of their
publication whether we should be likely to complain of them as in
contravention of our treaties.
The question of principle involved is an important one, and has occasioned a
great deal of discussion and unpleasant feeling both in this Empire and in
Japan. I cannot doubt, however, the correctness of my own view. I have acted
upon it ever since my arrival in this capital, and shall continue to do so
unless instructed to the contrary by yourself.
In the present instance, after much controversy, it was agreed by the
diplomatic body, as a preliminary step, to send an interpreter to the
foreign office to inquire whether instructions sustaining the action of the
Foochow and Chefoo customs had received the approval of the foreign office,
and, if so, to ask about the occasion for the adoption of the system. The
Chinese secretary of the British legation was deputed for the purpose, and
has reported that the ministers appeared to know nothing of the matter, but
said that they would inquire into it and communicate the result to the
foreign legations.
* * * * * * *
In view of the facts set forth above, I am addressing a circular letter to
the several consuls, a copy of which I inclose.
I have, &c.,
[Page 240]
[Inclosure 1 in No. 623.]
Mr. De Lano to Mr.
Seward.
Foochow, February 27,
1880.
No. 153.]Sir: I have the honor to call your attention to
a customs notification issued at this port on the 21st instant, by the
commissioner of customs, a copy of which I inclose herewith, calling
upon the owners of cargo-boats to apply for the re-registration and
renumbering of such boats, and intimating that from the 1st proximo they
will be required to pay tonnage dues, “in accordance with the rate fixed
by treaty,” or a registration fee of $20 upon each boat.
All foreign-owned lighters (or so-called cargo boats) employed in
carrying cargo between ship and shore, within the limits of the harbor
at this port, are numbered by the customs, and each number is, I am
informed, entered in a register kept for that purpose at the
custom-house, but no registration fee or tonnage dues have hitherto been
demanded. The foreign owners of such boats object now to complying with
the demand.
Upon being addressed officially by the American firms owning such boats,
making known their objection, I addressed a letter to the commissioner
of customs to the effect that it did not seem clear to me that the
customs authorities were authorized to exact such dues, and inasmuch as
I was not advised that the new regulation had been made with the assent
or concurrence of the ministers at Peking. I suggested that the matter
be kept in abeyance until the resident consuls should be instructed by
their superiors.
In the commissioner’s reply, received yesterday, he says, “My
instructions from the office of the inspectorate at Peking are very
clear in regard to the claim for tonnage dues, and the authority given
this office to offer the alternative of a registration fee. Still, as
the date from which the enforcement of the terms of the treaty in regard
to this particular class of dues is not mentioned, I am prepared to meet
your views to the extent of altering the date on which the terms of the
notification should be complied with from the 1st to the 31st
proximo.”
I am clearly of the opinion that the exaction of tonnage dues or
registration fees for lighters is not authorized by the treaties; also,
that if this sudden departure from a long-established precedent had been
arranged with the sanction of the representation of the treaty powers at
Peking the consuls at the various ports would have been advised of the
fact.
It is understood that the claim is based upon Article XXXI of the British
treaty of Tientsin, and that the right to offer the alternative of a
registration fee is authorized by Article XXII of the French treaty.
The phraseology of Article VII of the American treaty of 1845 is much the
same, but it appears clearly to me that, in each case, the contest
points to a class of boats—lorchas, papieos, &c.—which have been
employed in carrying passengers, luggage, letters, and dutiable goods
between certain ports, say between Canton and Hong-Kong, or Canton and
Macao, or between any of the treaty ports, but not to lighters plying
between ship and shore.
Force is given to this view by the following literal translation from the
Chinese text of Article XXXI of the British treaty of Tientsin:
“English merchants at the several ports, themselves using covered boats
for the conveyance of passengers, luggage, letters, provisions, and
duty-free articles, need not pay ‘tonnage dues.’ If they bring with them
or carry with them dutiable articles, then once every four months they
shall pay tonnage dues, one mace per ton.”
The fact that for so many years lighters have been in use at the various
ports and tonnage dues have not been demanded, points to the conclusion
that it has never hitherto been understood that payment of them was
provided for by treaties.
Whether it is contemplated by the customs authorities that a registration
fee (if the boat-owner should choose the alternative of paying such a
fee) shall be collected annually or only once, the “notification” does
not state; but it is fair to conclude that if they are authorized to
cancel the certificates or licenses now in effect, they cart do the same
next year and claim the “fee” on each occasion. In such case it would
entail on one American firm at this port an annual tax of about seven
hundred dollars.
It is not likely that I shall be in possession of your response to this
on the date fixed for the enforcement of the terms of the notification;
in which case, if payments must be made, I shall advise that they be
made under protest pending the receipt of advices from you.
I have the honor, &c.,
[Page 241]
[Inclosure 2 in No. 623.]
customs notification.
Owners of cargo-boats should apply to the custom-house to have their
cargo-boats inspected, reregistered, renumbered, and fresh certificates
issued to them at as early a date as possible before the 15th March.
- 2.
- Those reported by the consul will have the option of paying a
registration fee of $20 or tonnage dues (in accordance with the rate
fixed by treaty).
- 3.
- No boat unprovided with a certificate from the customs will be
allowed to carry cargo; nor will any such certificate be issued to
any but boats of a bona-fide cargo type, which shall have passed the
customs inspection and satisfied its requirements.
- 4.
- Cargo-boats which, from neglect on the part of the owner, shall
not have been registered as above by the 1st of March will be struck
off the customs register, and disqualified from carrying
cargo.
C. HANNEN,
Commissioner of
Customs.
Custom-House,
February 21, 1880.
[Inclosure 3 in No. 623.]
circular to consuls.
Sir: Information has reached this legation that
the customs authorities at certain ports have notified their intention
to levy a tonnage due, or, in lieu thereof, a registration fee, upon
cargo-boats used for the shipment and discharge of cargo.
Inquiry having been made at the Tsung-li Yamên in regard to the matter,
the ministers stated that they were not aware that any new rules had
been put out.
In case an effort to collect such levies shall be advanced at your port,
you will inform the authorities of this dispatch, and state that you
expect them to take no further action under these circumstances.
I am, sir, &c.,
