Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 5, 1898
Mr. Buck to Mr. Day.
Tokyo, Japan, September 6, 1898.
Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith copies of a body of correspondence which passed between Mr. Harris, United States consul at Nagasaki, and Lake & Go. (Edward Lake), of Nagasaki, and the consul and the commissioner of customs at that port, together with a copy of the consul’s dispatch with which the correspondence came to me, all relating to a complaint made by Mr. Lake, that, under the “treaty and regulations under which American trade is to be conducted in Japan,” he has the right to transship to his vessel, the Adventure, certain goods, which has been denied him by the customs officials at Nagasaki. I also inclose copy of my dispatch to Mr. Harris, setting forth my view of the case.
As the question is exhaustively treated in the inclosures herewith, from which all the facts are clear, I will not go into it further. I consider Mr. Lake’s position untenable, as it does not appear that it was his intention to clear his vessel, but rather to make use of her as a storeship contrary to the spirit and intention of the customs regulations.
I have, etc.,
Mr. Harris to Mr. Buck.
Nagasaki, Japan, August 9, 1898.
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that at the request of Edward Lake, a citizen of the United States, I inclose herewith the correspondence had between Mr. Lake, the Japanese authorities, and myself in regard to the steamship Adventure, owned by Edward Lake, for such action as you shall deem best to protect the interests of Mr. Lake.
Mr. Lake desires to use the steamship Adventure as a storage ship and also to transship from her to other ships such cargo as he may wish. He claims and requests that he be allowed the same rights and privileges as are allowed by the Japanese authorities to other ships and shipowners. His claims and requests in this matter the Japanese authorities positively refuse to grant.
I have also the honor to call your attention to the following facts connected with the steamship Adventure: The steamship Adventure was formerly a Japanese vessel named the Ito Maru. She was sold and transferred [Page 426] to Edward Lake by Umeya Kichiju, a Japanese subject, on the 9th of March, 1893; the port of registry of such vessel was Nagasaki; official (Japanese) No. 123; register tonnage, 88½; 93.23 feet in length; 14.9 feet in breadth; built of wood and propelled by a single screw. The papers of said steamship Adventure were last deposited in this consulate on the 24th day of January, 1896, and have remained here since that time. Such papers consist of the bill of sale from said Umeya Kichiju to said Lake, and attached to said bill of sale is a certificate of W. H. Abercrombie, then consul of the United States at this port, that the sale of said vessel “has been proved satisfactory to me to have been duly executed by the subscribing party;” on the back of such certificate is another certificate by Consul Abercrombie, that on the 9th day of March, 1893, the name of said vessel was “changed from that of Ito Maru to Adventure.” With such papers there are two certificates from United States consul at Chefoo, China—one dated April 23, 1895, and on the 8th day of May, 1895—given to master of the steamship Adventure on deposit of ship papers, also certificate from Consul Abercrombie of May 25, 1895, that said vessel had exhibited to him the clearance of said steamer and that he had delivered to the master of said vessel the register and paper of said steamer, and that the vessel was built at Nagasaki and is owned by an American citizen named Edward Lake. Bill of sale recorded in the office signed W. H. Abercrombie, United States consul; also deposited with such bill of sale and certificate are receipt for tonnage dues, one paid 18th of April, 1895, at Jeuchuan and one from Chefoo dated 26th of April, 1895, and a receipt from S. R. de Sonza for United States consul at this port for 89 cents gold, tonnage dues. No other papers belonging to said vessel are in this office.
I have, etc.,
United States Consul.
Lake & Co. to Mr. Harris.
Sir: On the 9th instant we applied to the Japanese custom-house at Nagasaki for permission to ship on board the steamship Adventure 300 sacks of American flour. The customs authorities refuse to grant permission to ship any cargo on said vessel, and have repeated their refusal again this day without giving any just reason for so doing.
The Adventure, we believe, is entitled to the same privilege as any other vessel entering this port, and has the right to ship and discharge cargo as any other nation’s vessel. Will you be so kind and inquire into this matter? We remain,
Very respectfully,
Mr. Harris to Lake & Co.
Nagasaki, May 11, 1898.
Gentlemen: I am in receipt of yours of the 10th instant, notifying me that you have been refused by the custom-house authorities permission to load 300 sacks flour on the steamship Adventure, and requesting me to make inquiries why you were refused such permission. You [Page 427] inclose application for export entry, showing that the flour was to be shipped to uncertain points. Yesterday morning I had a personal interview with the commissioner of customs, and he informed me that if the Adventure will clear the port you will be allowed to load flour as you request, but before you are granted that permission you must state in your export entry application to what port the Adventure clears for.
I am, etc.,
United States Consul.
Lake & Co. to Mr. Harris.
Sir: Today we have again applied to the Japanese custom-house officials for permission to place on board the United States merchant vessel Adventure 300 sacks of American flour.
The custom-house officials refuse to grant permission or allow the flour placed on board of said vessel in any way either as storage from shipment or for export.
We remain, etc.,
Mr. Harris to Lake & Co.
Nagasaki, May 12, 1898.
Gentlemen: I am in receipt of your letter of yesterday informing me that you had again that day applied to the custom-house officials for permission to place on board the steamship Adventure 300 sacks of flour, and that the officials refuse to grant you the permission requested, and you further state that the officials will not allow you to place the flour on board said vessel either for storage, export, or transshipment. You also inclose export entry application showing that you applied to ship such flour to Chefoo and ports.
I have this day written the commissioner of customs asking him to please be so kind as to advise me why it is that you are so refused admission to place on the Adventure the flour; also calling his attention to the fact that you had informed me that for three years last past up to three months since you had been allowed to use such vessel for storage purposes.
I will communicate with you further on receipt of an answer to my letter to the commissioner of customs.
I am, etc.,
United States Consul.
Mr. Harris to Mr. Noda.
Nagasaki, May 12, 1898.
Sir: Since my interview with you yesterday in relation to the refusal of the custom-house officials to allow Lake & Co. to export 300 sacks of [Page 428] flour on the steamship Adventure on the 10th instant to uncertain ports I have received from them under date of yesterday a letter informing me that they had again applied for permission to load said flour on the said vessel, and inclosing an export entry application showing that the flour was to be shipped to Chefoo and ports, they state that they were again refused permission to place said flour on said vessel either for storage, export, or transshipment.
Lake & Co. further inform me that for three years last past and up to within three months of this date that they have been allowed by the custom-house officials to use the steamship Adventure as a storage ship. Please be so kind as to advise me why it is that you at this time refuse to grant their request for the storage of the flour on board of that vessel, to there await transshipment to Chefoo and ports.
I have, etc.,
United States Consul.
Mr. Noda to Mr. Harris.
Nagasaki, 14th day, Fifth Month, 31st year.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated 12th instant, requesting to know what is the reason of the refusal against the application produced by Messrs. Lake & Co. to ship 300 sacks of flour to the steamship Adventure.
In reply to the above I beg to state to you that if she will leave the port carrying the said goods, of course I would not insist on refusing it, just as I told you when I had interview with you on the 11th, but I am unable to give the permit to load any goods in order to store on board the above vessel when she will not proceed to sea.
Once I thought that the Adventure herself will actually set sail for the exportation or transportation of the goods for a certain port, so I allowed to ship some goods at that time, but I have never allowed to use her as a storeship.
I have, etc.,
Superintendent of Custom-House, Nagasaki.
Mr. Harris to Messrs. Lake & Co.
Nagasaki, May 16, 1898.
Gentlemen: I am in receipt of a letter from the superintendent of custom-house, Nagasaki, in answer to my letter of the 12th instant, in reference to the refusal of the custom authorities to allow you to ship 300 sacks of flour on the steamship Adventure for Chefoo and ports.
The superintendent informs me that he will grant your application, provided the steamship Adventure clears the port, and hot otherwise. He also informs me that he is “unable to give the permit to load any goods in order to store on board the Adventure when she will not proceed to sea.”
I am, etc.,
United States Consul.
Messrs. Lake & Co. to Mr. Harris.
Sir: I am in receipt of your esteemed letter dated 14th May, referring to a letter addressed by you to the superintendent of customs at this port dated 12th ultimo, and his (the superintendent’s) reply, in which he states he will grant permission to ship 300 sacks flour on board the American steam vessel Adventure, provided that vessel clears the port, and not otherwise. May I ask how it is possible under the existing treaty to ship cargo (from ship cargo) on board an American vessel after said vessel has cleared port (cleared from consulate and customs). My impression is that such actions on my part would involve me in breaking the customs regulations and existing treaty between United States and Japan, whereas I would be subject to a fine of from $125 to $1,000. Such preposterous statement by customs officials is ridiculous and shameful on their part. The Adventure has been entered at the United States consulate and at customs, according to treaty and customs regulations, and should be entitled to all privileges granted to vessels of the United States or any other nation, which have been denied to me and to my vessel.
The customs authorities have granted permission to transship cargo from other vessels to Adventure, and to ship cargo to and from Adventure, they do and have done for all national vessels.
As the customs refused to grant permission to transship 300 sacks of flour from Empress of Japan to Adventure, or from customs sheds to Adventure, which is duty free, I applied for permission to transship the 300 sacks of American flour to the Japanese steamer Higo Maru on the 13th of May, and on the 14th of May, in the afternoon, received permission to ship the flour to Higo Maru.
Previous to receiving permission to ship the flour on the 14th ultimo to Higo Maru our employees put 220 sacks of the flour into our cargo boat. At the same time the customs authorities caused to be carted away to bonded warehouse 80 sacks of the 300 sacks, where it now lies in bonded warehouse at the risk and responsibility of the Japanese Government.
I further beg to call your attention as well as the Japanese customs authorities to the fact that under treaty the Japanese customs authorities have the right to seal the hatch of vessels between sunset and sunrise. In the case of the steamship Adventure, they have sealed the hatches at sunset and have not removed the seals for days, without special request from me to do so, and are now sealed.
I remain, etc.,
Mr. Buck to Mr. Harris.
Tokyo, Japan, August 19, 1898.
Sir: Your dispatch No. 202 of the 9th instant, with eight inclosures, has been received, from which it appears that Edward Lake complains to you of the action of the Japanese customs officers at Nagasaki in denying him a right and privilege, as he claims, granted to him as a [Page 430] citizen of the United States by virtue of the existing treaty with Japan and the regulations of trade thereunder.
In the letter of Mr. Lake of May 10 last, it appears that he complains that the Japanese customs officials, on May 9, refused to grant him permission to transship to his vessel, the Adventure, for export, 300 sacks of American flour, giving him no just reason therefor. Where upon Mr. Lake claims that he is entitled to the privilege refused him, and asks that you inquire into the matter, inclosing to you a copy of the export entry he had asked to be made, stating therein his vessel to be the steamship Adventure and giving her destination as “unknown.”
From a copy of your letter in reply to Mr. Lake, of May 11, it appears that you informed Mr. Lake that you had seen the commissioner of customs, who had stated to you that if the Adventure would clear the port, he (Lake) would be allowed to load flour as requested; but before he could be granted that permission, he must state in his export entry what port the vessel clears for.
Mr. Lake again addressed you on May 11, in which he informs you that he had that day again applied for permission to take on board the Adventure the 300 sacks of flour and again been refused. Attached to his letter is a copy of form of export entry filled out as before, except that “Chefoo and ports” is inserted instead of “uncertain,” as designation of the vessel. In consequence, it appears that you, on May 12, addressed a note to the commissioner of customs, setting out the facts of the second refusal as presented by Mr. Lake and asking the reason therefor. In reply, the commissioner, under date of May 14, informs you that “if she (Adventure) will leave the port carrying the said goods, of course I (he) would not insist on refusing it, just as I (he) told you on the 11th; but I (he) am unable to give the permit to load any goods in order to store on board the above vessel when she will not proceed to sea. Once I (he) thought the Adventure herself would actually set sail for the exportation or transportation of the goods for a certain port; so I (he) allowed to ship some goods at that time, but I (he) have never allowed to use her as a storeship.”
On communicating the above to Mr. Lake, which you did on May 16, he writes to you on June 28 at length and rehearses his complaints and asks, “How is it possible, under existing treaties, to ship cargo (from ship cargo) on board an American vessel after said vessel has cleared the port—cleared from consulate and customs?” He claims that it would involve him in breaking the customs regulations and existing treaties between the two countries, and that he would be subjected to a heavy fine. He claims that the Adventure has been entered at the United States consulate and customs according to the treaty and regulations and should be entitled to all privileges guaranteed to the vessels of the United States or of other powers, which has been denied her. He further claims that the customs authorities have heretofore granted permission to transship goods to and from the Adventure from and to other ships, as they have also done for ships of other nations.
It appears from the record of the Adventure, as given in your dispatch and inclosures, that she is owned by Mr. Lake; that she has been lying in the harbor of Nagasaki continuously for some years past, and that Mr. Lake has used her “as a storeship, and also to transship from her to other ships such cargo as he may wish;” and that this vessel has unintentionally been allowed to be so used by the customs authorities.
From the case as made up and submitted, it appears:
First. That Mr. Lake in claiming customs entry for the 300 sacks of flour to be put on board of the Adventure for “uncertain” ports [Page 431] expressed no purpose of clearing his vessel, but it is to be inferred on the contrary that he desired to store the flour on his vessel for such time as would suit his convenience to dispose of it.
Taking into consideration the fact that Mr. Lake had used his vessel for some years for storage purposes, the customs officers had reason to suppose that in asking a permit or export entry for the flour to be put on board the Adventure for “uncertain” ports, he intended to store it upon his vessel for such time as he desired, else he would have declared his purpose to clear his vessel and for some certain port, and the fact that he had previously used the Adventure as a storehouse was no good reason to demand that he should continue to do so, if not in accord with customs regulations.
The customs regulations upon which it seems that Mr. Lake bases his claim, as a right guaranteed to him by treaty and regulations, as applying to Ids first application for export entry, provides that:
Cargo may be transshipped to another vessel in the same harbor without the payment of duty; but all such transshipment shall be made under the supervision of Japanese officers, and after satisfactory proof has been given to the customs-house authorities of the bona fide nature of the transaction, and also under permit to be granted for that purpose by such authorities.
This regulation, taken in connection with other paragraphs of the regulations, is to be construed as meaning that a vessel entering a port with merchandise may transship goods to another vessel about to depart for some other port without their going through the custom-house, as in such case the goods are supposed to be in continuous transportation and not intended for import at the port where transshipped. Otherwise, whether the goods are subject to duty or not, by a vessel’s becoming a storeship and thus evading the regulations, the Japanese customs officials would be deprived of their right to warehouse charges, and in my opinion they were right in refusing Mr. Lake the export entry for the flour to be transshipped to his vessel for “uncertain” ports.
Second. It appears that Mr. Lake, in making the second application for the export entry of the flour, stated “Chefoo and ports” as the destination of his vessel. From the reply of the commissioner of the customs to your note to him of May 12, it appears that if Mr. Lake should make it clear that the Adventure would clear the port, the permit would be granted; but it could not be granted to him to load any goods upon his vessel in order to store them.
While Mr. Lake’s application names “Chefoo and ports,” it does not appear that he gives any assurance to the commisssoner of customs of his purpose to clear the port, but relies on his rights under the regulations, as he assumes, to transship his flour. The commissioner of customs, it seems, did not demand that Mr. Lake should actually clear the port as a condition precedent, but simply stated that he would grant permission to ship the flour on board the Adventure provided the vessel cleared the port, and Mr. Lake’s conclusion that he would have to violate the regulations and subject himself to a fine, in order to comply with the requirements of the customs officials, is not justified.
The fact that the Adventure had been lying in the harbor for some years, and had been used as a storeship, and that Mr. Lake had given no proof, as it seems, either by declaration to the customs officials or by any notice by advertisement or otherwise that the vessel was about to clear the port for “Chefoo and ports,” were sufficient to warrant them in withholding permission to ship the flour till it was made known that the vessel was actually to sail within a limited time. Hence I see no [Page 432] reason, in consideration of the present status of the case, for diplomatic interference. If Mr. Lake will give notice of his vessel to sail within a reasonable time, and show that he is at once to procure clearance papers for the Adventure to leave for Chefoo, and then after such compliance in good faith, with what I understand to be the requirement of the commissioner of customs, if he then should not be permitted by the customs officials to ship the flour or the goods, then it may be proper for me to take some action for the protection of his rights under the “treaty and regulations under which Americans’ trade is to be conducted in Japan.”
I am, etc.,