893.113/1041
The Minister in China (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State
Peking, April 6,
1927.
[Received May 28.]
No. 983Sir: With reference to my despatch No. 938
dated March 2, 1927, concerning a monopoly for the sale of sulphur and
saltpetre and other chemicals established by the Canton Government, I
have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of a further despatch, No.
616, dated March 16, 1927, on this subject received from the American
Consul General at Canton.
In view of the tenor of the reply from the Acting Minister of Foreign
Affairs to the American Consul General at Canton the Legation has
instructed the Consulate General to take no further action in the matter
until instructions have been received from the Department.
I have [etc.]
[Page 325]
[Enclosure]
The Consul General at Canton (Jenkins) to the Minister in China (MacMurray)
Canton, March 16,
1927.
No. 616Sir: In connection with the Legation’s
instruction of February 23, 1927, concerning a monopoly established
by the Canton Government for the sale of certain explosives in
Kwangtung Province, including sulphur, saltpetre, smokeless powder,
Chilian saltpetre, and nitrate of soda, I have the honor to transmit
copies of this Consulate General’s despatch of March 7 to the Acting
Minister of Foreign Affairs and the latter’s reply of March 14,
1927. It will be observed that the Acting Minister is not disposed
to acquiesce in the views expressed by the Legation in respect to
the importation of the chemicals mentioned for ordinary industrial
purposes.
Unless specifically instructed to do so this Consulate General will
not reply further to this despatch from the Cantonese
authorities.
I have [etc.]
[Subenclosure 1]
The Consul General at Canton (Jenkins) to the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs at
Canton (Ch’en)
Sir: I have the honor to refer to your
despatch of December 18, 1926,53 concerning the creation of a monopoly for the
importation and sale of explosives including such articles as
sulphur, saltpetre, smokeless powder, Chilian saltpetre and nitrate
of soda. It is observed that the monopoly is to be administered by
the Lee Loong Company which has the right to collect fees for
certificates to be issued in accordance with the existing
regulations.
In reply I have the honor to inform you that this Consulate General
is in receipt of a communication from the American Minister at
Peking expressing the opinion that the list of prohibited goods
mentioned in the despatch under acknowledgment should be made to
contain only such articles as can reasonably be described as “arms
and ammunition” since it is evident that only in this way can the
list be made to comply with Rule 3 of the Revised Import Tariff.
Moreover many of the articles mentioned in your despatch as subject
to the provisions of the monopoly are extensively used for ordinary
commercial and industrial purposes, and as such the American
Legation does not believe their importation should be subject to a
monopoly or otherwise restricted.
I have [etc.]
[Page 326]
[Subenclosure 2]
The Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs at
Canton (Ch’en) to the Consul General
at Camion (Jenkins)
[Canton,] March 14,
1927.
Sir: In reply to your despatch of March 7,
1927, concerning the monopoly established by my Government for the
sale of certain explosives, and presuming that the explosives should
not include articles used for ordinary commercial and industrial
purposes, I have the honor to inform you that the creation of a
monopoly for the sale of explosives is a matter falling with [in]
the scope of the internal administration of my Government, and
therefore is not subject to the intervention of foreigners.
Referring to Rule 3 of the Revised Import Tariff as mentioned in your
despatch under acknowledgment, I may say, however, that the said
Rule is an enlargement originally made on Article V[I], Rule 5 of the Commercial Treaty concluded
in the 8th year of the Hsien F’eng Emperor (1858),54
which not only contains arms and ammunition, but also salt as well
as those articles necessary for the manufacture of firearms. (In the
Commercial Treaty made in the 8th year of the Hsien F’eng Emperor
(1858), articles such as Saltpetre, Sulphur, Brimstone and Spelter
are included).
You further mention in your letter that while many of the articles
prescribed under the provisions of the monopoly are used for
ordinary commercial and industrial purposes, you do not trust that
they should be subjected to the restriction. I may point out,
however, that in spite of salt being the daily necessity of the
people, its illegal transportation and sale are also prohibited by
my Government. It is obvious therefore that this case may be more or
less misunderstood by the American Minister at Peking.
With compliments.
