893.51/5311: Telegram
The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
529. Legation’s 527, July 1, 4 p.m. Following telegram is being sent to the Minister at Shanghai:
- “1. I have notified Senior Minister of Department’s concurrence in the two draft notes.
- 2. Following are pertinent portions of mail despatch June
26 from American Consul General at Tientsin:
‘The following notification has been published this evening by Mr. B. Lenox Simpson, the de facto Commissioner of Customs at Tientsin:
“Notice. Until further notice the following procedure will be enforced in Tientsin in the case of duties payable here but which have been unlawfully collected at the port of first instance in China.
Application and examination of cargo will follow the usual practice but when the duties leviable have been assessed, instead of paying duty, a deposit covering the duties payable will be collected and a deposit receipt issued.
Thereupon it is incumbent on the merchant to take steps to recover at the port of first instance the duty illegally levied, but, failing such recovery and the whole [upon] satisfactory proof of duty payment being furnished, this office will return the deposit made on presentation by the holder of the said deposit receipt.
River dues and bridge tax will be paid as usual to the bank.”
Merchants who are required to make the deposits in order to obtain delivery of their cargo will now be hastening to inquire what measures can be taken to “take steps to recover at the port of first instance the duty illegally levied” and, failing of recovery, will desire to obtain the return of the deposit made at Tientsin in as short a time as possible.
The action taken by Mr. Simpson makes a protest against a second assessment and demand for duty somewhat difficult. He will point out [that he has] only requirements of [required] a deposit and proof (1) that steps to recover at the [Page 265] port of first instance has [have] been taken, without success, and (2) of course proof of payment at the port of first instance.
It seems to me that the best proof of steps to recover at the port of first instance would be found in diplomatic representations to the National Government on the basis of the treaty provisions—not yet abrogated, I believe—that import duties shall be paid at the port of discharge of the cargo. Such diplomatic representations failing, the merchant here should be entitled to recover his deposit upon producing proof of actual payment of duty at the port of first instance.
Indeed it would appear to me that the Shansi regime is forcing the hand of the powers in the matter, requiring them to make the protest and attempt the recovery of the duties “unlawfully collected at the port of first instance in China” in order to avoid having their nationals penalized by payment of duty a second time at Tientsin.
This is a matter in which, in my opinion, the fullest measure of protection should be extended to American interests, who are in no way concerned in the present unfortunate civil war and should not be made the victims of the customs difficulty.’”
- 3. In connection with the Department’s 212, June 26, 4 p.m., paragraph 3. Is it desired that the Legation instruct American Consular officers at Shanghai and other ports of first instance to support, vis-à-vis the local Commissioners of Customs, specific claims which American merchants may make for the return of any duties which may have been illegally or irregularly levied on goods destined for Tientsin?
- Telegram in four sections.↩