Mr. Seward to Mr. G. F. Seward.
Sir: Your despatch No. 536, recommending the appointment of a consul at Chin-kiang, at a salary of $3,500, has been received.
It is not in the power of the department to make such an appointment, in the absence of an appropriation; but the subject will be brought to the attention of the appropriate committee at the beginning of the next session of Congress.
In the meanwhile, the department will be glad to receive from you such further information as may come to you showing the expediency of establishing a salaried consulate at that place.
The provisional regulations of trade upon the Yangtsze-kiang, which you have transmitted under the direction of the minister of the United States in China, have been read with attention.
It has been represented to the department that these regulations may have an unfavorable bearing upon American trade and commerce on this great river, inasmuch as they appear to surrender some advantages which we have heretofore enjoyed.
It is said that, after the negotiation of the treaty with China by Lord Elgin, the whole river was thrown open to trade under the auspices of British officers, who, of course, best understood the real meaning of the provisions of the treaty which had just been made. The tenth article of that treaty, according to the English version, declares that “British merchant ships shall have authority to trade upon the great river.”* By the Chinese text, “British merchant vessels are all allowed to carry on commerce at each port (or mouth) in the neighborhood of the long river.” In a subsequent part of the same article specific provision is made for ports of entry and discharge, not exceeding three in number. The number of these ports is definite, but those for river trade indefinite and numerous, viz: “Every mouth in the neighborhood of the Long river.” Hence, as you will perceive by reference to the correspondence upon the subject, Lord Elgin spoke of his arrangements for opening the river in 1861 as being convenient “for the whole coast trade of the river.”—(See Earl of Elgin’s correspondence 1857–1859.)
The obvious meaning of the article, as understood by those who negotiated [Page 1386] the treaty, and also by Commodore Stribling, our late acting commissioner in China, is that there are only three ports of direct entry and discharge to which vessels from foreign countries may come and depart; but that the whole river, at every port or mouth in its vicinity, is open to trade and for the transportation of goods to various points on the river between the three ports of entry and discharge. If this view of the subject is the correct one, it may be well, in revising the regulations, to see that no privileges which have once been granted be curtailed or diminished. Especially is this important, when it is considered that the products of an industrious population, far exceeding that of all Great Britain, can best be transported on this river, from a very large number of central points to the three ports of entry and discharge, from any one of which foreign goods, having entered and paid duty, can thence be transshipped to the principal places on the river. Upon the introduction of steam power, the trade must increase immensely to the advantage of all concerned therein, while the imperial revenues will be greatly augmented.
In the revision of these regulations, or in the adoption of others for the conduct of trade, care should be taken not to encumber our trade, on the one hand, with unnecessary and vexatious restrictions; and, on the other, to prevent detriment to the imperial revenue.
You will please communicate a copy of this despatch to the United States minister in China, and furnish the department with any other information upon this subject of which you may be in possession.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
G. F. Seward, Esq., U. S. Consul General, Shanghai.
- Report of the Secretary of State on commercial relations, page 355, and Senate Ex. Doc. No. 30, 36th Congress, 1st session, page 377 et seq. ↩