Mr. Seward to Mr.
Burlingame
No. 207.]
Department of State, Washington, July 18, 1867.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of a
despatch from you dated the 1st of May, No. 138.
That paper is accompanied by copies of regulations relating to pilotage,
and
[Page 506]
to passengers’ luggage,
proposed by the Chinese government and agreed to by the representatives
of the treaty powers at Peking. While approving your action on assenting
to the propositions referred to, it is deemed necessary to remark that
such assent is not intended to modify our treaty rights in any manner,
and that this government reserves the right of future objection to any
interpretation of either of the regulations which may be found
inconsistent with existing treaties.
You are instructed to make these views known to the Chinese
government.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Anson Burlingame, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
Memorandum on the pilot and port rules forwarded
by Mr. Burlingame in his dispatch No. 138.
The pilot rules heretofore enforced in the ports of China have been
promulgated by the foreign authorities. Those forwarded by Mr.
Burlingame are proclaimed by the Chinese government, and assented to
by Mr. Burlingame. The old system was never got to working well, as
there would always turn up some impracticable consul to put
obstacles in the way. The rules now proclaimed proceed from a
central and undisputed authority, and are likely to be well worked
in connection with the well organized customs establishment of the
empire.
Under the treaty we have, perhaps, no right to interfere with such
pilotage rules as the Chinese make, unless they trench injuriously
on the privileges of ex-territoriality accorded to our officers and
people in China, or embarrass our trade. I do not know that these do
or are likely to do the one or the other.
It may be questioned, however, whether the Chinese have the right to
hold the consignee of a vessel responsible for pilotages due on it,
(Rule XIV ;) and it should not be permitted that the customs should
withhold the usual facilities to consignees or masters to enforce
the decisions of the harbor-master in certain cases. (Rules XII and
XIV.)
The port rules for passengers’ luggage, duty-free goods, and steam
tugs seem well adapted to the purposes, and in accordance with the
treaty and usages, with the following exceptions: The last clause of
the rule relating to passengers’ luggage should not be construed as
a prohibition against conveying dutiable goods as may be convenient.
Should there be intent to defraud, it would be right to confiscate
the luggage, but, perhaps, not otherwise. And the last clause of the
rule relating to duty-free goods might be complained of, as
contravening the XX article of the treaty, which provides for the
examination of goods when being shipped or discharged at the
vessel’s side, should it be enforced with unnecessary hardship.
It is, I suppose, always understood that the assent of the minister
to rules made by the Chinese government does not forestall his right
to demand a change in them when in practical application they
occasion unnecessary hardship, (vide article
XXVIII,) or otherwise contravene our treaty rights.
GEO. F. SEWARD.
Washington, July 15,
1867.
Memorandum by E. Peshine Smith.
It seems to me that several of the regulations are so vaguely
expressed that it is impossible to see they may not be so
construed as to infringe on treaty rights, and therefore, that
it might be well to accompany an approval of Mr. Burlingame’s
assent with a notice that we find it necessary to observe that
the assent is not intended to modify our treaty rights in any
manner, and reserve the right of future objection to any
interpretation of either of the regulations which may be found
inconsistent with the treaties.
E. PESHINE SMITH, Examiner.
