No. 140.
Mr. Angell
to Mr. Evarts.
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, November 30, 1880.
(Received January 17, 1881.)
No. 59.]
Sir: I inclose herewith replies which I have
received from our consuls at Ning-po and Canton to my circular making
inquiries about tonnage dues, and duties on imports and exports.
You will observe in them the same difference of testimony as you have seen in
the consular replies previously forwarded. They agree that no discrimination
is made in respect to vessels which report to the foreign customs. In
respect to the native craft—the junks—Consul Lord, while affirming that no
one can know what is the practice, yet doubts whether any discriminations
exist. Consul Lincoln, on the contrary, reports that it is generally
believed by foreigners that at Canton the tonnage dues on native craft and
the duties on native goods imported in them, are at least 30 per cent. less
than on foreign vessels and their cargoes.
These statements go to confirm the theory I have previously advanced that the
usage differs in respect to junks at different ports. How far our
government, which excludes altogether all foreign vessels from engaging in
our coasting trade, may deem it necessary to take this into consideration,
it is not for me to suggest.
I have, &c.,
[Page 212]
[Inclosure 1 in No. 59.]
Mr. Lord to Mr.
Angell.
November 6,
1880.
No. 137.]
Sir: I have had the honor to receive your
dispatch No. 6, in which answers are requested to certain questions
relating to the taxes levied in China on American commerce compared with
those levied on the commerce of her own people or the people of other
countries.
In reply I will here quote your questions and answer them seriatim.
First. “Are any other or higher tonnage dues exacted in the open ports of
China from the vessels of the United States resorting thereto than are
paid by Chinese vessels or any foreign vessels engaged in like trade
therewith?”
So far as concerns vessels that are required to report to the general
customs—the customs under foreign inspection, (and this includes all
vessels under foreign flags, and all Chinese vessels that are
registered), there is but one rule—they all pay the same tonnage dues.
There are, however, a good many native vessels that are not registered;
or they are not so registered as to be required to report to the
imperial customs. They report to the local customs only. And what, if
any, tonnage dues they pay we have no means of ascertaining. But they
are engaged only in the coast trade and fisheries and rarely if ever
carry foreign goods. The presumption is that the charges to which they
are subjected are not larger than they would be if they were registered,
as in that case they would apply for registers; and that they are not
much smaller, as some do apply for registers.
Second. “Are any other or higher customs duties of import exacted in
China from American citizens importing merchandise thither than are paid
by Chinese subjects or the citizens of the most favored power, importing
the like merchandise into China?”
No. So far as duties are collected by the imperial customs there is but
one law and one practice. The tariff rules and shows no favor or
disfavor to nationalities. And what is true of imports is true of
exports.
Third. “Is there any discriminating or additional customs duty imposed
upon merchandise, whether of American or foreign origin, entering the
open ports of China in vessels of the United States, which is not
imposed upon the like goods entering these ports in Chinese vessels or
in vessels of any foreign power?”
No. Vessels, persons, and goods in China are both, in law and practice,
treated equally. No favors or disfavors are shown to any one or to
anything. Nor do I see how any discriminations could arise under the
favored-nation clause, found, I believe, in all the treaties, so far as
foreign nationalities are concerned. China might make discriminations in
favor of her own vessels, her own goods, and her own people; but as yet
she has not done it. Of course, I speak as before intimated, only so far
as relates to the imperial customs. What may be the practice in the
local customs, which still have control over a large portion of the old
junk trade, no one can know. But so far as this port is concerned, I
doubt whether any discriminations exist.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 59.]
Mr. Lincoln to Mr.
Angell.
November 2,
1880.
No. 65.]
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your dispatch No. 4, of the 22d ultimo.
In reply I have to say that during my administration of this office I
have never known of an instance at this port wherein higher tonnage dues
have been exacted from merchant vessels of the United States than are
prescribed by the treaty of 1858 (article 16), or than are paid by
merchant vessels of other foreign countries. The same remark applies to
duties on imports and exports in foreign craft.
I cannot state positively whether the tonnage dues exacted from native
merchant sailing-vessels are the same or not, as it is impossible to
obtain reliable information from the authorities at the native
custom-house, where all such craft enter and pay dues and duties. It is,
however, firmly believed by foreigners that the tonnage dues on native
craft and duties on goods imported in them are at least 30 per cent.
less than on foreign vessels and their cargoes. This remark does not,
however, apply to the Chinese Merchants’ Steam Navigation Company’s
steamers as they enter and pay dues and duties at the foreign
customs.
[Page 213]
I regret that I do not clearly comprehend your meaning as to “what answer
to these inquiries will describe not only the
law, but also the practice of the authorities, &c.” The
foregoing, I think, is as descriptive of the practice at this port as I
am at present able to give.
I have &c.
