No. 156.
Mr. Angell
to Mr. Blaine.
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, April 19, 1881.
(Received June 13.)
No. 143.]Sir: In my No. 120 of February 28, last, I set
forth the objectionable manner in which the Chinese authorities had put in
force a regulation concerning chartered junks on the Yangtsze River, and
described my interview with the Tsung-li Yamên on the subject. I expressed
the opinion that the regulation was in contravention of the (amended)
twenty-first article of the French treaty, and that most, if not all the
ministers here agreed with me in that view. Indeed, the position could
hardly be questioned, if the language of the treaty was to be taken without
qualification. But on pursuing my investigation more thoroughly than I had
been able to do at the time of writing you, I discovered evidence that the
French minister who negotiated the twenty-first article above referred to,
expressly stipulated with the Chinese Government that the article should not
apply to the chartering of junks on the Yangtsze, but that the old Rule VI,
of the Yangtsze regulations which provides that native craft chartered by
British merchants shall pay port dues according to Chinese tariff, should
remain in force. On my requesting the French minister to examine his
archives and to favor me with a copy of the dispatch in which if at all this
modification of article XXI, had been made, after a careful search he kindly
furnished me with the communication of Mr. Bellonet to Prince Kung, dated
August 20, 1865, a copy of which, with the translation, I herewith inclose.
No one of the ministers here was previously aware of the existence of this
document. They now all agree with me that, however objectionable the manner
in which the rule requiring the native owners of chartered junks to pay port
dues has been put into operation, we have no ground in the treaty
stipulations to take objection to the rule itself.
In a dispatch recently received from Mr. Consul Shepard of Hankow, he argues
that articles VI and XXIII of the German treaty conflict with the new rule.
But neither the German minister nor I see any force in the argument. The
consul reports that an attempt to freight a chartered junk since the
enforcement of the new rule has utterly failed because the owners of goods
were afraid the cargo would be subjected to “squeezes” on the voyage. It can
hardly be doubted that an end is put to the chartering of junks by the
foreigner. I shall call the attention of the foreign office to this fact on
the first favorable opportunity to show them that they are depriving the
junk owners of the opportunity to charter their boats to foreigners. But
they are so strongly, and I fear so justly convinced that the chartering of
junks is the means of defrauding the government of revenue that I have
little expectation of
[Page 256]
their
rescinding or modifying their order for the enforcement of this rule.
There is abundant evidence in the legations here that foreigners have in too
many instances nominally chartered junks in order to enable the real
shippers, Chinamen, to run the barriers and defraud the native customs. In
my opinion it is this abuse rather than, as Mr. Consul Shepard suggests, a
desire to aid the China Merchants’ Steamship Company, which has stimulated
the government to put in force a rule which has not been enforced in
seventeen years.
In two dispatches to Mr. Consul Shepard I have fully set forth the views
expressed by me in my No. 120 to you and in this dispatch.
Trusting that my course may meet with the approval of the Department,
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 143.]
Mr. Bellonet to
Prince Kung.
The government of the Emperor has ordered me to announce to your imperial
highness that he has consented to the surrender of the exemption from
tonnage dues, which the twenty-second article of the Treaty of Tientsin
secures to junks and other Chinese craft chartered by French merchants.
He has, moreover, authorized me to accept the propositions contained in
the dispatch of your imperial highness of the date of December 8 last,
and to subject to the payment of tonnage dues every four months French
vessels which coast between the different ports of China.
In exchange for these concessions the ports of Cochin-China under French
jurisdiction and the ports of Japan shall be put on the same footing as
those of China, as that of Hong-Kong is already; that is to say,
henceforth ships of every kind carrying the French flag can ply between
the ports of China, and those of Cochin-China and Japan, without being
subjected to the payment of four mace, or of one mace a ton more than
once in four months, no matter how many trips they make.
The government of the Emperor also agrees that Chinese craft chartered by
French merchants to trade on the Yang-tsze-Kiang shall be subjected to
the duties specified in article VI of the regulations concerning the
navigation of that river.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 143.]
Mr. Shepard to Mr.
Angell.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge your very
courteous dispatch No. 9 of February 23, in response to my No. 55. In
behalf of our natural interests I warmly thank you for your prompt
attention to the subject and the energetic progress you have made.
It is my duty to say that notwithstanding the assurance of the Tsung-li
Yamên that the regulation I have discussed is “not
intended in any way to change the status of the cargo on which the
foreigner has paid duty, and that such cargo is not to be subjected
to lekin anywhere along the route,” yet the dangers that the
charterers and shippers may be subjected to annoyances by the claim and
exercise of the assumed right to stop junks for the payment of port dues
along their route is so great and varied, and kindred annoyances have
been so arbitrary heretofore, that not a pound of freight will be risked
by shippers on board of such craft as long as the exaction exists. The
regulation is in fact an absolute death-blow to the junk business, and
was doubtless so intended possibly and probably to force all this
freighting business into the channel of the China Merchant Steam
Navigation Company’s steamers, thus creating a powerful monopoly. An
American charterer here has tested the result beyond cavil. He managed
to secure a charter of a junk, and took from me the ordinary letter to
the foreign customs for official facilities. He has labored earnestly
for weeks, and has been utterly unable to get any portion of a cargo,
even the slightest.
[Page 257]
Shippers say very decidedly they will not subject
their merchandise to the possible detentions and annoyances to come from
responsibility to two customs, the native and the foreign, with no full
protection from either. Not a single junk has been cleared through this
consulate since the proclamation appeared.
In your further consideration of the matter, I respectfully call your
special attention to the German treaty of 1861. It is in French in the
copy I have, but it is very explicit. Article VI recites the three ports
of Chinkiang, Kinkiang, and Han Kow, demonstrating that all privileges of trade were secured for the
Yangtsze as far as to other ports. Riverine trade was guaranteed. The
last clause of article XXIII distinctively and absolutely fixes the
tonnage dues on the craft in question, and, of course, intended those
dues should be paid where tonnage on all foreign vessels is paid, viz,
into the foreign customs. It seems to me this vital point in the matter
should be insisted upon, and that tonnage dues shall be only paid as the
treaties require, and on chartered junks as on foreign-owned vessels;
that is to say, all vessels in foreign control should have but one kind
of treatment. No other result can give any relief to the junk
traffic.
I specially note, and acquiesce in, your suggestions as to possible
abuses of unscrupulous foreigners. I have constantly aimed to prevent
such, and shall continue to do so with jealous regard to Chinese rights,
as well as our own treaty privileges. Only a few months ago the
intendant brought to my notice certain presumed abuses in chartering
junks, and I promptly commenced an investigation. The agent saw fit to
put obstacles in the way of my inquiry, when I promptly closed up his
business by declining to give him any further official facilities.
I mention the incident to show that while I am zealous for American
interests I mean ever to be just towards all native rights.
Trusting you may eventually secure a complete revocation of the
objectionable regulations,
I am, &c.,
