No. 159.
Mr. Angell
to Mr. Blaine.
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, April 30, 1881.
(Received June 20.)
No. 151.]
Sir: In my No. 95, of January 14 last, I reported
the latest negotiations between the diplomatic body and the foreign office
on the subject of transit passes outwards. The decision which the
representatives of the western powers reached at their conference of January
4 was communicated on January 9 to the Tsung-li Yamên by Mr. von Brandt in a
paper herewith inclosed.
As before stated, that decision was to adhere to our previous propositions,
except that Rule II should be modified so as to state specfically what
articles of foreign manufacture or origin and what articles of native
manufacture or origin shall be duty free.
On February 9 the Tsung-li Yamên replied to Mr. von Brandt in a
communication, a copy of which is inclosed. They take exception in some
particulars to the amended Rule II (inclosed in No. 95), and especially
indicate that in their opinion the terms “household stores” and “ship’s
stores” need to be defined. They ask us to wait until the inspector
[Page 263]
general of customs has furnished
them a list of articles which can be considered “ship’s stores.”
As to goods manufactured from native produce, they still desire that these
shall be reported to the customs for examination.
I have delayed forwarding these papers in the hope that we might come to some
definite understanding on the subject. But progress has been so long
hindered by various causes that I deem it best to acquaint you with the
present state of the correspondence.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 151.]
Mr. von Brandt to
the Tsung-li Yamên.
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellencies’
communication dated December 5, being an answer to a note from me on the
subject of outward transit passes and other questions.
I regret sincerely that the state of my health has prevented me from
discussing the question verbally with your excellencies, as my intention
had been, and still prevents my going to the Yamên. In order, however,
not to lose any more time, I have now the honor to lay before your
excellencies in writing the reply to your note of December 5, which I
have been authorized by my colleagues to make to it.
With regard to the first point, the list of duty-free goods, there can be
no doubt in the opinion of my colleagues and myself that certain
articles in the list being marked “foreign” and others not, under the
first ones articles of foreign origin are understood, and under the
other ones those of foreign or native origin. The
articles of foreign origin would, of course, be imported and then pay no
import duty, while those of native origin would be exported and pay no
export duty. The mention of transit duty in connection with duty-free
articles clearly refers only to goods of foreign origin, as in the body
of the treaty no provision is made for the application of the
transit-duty rule to native produce carried inland.
As the discussion now going on between the Yamên and the foreign
representatives is, however, intended, in the first instance, to do away
with such difficulties as have arisen from time to time, and as would,
unless remedied, be likely to cause misunderstandings and ill-feeling
between China and the treaty powers, my colleagues and myself propose to
the Yamên to accept, in lieu of Trade Rule 2 as read until now, the
version annexed herein, which, to my colleagues and to myself, seems to
have the undoubted advantage of doing away with the ambiguity which your
excellencies seem to find in the expressions used in the original
rule.
As your excellencies will see from the annex, it is only for sixteen
articles of native origin that my colleagues and myself claim freedom
from export duty under the treaties, and as none of these articles is of
much importance, we hope that the Yamên will see in this proposal, which
we substitute for section II of the former proposal, the means of coming
to an understanding with the foreign representatives.
With regard to the second point, the treatment on exportation of native
produce bought in the port by a foreigner and exported by him, my
colleagues and myself must insist on the necessity of giving to the
treaty rule that on such produce nothing but the tariff export duty has
to be paid, a full and explicit reassertion in the proposed agreement.
If the treaty rule had been strictly observed by all the provincial
authorities such reassertion would, of course, be unnecessary, but as,
on the contrary, attempts have been frequently made by local authorities
to force foreign exporters to pay transit duties on goods bought at the
port, my colleagues and myself trust that your excellencies will
understand the desirability and necessity of the rule contained in the
treaty being announced in a form less likely to give rise to
misunderstandings.
On the subject of goods manufactured from native produce, my colleagues
and myself fail to see how, by such a process going on at the open
ports, the goods so manufactured paying export duty on exportation any
confusion can arise. It is generally believed to be a sound principle of
political economy that industry and commerce will develop the more
rapidly and become a greater source of revenue to the state the less
they are interfered with and hampered by rules and regulations.
My colleagues and myself hope, therefore, that your excellencies will
withdraw your opposition to section III, which, after all, contains
nothing but a reassertion of the
[Page 264]
state of things as created by the treaties, while the introduction of
the measures of supervision proposed by the Yamên would be an
innovation, and, as such, as we firmly believe, fraught with serious
dangers and difficulties.
Before closing this letter I beg to state that, though the last delay in
the negotiations has been due to my inability of meeting your
excellencies, my colleagues and myself would feel so much the more
obliged to your excellencies for a speedy reply, as the necessity for
stricter instructions being issued to the local authorities makes itself
more strongly felt.
I avail myself, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 151.]
The Tsung-li Yamên to His
Excellency Mr. von Brandt, in
reply.
This office has had the honor to receive your excellency’s dispatch of
January 9, last, containing, among other statements, the following:
* * * “My colleagues and myself propose to the Yamên to accept instead of
Trade Rule No. II as read until now, the version annexed herein, which
to my colleagues and myself seems to have the undoubted advantage of
doing away with the ambiguity which your excellencies seem to find in
the expressions used in the original rule. * * * We hope that the Yamên
will see its way to accept this proposal which we substitute for section
II of the former proposal. * * * With regard to the second point, the
treatment on exportation of native produce bought in the port by a
foreigner and exported by him, my colleagues and myself must insist upon
the necessity of giving to the treaty rule that on such produce nothing
but the tariff export duty has to be paid a full and explicit
reassertion in the proposed agreement. * * * On the subject of goods
manufactured out of native produce, my colleagues and myself fail to see
how, by such a process going on at the open ports, the goods so
manufactured paying export duty on exportation, any confusion can arise.
* * * My colleagues and myself would feel exceedingly obliged to your
excellencies for a speedy reply.”
This office finds, in Rule II now proposed by your excellency, in the
list of goods of both native or foreign origin which it is claimed shall
be duty free, the two items, viz: Indian meal* and sago*; whereas it is stated in the export
tariffs of all the treaties that “rice or paddy, wheat, millet, and
other grains” shall pay an export duty of 1 mace for 100 catties; butter
is also claimed to be duty-free in the same list, when the Russian
treaty stipulates that this article shall pay an export duty of 3 mace
per 100 catties. The above articles are therefore not included in the
list of duty-free goods according to the treaties.
The Chinese text of Trade Rule No. 2 reads thus: “* * * foreign clothing,
jewelry, plated ware,” &c. In the form of Rule 2, now submitted, the
items clothing and plated ware are included in the list of goods of
foreign manufacture or origin, while jewelry is included in the list of
both foreign or native manufacture or origin; this difference is not in
harmony with the original purport of the rule.
Then again, the words, “household stores,” and “ship’s stores” are very
comprehensive terms. If the goods included under these designations are
not particularized, all manner of goods may he termed stores and thus
claim exemption from duty, to the great detriment of our revenue.
[Page 265]
The addition of the characters “and articles of this
class” to the item cutlery is also open to the above
objection.
This office proposes to wait till the inspector-general of customs will
have made out a list of the articles used in dock-yards to be considered
ship’s stores, when correspondence can again be had between us to
determine with precision what articles are included in the foregoing
designations.
In regard to the second point, the treaties state in explicit terms that
native produce purchased by foreign merchants shall pay on exportation
no more than the tariff export duty.
It is therefore quite proper that this point be explicitly stated in
reassertion of the spirit of the treaty.
With regard to goods manufactured out of native produce, purchased by
foreign merchants, it is apprehended that irregularities will occur if
the goods are not previously reported at the customs for examination,
while it will be quite simple to proceed with the operation after the
goods have passed the examination. This office forwarded, in a previous
communication, two rules in this connection which clearly explain the
requirements of the situation, and we have still to request your
excellency to give to them your favorable consideration.
Apologizing for the delay in answering your excellency’s communication,
we remain, &c.
Cards and compliments.
