The Department has been made fully acquainted with every incident arising out
of the discussions, and it is now my duty to inclose a translation of the
reply of Prince Kung to our joint note.
His imperial highness contends that the text of the treaty, giving foreigners
the right to manufacture, does not bear the construction the foreign powers
place upon it. We have held that under this covenant American citizens can
engage in any lawful industry and enjoy the profits of their labor. His
imperial highness argues that there was no intention on the part of Ms
Government to grant such a privilege. If Americans chose to become mechanics
or laborers, or to perform any kind of work, there was no objection on the
part of the Government. It was never intended, however, that the results of
that work should find a market in China, or even be exported to foreign
markets in competition with Chinese manufacturers.
His imperial highness points out that under existing treaties foreign
manufactures would not be within the control of the Chinese authorities, but
under the provision of exterritoriality would be irresponsible. The
inference is that any manufacturing interest taking root in China, competing
with ancient and long-established forms of industry, and independent of any
authority except that of diplomatic and consular officers, would be a source
of danger to China. The Chinese never contemplated such a contingency when
the treaties were made, and do not assent to it now.
His imperial highness refers to the efforts of an American firm in Shanghai
to establish a cotton yarn manufactory, and explains the reasons why his
Government opposed and destroyed that enterprise: First was the general
objection to foreigners engaging in any manufacturing business; second,
there was a special objection in this, that the proposed American company
was in contravention of a patent or monopoly granted by the throne to a
Chinese company, giving them the exclusive
[Page 188]
right to make cotton cloth in Shanghai for a period of
ten years. His imperial highness contends that as China wishes to encourage
and nourish a new industry by protecting it under the treaties, no foreigner
should be allowed to compete and destroy it. He further claims that the
granting a patent or a monopoly by the throne was a proper use of the
imperial power and as such should be respected by foreign nations.
His imperial highness insists that the imperial Government has been acting in
entire harmony with the spirit of the treaties, and that the foreign powers
have no right to claim from China more than the contracting parties have
nominated in their bond.
The views of the legation upon these subjects have been so fully expressed to
the Department that I shall not trouble you by repeating them. I content
myself, therefore, with submitting the latest argument of the Chinese
Government. From this you will see that we have really made no progress in
coming to a satisfactory understanding. * * *
I do not think that any further steps will be taken by the other
representatives, until the question has been considered by the Governments
they represent.
I do not see how we can with advantage pursue the discussion beyond this
point, until the powers come to an understanding as to how far they will go
to secure their undoubted treaty rights; and I am therefore disposed, so far
as our legation is concerned, to proceed no farther in the matter, but to
submit myself to your guidance as to what the Department feels to be our
rights under the treaties and the best means of securing them.
The general questions discussed in the dispatch of his imperial highness, and
the special incident affecting Mr. Wetmore and his cotton yarn company, the
legation holds to be different and distinct propositions. While I am willing
therefore to let these questions rest in abeyance until the Department in
its wisdom decides what is best to be done, I shall continue to insist to at
whatever maybe the result of our discussions as to the construction of the
treaties, even if we granted every point for which his imperial highness
contends, the treatment of Mr. Wetmore* * * cannot be overlooked in the
interests of that unity and good will which have so long existed between
China and the United States.
To this I shall refer in a subsequent dispatch. In the meantime, trusting
that the course taken and proposed to be taken by the legation will meet
with your approval,
[Inclosure in No.
116.—Translation.]
Foreign office to the
foreign ministers.
Peking, January 22,
1883.
(Kuangsü, Eighth year, Twelfth Moon, Fourteenth
day.)
In the course of the tenth moon of the current year (November, 1882), we
had the honor to receive a joint note from their excellencies the
representatives of the treaty powers residing at Peking, in which three
different points were discussed at length, viz:
1. That the expression “industry” (Chinese, kung
tso) contained in the treaties, referred to the permission of
subjecting native produce to a manufacturing process; 2. That foreign
merchants, on paying the same duties as Chinese merchants, were at
liberty to resell, according to their own pleasure, at the ports, native
produce purchased
[Page 189]
by them; 3.
That certain manufacturing monopolies lately granted, were not in
accordance with Western usages in reference to monopolies.
The general tendency of the joint note, therefore, was to claim for
foreign merchants certain advantages which for more than twenty years
they had not been enjoying, a claim which, if granted, would in reality
cause the livelihood of many hundreds, nay, thousands of Chinese
merchants, a livelihood which they had been enjoying from the very
beginning, to be encroached upon and seriously damaged.
We shall therefore now take the liberty to expound the matter to your
excellencies at length, according to the treaties. The seventh article
of the French, the sixth article of the German, and the eleventh article
of the Belgian treaties grant the right of “living” or “residing,”
“trading,” and “working” “in peace” and “without hindrance.”
These are general expressions. In later paragraphs the special condition
under which houses may be built in order to live in them, under which
goods may be purchased and sold, and under which laborers may be engaged
for working purposes, are explained at more length in separate articles.
If, now, your excellencies say that, as the engagement of workmen is
mentioned in another article, the expression kung
tso must refer to something else, we beg to ask whether in this
case the right of “living,” or “residing,” and “trading,” must likewise
refer to some other matters? This alone suffices already to show that
the expression kung tso cannot be explained as
being identical with “subjecting native produce to a manufacturing
process.” If, further, the Khang-hi dictionary is referred to with
regard to the meaning of the character kung we
find there that it means “skilled in his own works,” and further a
‘mechanic,” or “artificer.” All these explanations evidently refer to
people living by the work of their hands, but they do not refer to
produce wrought into new articles by a manufacturing process. Even the
French word Industrie, which in this passage of
the treaties is the French translation [sic] for
the character kung tso, is explained as meaning
“the skillful execution of some handiwork,” or as meaning “a craft or
handiwork by which somebody gains his livelihood.” The meaning of the
French term, therefore, even in its widest application, does likewise
not clearly imply the act of subjecting native produce to a
manufacturing process. Only by a forced interpretation, therefore, this
meaning can be found in the terms in question or rather imputed to them.
Though further it is stipulated in the French treaty that the original
text shall be decisive for the interpretation [sic], still in the English as well as in the Danish and German
treaties, it is said that the Chinese and English and the Chinese and
German texts, respectively, had been carefully compared and found
congruous. And in the treaty of the Netherlands, as also in the Italian
and Spanish treaties, there are articles according to which the text in
its own language shall be decisive for each party, and “each party shall
consider the text in its own language as the authentic one.” The Chinese
Government under all circumstances must be guided by the Chinese text,
and the meaning of the expressions kung tso and
Industrie, in Chinese as well as in foreign
languages, is clear enough and easy to understand. And herein lies one
proof that this term cannot be adduced as an argument for the claim of
being permitted to carry on manufacturing professions of the kind above
specified. As regards articles of international commerce, nothing is
more minute in all its details than the tariff. Now, native produce may
be purchased by foreign merchants in the interior; it may be exported by
them; it may be carried coastwise by them. Therefore there is a transit
duty; there is an export duty; and there is a coast-trade duty; but the
treaties may be searched everywhere and no “sale-within-port duty” will
be found in them. If therefore it is suddenly maintained at present that
on paying the same duties as Chinese merchants a sale at the ports may
take place, this is an endeavor to augment the stipulations of the
treaties which have been carried out everywhere since many years, by the
introduction of this new practice. To allow this to be done without
further notice is impracticable indeed.
According to the fifth article of the “general rules for the Yangtse,”
further, goods which are not imported have to pay two and a half times
the tariff duty. Also, his excellency Mr. Von Brandt, in his former
negotiations with the yamên, agreed that goods bought under transit
pass, if not exported, should be fined by paying two and a half times
the tariff duty. If, now, permission were granted to manufacture new
articles and to sell goods at the ports, who would henceforth care to
export the original produce? Consequently the duty already agreed to in
principle, equal to two and a half times the tariff duty, would lose the
elementary conditions of its existence. And would not the stipulations
of the treaties be rendered nugatory? Herein, therefore, lies another
proof that, carefully considering and studying the matter in the light
of the tariff, there are likewise the gravest objections against
permitting native produce to be subjected to a manufacturing process. It
must be borne in mind that, when Chinese subjects let “merchants” (but
this term is of wider application in Chinese than in foreign languages)
begin to manufacture articles for sale, the permitting them or
forbidding them to do so depends solely on the decision of the
authorities.
[Page 190]
Now, as foreign
merchants in the open ports of China, and in the interior, are not, in
the same way as Chinese merchants, under the jurisdiction of the Chinese
authorities, it is of course impossible to deal with them in the same
way as with Chinese merchants. When Chinese merchants beg to be allowed
to do something; either permission maybe granted to the one and refused
to the other, or permission may be granted at first and then retracted
merely according to the independent resolves of the Chinese authorities,
without any interference on the part of the Consuls in the Chinese
ports.
Now, as regards the association of Chinese merchants at Shanghai for
manufacturing cotton goods, this is quite a new undertaking for China
[literally, “an undertaking which now for the first time is seen in
China”]. The high provincial authorities, in consideration of the great
efforts made by the members of this association-in trying such a thing
for the first time, have sanctioned the undertaking and reported in this
sense to the throne—and lest dishonorable merchants; [literally,
“merchants having no regard for what is honorable], seeing that others
had successfully commenced something, should try to wrest their lawful
profits from them by competition, the provincial author! ties have
further granted to the association a term of ten years, within which
others should be forbidden to form a similar association by the
competition of which the interests of those who had made the first trial
might be seriously damaged. The action of the Chinese officials in this
case has therefore been based on a careful consideration of the special
circumstances of the matter, and at the same time guided by a desire to
guard against future abuses. How, then, could it be said that the
provincial authorities had thereby usurped rights not belonging to them,
or that they had been guilty of a one-sided partiality?
As regards foreign merchants, their profits from import and export trade,
in conformity with the last twenty-odd years have been considerable
enough; why, therefore, should they now again be permitted to compete
with those Chinese merchants who, by way of experiment, have formed an
association? And how further can it at alt be permitted on Chinese
territory, the regulations on native produce not having been at all
convened and put into practice to manufacture other articles out of
cotton thread, raw silk and the like, for the purpose of selling? And
herein lies another proof that, on considering, and carefully, the
matter from the standpoint of Chinese commercial interests, there are
likewise the strongest objections against permitting foreign merchants
to subject native produce to a manufacturing process.
To resume, those things that are unmistakably pointed out in the treaties
have already for a long time since been every where put into practice,
but as regards those things that are not pointed but in the treaties
with unmistakable clearness, they cart; only be made a subject of mutual
deliberation, after it has been proved that they are not detrimental to
either party. The former negotiations of his excellency Sir Thomas Wade,
when he agreed to the lekin tariff duty on
foreign merchandise being simultaneously levied, had already led to a
mutual understanding, and though on account of the opposition on the
part of foreign merchants the matter has come to a standstill, yet
difference of opinion there is none with regard to it. The negotiations
of his excellency Mr. Von Brandt on native produce have likewise been
successful with regard to the main points; only in the matter of the
fabrication of hew articles by a manufacturing process the treaties
obtain ho express stipulation permitting such a thing to be done; the
vital interests of the Chinese merchants are affected thereby; we have
reiteratedly conferred on this point with their excellencies the
superintendents of trade for the northern and southern ports, and with
the high provincial authorities of the Empire, and they say with one
voice that this can by no means be conceded. Therefore, after the most
mature and frequently repeated consideration, our yamên has come to the
conclusion that it is really quite impracticable to agree to it.
Their excellencies the representatives of the treaty powers are all of
them intuitively acquainted with the spirit of the treaties; they know
perfectly well that it is the right and duty of all Governments to
protect the commercial interests of their subjects. On the other hand,
in all matters brought before us by any one of the foreign
representatives, our yamên has always been animated by a desire to act
in a manner consistent with the existing friendly relations: that is to
say, mutual regard for each other’s interests and a wish to uphold
amicable intercourse, have always been the bases of our action. But if
things which are utterly unfeasible shall be forced upon our acceptance,
we think that not only the Chinese Government is not in a position to
negotiate on such measures, but, generally speaking, no country in the
world can justly force a friendly power to disregard the commercial
interests of its own subjects; and even if a question of this kind were
submitted to the Government of the country specially concerned, or to
the Governments of other countries, we are convinced that they would
judge of it in a spirit of equity.
We beg all their excellencies, the representatives of the treaty powers,
to consider our above remarks maturely and with impartial minds.
The Prince of Kung and the Ministers of the Tsung-li Yamên.
