No. 91.
Mr. Cheng Tsao
Ju to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Chinese
Legation,
Washington, October 2, 1883.
(Received October 2.)
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that I have
received a dispatch from the Tsung-li yamên on the subject of changing
the nature of native produce by process of manufacture, in substance as
follows:
We have received collective communications from the
representatives of all the treaty powers accredited to the court
of Peking, having reference to the two characters kung tso contained in certain of the
treaties from which the foreign representatives claimed the
rights of changing the nature of native produce by process of
manufacture, and so forth.
[Page 216]
The treaties, commercial and other, made between China and the
treaty powers, set forth clearly in their stipulations the
measures regulating foreign imports as well as native exports.
With reference to the point of changing the nature of native
produce by process of manufacture, if such were really the
object the foreign representatives lad in view when the treaty
was made, stipulation in relation to it should then have been
distinctly made, and it would not have been necessary to wait
until to-day to open a discussion.
The two characters kung tso mean
employment of labor only, and do not imply changing the nature
of native produce by process of manufacture. Even in the French
version it does not signify clearly anything like changing the
nature of native produce by process of manufacture.
Moreover, whenever a treaty is being made, its definitions must
be mutually discussed and understood by the two powers before it
could be put down in the treaty for execution. Now, China cannot
trace anything in the treaties relative to changing the nature
of native produce by process of manufacture. If the
representatives of the treaty powers desire to develop an
interest in behalf of foreign merchants, which they have never
before claimed as conceded to them in the treaties, though they
have been in existence for more than twenty years, how can the
authorities of China fail to protect the means of livelihood for
millions of families? The treaty powers will doubtless see how
difficult it is for China to yield their request in
consideration of the duty imposed upon her authorities for
protecting the interests of the people.
With reference to the case of an American merchant establishing a
company in Shanghai for spinning threads, we are informed that
he used cotton alone, which with silk is one of the principal
articles of China’s export in which the livelihood of the
Chinese people is concerned. If foreign merchants were permitted
to make use of these materials in manufacturing silk and cotton
goods with machinery in the treaty ports, it would not only
occasion a loss to the revenue of the Empire, but those engaged
in the business would be stripped of their permanent
occupations. As the treaties do not contain explicitly such a
concession, it is impossible for China to comply with such
request. This is one of those instances relative to changing the
nature of native produce by process of manufacture.
We request you, Mr. Minister, to explain the above facts clearly
to the Secretary of State of the United States of America,
&c.
In receipt of the above communication I deem it necessary to embody its
tenor in a dispatch to yon, Mr. Secretary, with the hope that you will
give an impartial and a fair judgment to the matter, and communicate the
same to the United States minister in Peking, so that the two nations
may feel for each other a spirit of reciprocal and sincere
friendship.
I also inclose an additional memorandum to which I respectfully call your
attention.
I am requested by my Government to ask the views of your excellency upon
the subject herein presented at your earliest convenience.
Accept, &c.,
[Inclosure.—Translation.]
Memorandum from the Tsung-li yamên.
In the treaties from the first till now, made between China and the
treaty powers, there exists no express provision giving the foreign
merchants residing in the treaty ports the right to change the
nature of native produce by process of manufacture, the product to
be for sale. Even the foreign representatives have never claimed
this right in discussion until on the twelfth day of the sixth month
of the seventh year of Kwang Sü (1881), the German minister, Mr. Von
Brandt, sent to the Tsung-li yamên a proposed draft of regulations
in Chinese relating to transit dues, &c., of native produce
bought by foreign merchants. He then introduced the subject of
foreign merchants having the right to change the nature of native
produce by process of manufacture. This shows evidently that this
subject introduced by Mr. Von Brandt was new and that China has
never made such a concession. At the close of the proposed draft
there appears a sentence made by him which says, “Let the proposed
scheme be put to a temporary trial for a period of four years.” The
use of the words “a temporary trial” renders it obvious that such
right has never been conceded.
On the twenty-sixth day of the Intercalary, seventh month of the
seventh year of
[Page 217]
Kwang Sü
(1881), Mr. Von Brandt addressed to the Tsung-li yamên a
communication in Chinese, stating that in the seventh article of the
French treaty, sixth article of the German treaty, eleventh article
of the Belgian treaty, and eighth article of the Austrian treaty,
there is an explicit provision that the foreign merchants have the
right to carry on their kung tso in the
treaty ports without interference, and argued that in those
treaties, there is no provision describing to the foreign merchants
certain kinds of native produce which they can change the nature of
by process of manufacture, and certain kinds which they cannot so
change, &c. Now, if in the treaties there is no explicit
provision giving to the foreign merchants the right to change the
nature of native produce by process of manufacture, there is no need
to designate the kinds of native produce which the foreign merchants
can change by process of manufacture. If such concession has never
been made, it is not in harmony with the fair spirit of the treaty
to attempt to enforce the concession by an argument without
evidence. If the two characters kung tso
contained in the French, German, Belgian, and Austrian treaties show
that the foreign merchants have the right to change the nature of
native produce by process of manufacture, these two characters kung tso then become very important words.
Apart from these four treaties, those made between China and other
powers do not contain them.
According to our regulations for trade there are only three classes
of duties, namely, the import duty on foreign goods, the export duty
on native goods, and the duty on native goods shipped from one port
to another. If such right had been conceded to the foreign merchants
to change the nature of native produce by process of manufacture at
the time when the treaties were made, why should the tariff
regulations not contain the specification as to the amount of duty
levied on native produce which has undergone the process of
manufacture?
In the regulations, instituted in 1866, relating to native produce
repacked, Article II provides that unauthorized or clandestine
reopening of packages or repacking of native produce for export will
entail the forfeit of the coast trade duty deposited, and will
subject the goods concerned to the payment of full export duty on
shipment.
Article III states that changes affecting the nature or quality of
merchandise, whether effected by the substitution or introduction of
other goods * * * for shipment as consisting of goods arrived, will
entail on all the goods the penalty of confiscation. Now, if such a
thing as unauthorized or clandestine reopening of packages or
repacking of native produce, which entails penalty or confiscation,
is so minutely described, how could a grave matter like giving to
foreign merchants the right to change the nature of native produce
by process of manufacture be conceded without being explicitly
mentioned in the treaties?
