No. 203.
Mr. Denby
to Mr. Bayard.
[Extract.]
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, April 27, 1888.
(Received June 4.)
No. 633.]
Sir: I had the honor, in my dispatch No. 593 of
March 19, to report-that the lekin question in Formosa was in train of
satisfactory settlement. Subsequently the Tsung-li Yamên repudiated the
interpretation placed on their alleged agreement with the foreign ministers.
The Yamên has finally determined to insist on the collection of lekin at a
point between Taiwanfu and Anping.
This construction of the treaties can not be submitted to. Taiwanfu is the
treaty port. It is about 3 miles from Anping. Anping is to all intents and
purposes the port of the treaty port. Ships can not go to Taiwanfu. If lekin
be collected on goods sent from Taiwanfu to Anping for shipment, Taiwanfu
ceases to be a treaty port.
While it is conceded that the Chinese authorities have the right to collect
lekin, it is insisted that they can not collect it at a treaty port, nor
while goods are in transit from a treaty port to a neighboring port of
shipment. Such construction would authorize lekin to be collected on goods
in the hands of foreigners between Shanghai and Woosung, between Canton and
Whampoa, between Tientsin and Taku, between Foochow and the Pagoda
Anchorage, between the island of Kulangsu and the town of Amoy; in fact,
between many cities and the actual place of shipment.
While it is agreed that, owing to the peculiar geographical situation of
Taiwanfu, it will be inconvenient for the Chinese authorities to collect
[Page 298]
lekin elsewhere than at the lekin
station, Si Lei, halfway between Taiwanfu and Anping, still it is claimed
with confidence that foreign merchants have no concern with this
inconvenience. It is the business of the local authorities to collect this
internal tax the best they can, but they can not violate the treaties, which
prohibit its collection at a treaty port. When goods once reach Taiwanfu and
are bought by a foreign merchant the right to collect lekin ceases. If
afterwards, while the goods are being transported to the actual place of
shipment—only 3 miles away—lekin may be collected, evidently the treaty port
is to this extent abolished.
Under these conditions it was unanimously agreed by the foreign ministers
that communications of which copies are herewith inclosed should be sent as
identic notes to the Yamên. The Yaniên is therein notified that instructions
have been sent to the various consuls to protest against the levy of lekin
at Taiwanfu or at any point between that place and Anping, and that
reclamations will be made for any taxes illegally collected.
I shall report more in extenso on this question after
my visit to Formosa.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosare 1 in No. 633.]
Foreign Ministers to
Foreign Office.
Your Highness: At the meeting which took place
on the 25th instant between the representatives of Germany, Great
Britain, and the French Republic, on the one side and some of the
ministers of the Tsung-li Yamên on the other, their excellencies the
Chinese ministers contended that under the treaty of Nanking only the
ports were opened and not the towns, and that therefore Chinese produce
bought at the towns mentioned in that and other treaties was subject to
the payment of inland dues on being brought to the port for
shipment.
The terms used in Article II of the treaty of Nanking to designate the
places opened for foreign trade are cities and
towns, and no discrimination is made with regard to ports.
The Anglo-Chinese treaty of 1858 uses in Article XI the terms of cities
and ports for New-chwang, Tang chow, Tainan Chao chow, and Kuing chow;
the Franco-Chinese treaty of the same year uses in Article VI indeed
only the term of ports, but even if there could
be any doubt as to the signification of this expression it is in Article
VII. explained by the use of the words ports et
villes at which French merchants are given the right to trade;
in Article VII of the Franco-Chinese treaty of 1860 the town and port
(la ville et le port) of Tientsin are expressly mentioned as opened to
French trade under the same conditions as all the other towns and ports
mentioned in the treaties; the American-Chinese treaty of 1858 uses the
term of ports and cities at which American
citizens are allowed to trade; the German-Chinese treaty of 1861 uses
the term of ports et villes at which German
subjects can freely trade, and the same expression is used in the
Belgian-Chinese treaty of 1865, Article XI. In the other treaties the
expressions ports and towns are used
alternatively, so that no doubt can exist that everywhere the
expressions used are intended to designate the administrative unity
usually called a town, and not a part of it, which might be called the
harbor or port of the town.
In all the treaties above mentioned concluded since 1858 the foreign text
is declared to be the one which in case of difference of opinion is to
be held as the correct one.
The undersigned representatives of the German Empire, the United States,
Japan, Great Britain, Spain, Russia, the French Republic, and Belgium,
must therefore protest most strongly against any attempt on the part of
the members of the Tsung-li Yamên or other high Chinese officials to
reduce the right of foreign merchants to reside and trade at the towns
open under treaty to the one of residing and trading in
[Page 299]
that port of the towns mentioned in the
treaties which may have been set aside for shipping purposes.
No foreign settlements having existed at the time of the conclusion of
the treaties, it is self-evident that they can not have been meant by
the use of the terms towns or ports. The further attempt of the members
of the Tsung-li Yamên, made at the conference above referred to, to
deduce from section 3, Article I, of the Chefoo convention that, because
in that arrangement it was proposed that only within the foreign
concessions no lekin was to be levied on foreign imports, lekin might be
levied on Chinese produce without the foreign concessions at the places
open to foreign trade under the treaties, can hardly be looked upon as a
serious one, as section 3 of the Chefoo convention has as yet been
neither ratified by Her Britannic Majesty’s Government nor approved by
any of the governments of the other treaty powers.
The undersigned avail, etc.,
- M. von
Brandt,
German
Minister.
- Charles
Denby,
United
States Minister.
- Shioda
Saruro,
Japanese
Minister.
- John
Walsham,
British
Minister.
- Tiburcio Rodriguez y
Munoz,
Spanish
Minister.
- A.
Coumany,
Russian
Minister.
- G.
Lemaire,
French
Minister.
- Ch.
Michel,
Chargé
d’Affaires, for Belgium.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 633.]
Foreign Ministers to
Foreign Office.
The undersigned representatives of the German Empire, the United States,
Japan, Great Britain, Spain, Russia, the French Republic, and Belgium,
have the honor to inform His Highness Prince Ch’ing and their
excellencies the ministers of the Tsung-li Yamên that their long and
patient endeavors to obtain from the Tsung-li Yamên a prohibition of the
illegal practice arbitrarily introduced by the provincial authorities of
Formosa with regard to the levy of lekin, or other inland dues within
the town of Taiwanfu opened to commerce by the treaty of 1858 and
subsequent ones, or between Tainaufu and Anping, as well as with regard
to the trade in camphor regulated by the joint arrangement of 1869,
having proved fruitless, they have sent the following instructions to
Taiwanfu to serve as guidance to their respective officials and
merchants established there.
In view of the attempts made by the provincial authorities at Tainan Fu,
to levy lekin or other inland dues on Chinese produce, the property of
foreign merchants, and purchased by them within the town of Taiwanfu
either within that place, or during the transport of the said produce
from Taiwanfu, to the place of shipping at Anping, you are hereby
instructed to protest again against, such arbitrary and illegal
proceedings, and to inform the Chinese authorities that they will be
held responsible for any loss or losses arising to foreign merchants
from the interference of the Chinese authorities in the manner above
stated. You will at the same time inform the foreign merchants that
under the treaties they are not bound to pay lekin or transit duty on
Chinese produce their property bought at Taiwanfu, either while at that
place or during the transport from there to the place of shipping at
Anping, and that any just claims for damages arising from the illegal
and arbitrary interference of the Chinese authorities will be
immediately presented to the Chinese Government.
“With regard to the re-establishment of the camphor monopoly in Formosa
you will inform the Chinese authorities and foreign merchants that, the
joint agreement of 1869 abolishing the camphor monopoly and regulating
the manner in which the trade in camphor was to be carried on by
foreigners being still in force, any interference with the legitimate
trade of foreign merchants in this community would authorize claim for
compensation, which will be immediately presented to the Chinese
Government.
[Page 300]
“You will also inform the local authorities that should the interests of
foreign merchants suffer, directly or indirectly, through the illegal
interference by the Chinese authorities, the Chinese Government will be
held responsible for such losses.”
- M. von
Brandt, German
Minister.
- Charles
Denby, United States
Minister.
- Shioda
Saburo, Japanese
Minister.
- John
Walsham, British
Minister.
- Tiburcio Rodriquez y
Munoz, Spanish
Minister.
- A. Coumany,
Russian Minister.
- G. Lemaire,
French Minister.
- Ch. Michel,
Chargé d’Affaires for
Belgium.
