No. 731.
Mr. Hubbard to Mr. Bayard.
[Extract.]
Legation of
the United States,
Tokio,
Japan
,
October 10, 1887. (Received
November 2.)
No. 394]
Sir: I beg to respectfully call your attention and
careful reading of the inclosed leading editorial which I have taken from
the August number, 1887, of The Australasian and South American, a
representative commercial journal and of marked influence in diplomatic and
consular circles (and “devoted to the extension of commerce between the
United States and Canada and Australasia, South Africa, South America and
India, China and Japan, etc.”), under the head of “Our trade with China and
Japan.” While the present status of that trade is in the main correctly
stated, yet it is due to truth and candor to say that the writer of the
article misleads, unintentionally, no doubt, as to matters of fact, when
speaking of our volume of trade with these countries that—
We are unmeasurably distanced alike by Germany and Great Britain,
both of which countries look upon China and Japan as the most
important fields for the development of their vast foreign
commerce.
The statistics of the customs annual return for 1886 show, to use round
numbers, that the aggregate export and import trade between the United
States and Japan was over twenty-three millions of yen as against twenty-one
millions between Great Britain and her colonies and Japan, and three
millions between Germany and Japan, facts which I had the honor in my
dispatch No. 346 to the Department of State to present fully by figures and
tables in connection with a review of the annual trade of Japan with all
countries for 1886.
It is true Great Britain’s exports to Japan are largely in excess of the
exports from the United States to this country, but the gratifying fact was
made manifest in the trade returns for 1886 that the American export trade
had increased during that year over 1885 nearly a million dollars in value.
As to Germany, the entire sum total of her exports and imports is less than
four millions, nearly twenty millions less than that of the United States
with Japan. As to the other obstacles and disadvantages to our more enlarged
commercial progress in this country, mentioned by the writer of the article
inclosed, they are stated with force and fact, and deserve to be earnestly
studied and heeded by our countrymen who propose extending our trade in the
East with steady steps against all competitors. The hopeful horoscope cast
by the same intelligent writer for the future of our trade relations in
Japan and China, is not without sound support in reason.
I have, etc.,
[Page 1060]
[Inclosure in No. 394.]
our trade with china and japan.
The past few years have witnessed a very material increase in our trade
with China and Japan, and present indications would appear to promise
that within a reasonable time our commerce with both countries may
attain something near the value it ought to possess. The most important
feature of the increased trade returns, however, is to be found in the
character of our exports to these markets, their variety having been
extended in a manner that is particularly gratifying as affording the
best proof of the growing extent to which the people of China and Japan
are becoming familiar with our productions.
After all, however, when we come to compare the volume of our business
with the value of the trade other nations enjoy with China and Japan, we
have but little cause for satisfaction. We are unmeasurably distanced
alike by Germany and Great Britain, both of which countries look upon
China and Japan as among the most important fields for the development
of their vast foreign commerce. There are two principal causes for the
backward state of our trade with China and Japan, and we may profitably
devote a little space to their consideration.
In the first place, we find the same obstacle to our commercial progress
in these countries that we have so often called attention to in speaking
of our trade with other markets, viz, far too little attention is
bestowed on the introduction of our goods, which are almost expected to
sell themselves. In nearly any part of the world, except in China and
Japan, we might look for business growing out of the opportunities
offered buyers by means of trade, literature, advertising, etc. There is
little to be done in either of the above countries through such factors.
Chinese and Japanese merchants are notoriously keen buyers; they not
only want to know the lowest prices and discounts obtainable on any line
of goods, the best terms of credit, etc., obtainable, but in nine cases
out of ten they want to satisfy themselves, by personal inspection, of
the character of the articles they are purchasing. This is only natural.
Their customers, for the most part, cherish deep-rooted preferences for
certain forms, patterns, and styles in goods of their own or foreign
manufacture, and they will not tolerate any deviation from the often
arbitrary standard they have established. It is only the native buyer
who thoroughly understands what is needed for the market he supplies,
and his orders, as received” by the resident representative of the
foreign manufacturer or merchant, must be minutely observed.
Comparatively few American houses have taken the trouble to establish
direct commercial relations with China or Japan through firms located in
these countries, and the consequence is that their facilities for
meeting the requirements of the market are inadequately realized, even
by those who would willingly patronize American productions. England,
Germany, and France are represented at the principal ports of entry by
numerous mercantile houses and secure in consequence the bulk of a
profitable and rapidly increasing trade.
The second disadvantage under which we labor in the development of our
trade with both China and Japan is the lack of active support our
merchants receive from the agents of our Government in these countries.
England and Germany have made it their business to adopt every possible
means to secure the personal favor and good’ will of Chinese and
Japanese officials, and their rivalry in this direction leads them to
discredit the efforts of other nations to obtain a footing in these
markets. Agents of these Governments resort to every practice in their
power, honest and otherwise, to decry competing influences and
competition, even to the extent of belittling the business methods and
progressive tendencies of the Chinese and Japanese merchants, and the
various journals they control render them valuable assistance in this
course. The effect of their action on the foreign commercial and
diplomatic relations of both countries is in a high degree detrimental
to their advancement, and is plainly proven by the extraordinary favors
shown to this or the other nation, according to the influence its
representatives are able to exercise in official circles. As an
instance, we may refer to the large orders the Japanese Government has
recently placed for steel rails in Europe. Half the contract has gone to
English firms at £4 11s.; the other half has been taken by Germans, not
at £4 11s., but at £5 6s. The rails are to be delivered free on board in
London and Antwerp respectively. The difference of 15s. per ton
represents in this case, says a writer in Iron, a free gift of about
£10,000, presented by the Japanese Government to the German
manufacturers. Of the motives for this gift, whether gratitude for
favors past or to come, the English journal naturally knows nothing, but
remarks: “British manufacturers can not be blamed for failing to secure
business, in the face of favoritism.” It adds, somewhat ill-naturedly:
“A conviction is fast spreading abroad that the Japanese Government and
people are so fickle in their friendship and so unreliable in their
commercial dealings that they are not worth taking the trouble to
please.”
It is gratifying to American independence to know that what trade we
enjoy with China and Japan has been built up entirely on the merits of
our productions, and is [Page 1061] not
likely to be jeopardized by misrepresentations or such special pleadings
as government agents are able to offer. In Japan, especially, the course
adopted by our minister has created an excellent feeling in our favor in
commercial circles, the most influential papers commenting frequently on
the desirability of closer mercantile relations between Japan and the
United States. In China much the same feeling prevails, except that the
effect of our restrictive legislation against Chinese immigration and
the bad treatment Chinese subjects have received in some parts of the
country still weigh against us. That these adverse influences, provided
their cause is not renewed, will ultimately disappear there is little
room to doubt, and, with the progressive tendencies both China and Japan
are at present exhibiting, American commercial enterprise, exerted in
the right direction, is certain to develop the many and profitable
opportunities for trade that these important markets afford.
