No. 64.
Mr. Hubbard to Mr. Bayard.
Legation of the United States,
Tokio, December 28, 1887. (Received January
21, 1888.)
No. 417.]
Sir: Respectfully referring to my
dispatch No. 383, in which I had the honor to inclose a copy of
a note from the Japanese minister for foreign affairs in reply
to my note to him transmitting a copy of your circular
instruction of July 9, and accompanying inclosures, with an
invitation to His Imperial Japanese Majesty’s Government to
enter into an arrangement with the United States Government for
a mutual abolition or reduction of tonnage dues, etc., on
vessels plying between the ports of our respective countries, I
now have the honor to submit to the Department of State a copy
of a note just received from Count Ito on the same subject.
[Page 1939]
The accompanying note is in reply to a communication from me in
which I inclosed a copy of your instruction No. 164, expressing
regret at the action of the Japanese Government in declining to
enter into said arrangement or convention as desired by the
United States Government. The reply of Count Ito explains
itself, and I only have the honor to respectfully invite your
attention to his communication and especially to the closing
paragraph of his note.
I have merely acknowledged the receipt of this reply, informing
the Japanese Government that I would refer the same and the
accompanying inquiry to my Government for its early
consideration. I have also assured the minister for foreign
affairs that a response thereto would be made, and might be
anticipated, in accordance with that spirit of justice and good
neighborhood which has always been manifested by our laws as
well as by our treaties with all friendly powers.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure in No.
417–Translation.]
Count Ito to Mr. Hubbard.
Department for Foreign
Affairs,
Tokio, the 24th day, the 12th month, the
20th year of
Meiji.
Sir: I have the honor to
acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s note elated the
9th instant, transmitting a copy of a communication from the
honorable the Secretary of State, in which he expresses
regret at the nonacceptance by His Imperial Japanese
Majesty’s Governmentof the invitation of the United States
to enter into a convention for the abolition of tonnage or
other equivalent charges on merchant vessels plying between
Japan and the United States.
The nature of Mr. Bayard’s reply leads me to believe that he
has slightly misapprehended the exact meaning of my former
note on this subject.
You will recollect that Mr. Bayard, in his instruction of the
9th July last, a copy of which you forwarded to Count
Inouye, intimated that the shipping acts under which his
invitation was extended were sufficiently comprehensive to
cover either a reduction or a complete abolition of tonnage
and equivalent charges, and in the same connection ho added,
“It is open to any foreign country in all or any of whose
ports a less charge is made than that now imposed in the
ports of the United States to obtain forthwith a reduction
in the United States on vessels from such port or ports to
an equality with that levied in the port or ports
designated.”
In replying to the invitation of the Government of the United
States, I pointed out the reasons which prevented His
Imperial Japanese Majesty’s Government from entering into an
arrangement having for its object the complete extinction of
all customs charges in respect of merchant shipping. In
order, however, that vessels proceeding from Japan to the
United States might, to a limited extent at least, take
advantage of the acts in question, I took occasion to assure
you that no tonnage dues were levied in the ports of Japan
on vessels of the United States, and that such vessels were,
in the matter of fees, placed upon a national as well as the
most favored nation footing.
The exemption of vessels of the United States from tonnage
dues is already a matter of conventional understanding
between our respective Governments, as will be seen by
reference to article 6 of the trade regulations attached to
the treaty of 1858. It was consequently more particularly in
the direction of equivalent or other shipping charges that
His Imperial Japanese Majesty’s Government were unable to
accept the proposal of the United States.
Having in view the fact, however, that those charges are
considerably less than the tonnage dues ordinarily imposed
in the United States, I beg to inquire what the future
status of Japanese and other vessels proceeding thither will
be in respect of navigation charges.
I avail, etc.,
