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.,
