Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 3, 1901

Mr. Buck to Mr. Hay.

United States Legation,
Tokyo, April 7, 1900.

No. 417.]

Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith copies of a communication^a and a memorandum^a received from Mr. John Lindsley and Rev. E. S. Booth, claiming to act under instructions of the executive committee of the American Asiatic Society of Yokohama, in which they set out at length many reasons for complaint that the Japanese Government have failed to protect American perpetual leaseholders of property in the former foreign settlements in that port in their rights guaranteed by treaty. Their numerous complaints may be summarized in genera] as follows:

1. That leases in perpetuity held by Americans in the foreign settlements have not been fully confirmed by the Japanese Government as stipulated by treaty, but rather avoided instead by requiring their registration as superficies (perpetual leases).

2. That in requiring their leases of land to be registered at the kencho (prefectural office) and the buildings thereon at the saibansho (local court), and the charge of 2½ per cent of value of buildings on registration of a transfer of titles to such buildings, are in conflict with treaty provisions.

3. That the tax now levied or any tax to be levied by the Japanese authorities on the buildings upon the land held under perpetual leases is a violation of treaty stipulations, properly construed; and that the method employed in estimating the value of buildings for taxation and the taxes so levied are unjust, and with other taxes are a hardship.

4. That in consequence of long tenure and use of their lands and buildings under extraterritorial jurisdiction, not taxed and not disturbed by the Japanese Government or the local authorities, prescriptive rights have been acquired and now the Japanese Government, on assuming jurisdiction over their property, should be estopped from enforcing her tax laws upon the building as well as upon the lands.

5. That in consequence of the failure of the Japanese Government to comply with treaty obligations in respect of their property rights, their holdings have depreciated in market value, and transactions in selling or mortgaging property are paralyzed.

1. In respect of the first ground of complaint, as summarized above, I have the honor to refer to my previous dispatches upon that subject—No. 364 of October 4 and No. 392 of December 29, 1899; also No. 394 of January 12 and No. 398 of February 5, last, and inclosures; also to the inclosed copy of a note of the minister of foreign affairs to the minister of France; also the inclosed cuttings^a from most of the newspapers published by foreigners in Yokohama and the leading newspaper of Kobe, which in respect to this matter are supposed to voice to a large degree the prevailing opinion of foreign residents in those cities, though not to be taken as evidence in coming to a conclusion on the merits of the case, and all except the Herald regard the course taken by the Government as substantially complying with treaty provisions, to wit: the Japan Weekly Mail of February 3 and 17, last (the latter a republication from the Daily Mail of February 12 and 14); the Daily Mail of the 2d and 5th ultimo; the Japan Daily Herald of February 5 and 12, last; the Daily Advertiser of the 1st ultimo, all published in Yokohama, and the Kobe Chronicle of the 5th ultimo.

In this connection I also respectfully refer in particular to “Regulations relating to foreigners in Japan,” a copy of which accompanied my dispatch No. 338 of July 29, last, under the head of “Registry of immovables” (imperial ordinances Nos. 329 and 333 of July 7, last), in which is prescribed the books of registry of land and other immovables; and with the same dispatch a “Notification of the department of justice (No. 41 of July 10, last) respecting registration; also the authority for the issuance of imperial ordinance No. 458, found in law No. 71 of March 18, 1899, which reads as follows:

With respect to the acquisition, loss, or transfer of property rights in immovables and ships, made by aliens or foreign legal persons before the operation of the revised treaties, the cases in which the registration of the said rights is necessary and the process of registration may be specially determined by imperial ordinance.

Also copies of pages^a of the register books of Yokohama; also copies of two reports, Nos. 1822 and 1829, from George H. Scidmore, esq., deputy consul-general at Yokohama, made on my request. (Mr. Scidmore is a member of the executive committee of the American Asiatic Society, with Mr. Lindsley and Mr. Booth, who present these complaints. Mr. Scidmore is regarded a good lawyer. He has been in the consular service in Yokohama since May, 1876, as consular clerk and then deputy consul-general, and has a good knowledge in respect to what he reports.)

Since the Japanese Government itself executed the leases and, so long as such leases should be held by foreigners, guaranteed their perpetuity, and in case such leases should be transferred to Japanese subjects (imperial ordinance 333 with dispatch 338) they are to acquire actual ownership—which latter fact may be taken as additional evidence of the recognition on the part of the Government of their perpetuity—and since actual ownership is now vested in the Government, it would seem that, so long as such leases were held by foreigners, no one but the Government itself could question the rights guaranteed by it, independent of the fact of treaty stipulations to hold inviolate and confirm all rights guaranteed by the terms of such lease.

Hence, in consideration of imperial ordinance 458 and the interpretation put upon it by the Japanese Government, as given by the minister of foreign affairs, together with the ordinances and regulations above cited, also the facts and opinions presented in inclosures herewith, have or have not leases held in perpetuity been confirmed as required by treaty?

Can rights under leases held in perpetuity, entered in the register provided for the registration of superficies, and entered as “superficies (perpetual leases”) be impaired by that method incident to registration, when the Government, the party of the first part, has guaranteed the rights specified in the leases and has declared by imperial ordinance that method of registration and has interpreted it to mean full compliance with treaty provisions in respect of such leases? If they are to be so impaired, the claimants are right in their contention.

What force there may be in the claim that by the expiration of the present treaty the Government or any individual who may possibly at that time Wave acquired the ownership of land held under perpetual lease will interpose in any way, so far as to work a denial of any right solemnly guaranteed by the Government in the leases themselves, seems to be speculative.

2. Concerning the second cause of complaint, the “notification (No. 41) of the department of justice” in Article II (with my dispatch No. 338 of July 29 last), in carrying out the law of registration in respect of land and buildings being separate and distinct kinds of property to be separately registered, applying to foreigners and Japanese alike, provides that “The local court shall prepare land registers relating to foreigners and foreign juridical persons and registers of buildings relating to the rights of foreigners and foreign juridical persons.”

It is claimed that the buildings, equally with the lands, are included in the word “property” in the provision of Article XVII of the treaty with the United States providing for the confirmation of existing leases; that any transfer of a perpetual lease of the land in conformity with the laws in the United States and in other countries carries with it all buildings upon it as a matter of course, as is clearly to be understood by a proper construction of treaty provisions. That the requirement in case of transfer of property, that the land and buildings are to be registered separately and in separate offices, will cause much inconvenience and vexation to foreign leaseholders I have no doubt; but the question arises whether Japanese or foreign laws should control in this respect. I think all foreigners object and naturally to this requirement as a hardship and an annoyance apart from any charge for registering a transfer of buildings. (See Scidmore’s statement No. 1822, above referred to, paragraph 8.) But in event that objection should be removed and land and buildings were included in one instrument of transfer and entered at one office in the same register, and the charge of 2½ per cent on value of buildings as now required to be paid should still be imposed, the most important cause of complaint would still exist, because the chief contention is that the buildings should equally be exempt from any form of taxation as the lands.

3. This leads to the third matter of complaint: That any tax whatever, whether the charge of 2½ per cent of value of buildings on transfer of lease, or any other public charge or tax on buildings for municipal purposes, is inadmissible under the treaty, and business and other taxes to be levied are cumulative and a hardship.

To fully understand what basis there is for such contention in respect to “house tax,” I beg to refer to the inclosed copy of the “Land regulations for the port of Yokohama,” the only regulations for foreign settlements not contained in the book of “Treaties and conventions of Japan,” which book is presumed to be in the library of the State Department; also copies of two titles of perpetual leases^a of property in Yokohama. (Forms of such leases at other ports are to be found in the book of “Treaties, etc.”)

It will be observed that the regulations of the several foreign settlements vary in terms, as also do the conditions set out in the forms of perpetual leases. In Yokohama and Nagasaki failure to comply with the conditions of annual payment of rent, etc., forfeits the land, and in addition the buildings thereon; while in Tokyo, Kobe, and Osaka, in case of failure of the annual payment of rent, proceedings are to be instituted against the leaseholder. Since in Yokohama and Nagasaki the leaseholders were required by regulations to erect buildings, and in case of default in the annual payment of rent they were to forfeit their leases and their properties, including buildings, were to revert to the Government, which fact is argued to be an additional reason to claim that the buildings are a part of the property and should, under the treaty, be exempt from taxation as well as is the land, may it not be to some degree reasonable and as fair, perhaps, to suppose that this provision was made because, under Japanese law, the land and buildings are distinct and separate properties, and the disposition of the land without specification as to the buildings does not include the buildings? And the buildings, being the absolute properties of leaseholders while the lands are not, may it not be inferred that the Japanese Government provided that on reentering into possession of the land the buildings thereupon should also revert as a penalty for the nonperformance of contracts by the leaseholders?

How much force should be given to the contention that since, in Article XVII of the treaty with the United States, the word “property “is used as applying to leases held by foreigners in perpetuity and the word “land” as applying to grants in perpetuity for public purposes, “reveals the fact in the one case that land and something attached to it was meant” and land only in the other, would seem to depend upon the intention of the high contracting parties to the treaty and the interpretation the two Governments may now put upon the text of that article.

It is contended that under articles 86, 87, and 242 of the civil code,^a copied in full on page 18 of the memorandum under discussion, buildings are accessory to the land. Hence, under Japanese law as well as treaty stipulations, a transfer of a lease held in perpetuity necessarily, unless stipulated to the contrary, carries with it a transfer of the buildings, and for that reason no separate registration nor any charge therefor should be imposed upon them as separate and distinct properties. As to whether such argument is sound, as it would be under the laws of the United States perhaps, the opinions of some Japanese authorities will throw some light.

Interpreting article 87 of the civil code, Dr. Umé, professor of law in the Imperial University of Tokyo, and member of the code investgation committee, states: “An accessory has two necessary requisites, according to this article (87): 1. It must be for the constant use of its principal thing, as a key to a box or a bucket to a well. A thing used for a time is not an accessory, as a table or chair, to a house. 2. An accessory must be owned by the owner of the principal thing; that is to say, the owner of the two must be the same, else the accessory can not follow the disposal of the thing to which it is attached. This article of course shows the general rule that an accessory follows the principal thing. If there should be any contract or promise to the contrary, such contract or promise must be followed.”

Also the opinion of Mr. Okamatsu, lecturer on the civil code at the Tokyo Law School, the Meiji Law School, the Semmon Gakko, etc.: “To be an accessory a thing must fulfill the following five conditions: 1. It must be another thing than the principal thing. 2. It must be attached to another thing. 3. An accessory must belong to the owner of the principal thing. This provision is not found in foreign codes; but if the tenant of the land or the occupant of a building attaches to the land or building his own things for his own use, it is unjust that he should thereby forfeit his ownership of the things so attached. 4. An accessory must be for constant use. 5. The constant use must be for the sake of the principal thing.”

Interpreting article 242 of the civil code, Mr. Okamatsu states, after summarizing the provisions of the laws of most foreign countries relating to land and buildings thereon: “To acquire an accessory immovable with the principal immovable according to this article (242), the said accessory must fulfill the following conditions: 1. It must be attached fixedly and permanently to the immovable. 2. It must be attached to the immovable as an accessory (subordinate) to it. An ‘accessory’ (subordinate) here means a thing that is joined to another thing, is used for the same economical purpose, and can be regarded as one thing in the everyday life. If, therefore, there is no relation of superior and subordinate between the two immovables, and they are independent of each other, then they are two separate things, both in fact and in law, and can not be said to be attached to an immovable. Take, for example, a house. It is in nature attached to the land. But the ideas of our country up to the present day have regarded it as a thing independent of the land and not as belonging to the land. Hence the question of attachment to an immovable can not here arise.”

The closing lines of the opinion of Mr. Okamatsu, in respect to article 242, underlined as above, if a proper interpretation of that article of the code, would seem to destroy the argument of the complainants based on their interpretation of the code in respect of accessories. I know of no Japanese decision or opinion in conflict with the opinions of Mr. Okamatsu and Dr. Umé upon the subject of accessories under Japanese law.

If the interpretation of Article XVII of the treaty must be interpreted in the light of and in conformity with the laws of the United States, then it would seem that the argument of the complainants should hold good.

Further, it will be observed that the land regulations for Yokohama provide for the foreign holders of perpetual leases to levy taxes upon their lands and buildings for lighting and cleaning streets and for a police force. Since, under extraterritorial jurisdiction, it was provided that they might tax their own property, including buildings, for the purposes stated, now that their power to tax has ceased to exist, can the claim that the Japanese authorities, under whose jurisdiction they now are, have no right to tax their buildings for municipal purposes hold good? Are foreign leaseholders, in consequence of now having come under Japanese jurisdiction, free from any obligation to pay taxes levied by the Japanese authorities though they may not have levied a tax upon themselves as provided by the regulations while under extraterritorial jurisdiction?

The French treaty with Japan is cited and Article XXI is quoted in support of the claim of exemption from tax on buildings as well as land. While that article of the French treaty is considered somewhat stronger in expression, as implying that the word “propriétés” was intended to include buildings, than Article XVII of the United States treaty, yet the French minister here, who contends for exemption from the “house tax,” expresses much uncertainty of success. The matter is still pending and he is awaiting instructions, in doubt whether he will be supported by his Government in his claim. Neither the German nor the British minister has confidence of the success of such contention, and, I understand, have not objected formally to the imposition of the tax on buildings. Both have stated that they did not see much hope of success of such claim of exemption. Meantime the Japanese Government has not announced any decision upon the question.

In my dispatch No. 365, of October 6 last, it will be remembered that I stated that I had made no claim of exemption from the registration tax on value of buildings because of doubt of the grounds upon which to base such a claim. In instruction No. 260, of November 6 last, acknowledging the receipt of both that dispatch and my No. 364, of October 4, I was not directed in respect of what action, if any, I was to take upon that question in particular; but the clause of that instruction which stated that, “in the assignment of leases between private parties for private purposes, citizens of the United States are subject to the same registration fee or charge as is imposed on Japanese subjects, unless the original leases specify to the contrary,” I understand to mean, not only that the charges made on the registration of buildings when transferred with or without the land (which is hereinbefore discussed), but also that other taxes by the Japanese authorities on buildings on the property of a foreign holder of a perpetual lease for municipal or other purposes could be required to be paid, the same as if a Japanese subject held the property instead, since the leases themselves do not stipulate to the contrary.

As to the manner of estimating the value of buildings for taxation and the taxes so levied being unjust, and numerous other taxes and charges a hardship, there seems to be, under treaty stipulations, no legal ground of complaint. The same method, as I am informed, is employed in estimating the house tax of Japanese subjects and the same rate of tax levied, the tax law applying to Japanese and foreigners the same. In this respect it seems that no charge of discrimination against foreigners can successfully be made, and it will be observed that no such charge is specifically made in the memorandum of complaints. Whether these taxes may be unjust, and with numerous other taxes a hardship or excessive, is shown in some respects by the following inclosures: The statement^a of Mr. John McLean, vice and acting consul-general of the United States at Yokohama, giving value of land and buildings owned by him in the foreign concession of the Bluff; also in respect to the property which is now occupied by the consulate and the taxes paid thereon; also the statement of Mr. Scidmore, No. 1822, above cited, in respect of the value of the property of the Grand Hotel, the Yokohama Club, and the Oriental Hotel, all on the Bund and within the foreign settlement, and the taxes paid on the land of each, respectively. As to other taxes sought to be levied being cumulative or excessive—the business tax, income tax, and other charges complained of—laws No. 32 and 33, inclosed with my dispatch No. 359,^a of September 27, 1899, in respect of “business tax” and “revised income tax law,” will furnish definite information.

4. In the matter of prescriptive rights claimed to have been acquired by long tenure and use of property in the foreign settlements under extraterritorial jurisdiction, while my opinion is that that contention is not well founded, I need not discuss the question pending instruction from the Department.

5. Finally, in respect of the fifth subject of complaint—that because of the failure of the Japanese Government to comply with treaty obligations, about which statements of grievance in general and particular are set forth and because of which it is claimed that property has depreciated in value so much that no real estate transactions are made—my information on inquiry is that, of American residents, property holders, in Yokohama only about one-third are in support of this and other complaints, and not a majority even of the American Asiatic Society, for which the two gentlemen addressing me speak, except the complaint touching the requirement for separate registration of buildings and lands at separate offices in a transfer of perpetual leases including buildings. The president of that society, Mr. J. R. Morse, and Mr. Scidmore, a member of the executive committee in whose behalf these complaints are submitted, and others have personally expressed to me their impatience with the course taken by the complainants in general, but have submitted to it that the questions raised might, once for all, be settled at the Department of State. They say that the reason for the paralysis of trade in perpetual lease property is largely due to the agitation by the leaseholders themselves, and that of course property can not have the market value it should have when the holders discredit their titles.

In remarking generally on these complaints I think I am justified in saying that some of our American residents in Yokohama who hold perpetual leases, together with a large proportion, perhaps a majority, of property holders among the British and German subjects, have from the first been opposed to treaty revision by which extraterritoriality has now been abolished. They have constantly been apprehensive concerning their fate when the new treaty should go into operation. They have been looking for and expecting trouble under Japanese control; and it is not to be wondered at when it is considered for how many years they have lived in Japan but not of it, so independent and free from vexatious taxes and many other burdens incident to city life in their own country. They have regarded the Japanese as inferiors and now, being under the control of Japanese law and Japanese officials, some of them, though unwittingly no doubt, are inclined to exaggerate their troubles. Having little confidence in the purposes of the Japanese Government and local authorities, it is hard for them to adjust themselves to their new conditions. That they already have had and will continue to have some reason to complain of inefficient local officials is not to be denied; but in my opinion they have no sufficient reason to suspect the good faith of the Government, which seems to be earnest in the desire and purpose to demonstrate to the world that Japan has not been received into the family of nations too soon.

Though of some specific claims and items of complaint set forth in the memorandum no special mention has been made, I think they are substantially covered by my statements in respect to the various classes of complaints, together with the inclosures and the laws and regulations to be found at the Department.

That imperial ordinance No. 458 is disappointing, and that the term “superficies” (perpetual lease) is used instead of simply “perpetual lease” gives occasion of complaint because of ambiguity of definition is true; and if the conclusion of the State Department should be that, in consideration of treaty stipulations, there is sufficient ground for further appeal to the Japanese Government for a more specific and direct confirmation of leases held in perpetuity, I shall, of course, press the matter with vigor, as I also shall in event of instructions to do so in respect of any other of the matters of complaint. I desire to do all in my power to protect American interests and that every right guaranteed to them by treaty shall be made secure; and I would be pleased if it were possible for American residents to remain as free from taxation as they were under extraterritorial jurisdiction.

I have, etc.,

A. E. Buck.

[Inclosure 1.— Translation.]

Viscount Aoki to Minister of France.

Tokyo, February 26, 1900.

Monsieur le Ministre: I have examined the letter which your excellency did me the honor to write me on the 9th of the current month on the subject of the title to lease in perpetuity. As I told you in my letter of the 3d, the provisions of the civil code which may be in conflict with those of the treaties are, naturally, not applied to the title to lease in perpetuity. The provision which, in article 268 of the civil code, limits the titles of holders of superficies, it goes without saying, and, as a general rule, all the provisions which imply conditions other than those which are written in the titles to leases in perpetuity, do not apply to these.

Accept, etc.,

Vt. Aoki.

[Inclosure 2.]

Mr. Scidmore to Mr. Buck.

United States Consulate-General,
Yokohama, Japan, March 28, 1900.

No. 1822.]

Sir: Agreeably to the request contained in your letter of March 26, 1900, I have the honor to submit the following in response to your questions relating to the status of land tenures in the late foreign settlements of Japan:

1. Since the promulgation of the Japanese imperial ordinance No. 458, of December 27, 1899, I have not heard of any instance in which there has been any specific complaint by foreigners or controversy with the authorities concerning the registration of transfers of property.

2. It is my opinion that that ordinance, as interpreted by the Japanese minister of foreign affairs, secures foreign holders of property their rights under the treaties.

3. The interpretation of the Japanese Government, as given by the minister for foreign affairs, of that ordinance is a reasonable one.

4. The judge of the Yokohama Ku Saibancho, who ignored the treaty provisions, and who apparently took the view that the civil code of Japan contained all of the law applicable to such registration, has very recently “resigned” and has retired to private life. What his successor may do is uncertain, but in view of the requirement of the ordinance that he shall register “a copy of the title deed in question,” it strikes me that it is of very little importance what his opinion in the matter may be. The assurance of the minister of foreign affairs amounts to a pledge of the good faith of the Japanese Government.

5. The civil code provisions do not, and evidently were not intended to, cover the registration of the foreign settlement titles. They are exceptional titles. The term “superficies,” whether alone or bracketed with “perpetual lease” is unscientific and inaccurate. Strictly speaking, these tenures appear to be of the nature of determinable fees, but, all things considered, it is not a matter of vital importance that they be known by any particular name. What is of importance is that their nature or character be preserved in the manner stipulated in the original title deeds from the Japanese Government. This will be done, I believe, by recording “a copy of the title deed in question.”

6. Your sixth question reads:

“Does a proper construction of Article XVII of the treaty between the United States, or treaties of other powers, with Japan, exempt foreign holders of perpetual leases in the foreign settlements from any tax on buildings erected on their leased land?”

Reading Article XVII with the aid of Article II of the treaty, a fair construction appears to be that the tax on buildings is payable, unless we can find an exemption in a treaty with another power. The treaty with France has been cited in this connection, and until the French and Japanese Governments determine what and how much they mean by the word “propriétés” in Article XXI, our position must remain uncertain.

7. I have not heard of, and do not believe that there is, any unfair discrimination made against foreigners in the mode of levying taxes on buildings or in the amount of such tax.

8. To require a separate registration of the transfer of buildings where they are sold with the land would be, in my opinion, in the case of foreign-settlement property a manifest violation of precedents in connection therewith; and an evasion of the intention of the treaty provisions. For purposes of taxation the land and the buildings may be regarded separately, but in passing title they are, under American, English, and most continental laws, considered as united. Previous to July 16, 1898, the date of the coming into force of the civil code, there was no general law of real property in Japan. Local customs prevailed, and the modes of tenure were of great variety. The American treaty with Japan was promulgated in 1895.

9. The 2½ per cent tax on registration of transfers ought not to be levied on the value of buildings if they are conveyed with foreign-settlement land. If they are conveyed separately, I can see no reason for their exemption from such tax. The Japanese Government, by ordinance No. 458, has, in effect, conceded the exemption of the land from this tax.

10. I can find no express treaty stipulation under the recent extraterritorial jurisdiction whereby foreigners in Japan were exempted from taxation. The Japanese Government then refrained from taxing foreigners, probably under motives of policy. To enforce collection in every case would have involved resort to about seventeen different consular courts, and would have produced endless petty squabbles and friction. Other reasons, if any, should appear in the legation records.

11. I do not believe that any sovereign State would be bound to admit the force of prescription as applicable to exemption from taxation.

12. Between the years 1865 and 1868, by arrangement with the Japanese authorities, the foreign landholders of Yokohama selected a committee known as the municipal council of the foreign settlement, for the purpose of regulating police, street, and other local affairs. This council derived its income from 20 per cent of the ground rents donated by the Kanagawa kencho and from monthly licenses for the sale of liquors. The revenue from these licenses was soon lost, by reason of the refusal of some of the dealers to pay it, and in 1868, it being found that expenses were in excess of income and the Japanese being anxious to resume control, the so-called municipal system came to an end. No taxes other than for liquor licenses and ground rent were ever paid by foreigners here previous to treaty revision. Expenses for street lighting and sprinkling have been met by voluntary contributions.

13. At the time of the first allocation of lots of land to foreigners here, Yokohama was a small fishing village, and tenures were governed by local custom. So far as I can learn, these tenures were of a feudal nature. The Japanese Government obtained the lands required from the original holders and became the direct landlord vis à vis the foreigners. At the time of the recent revision of the treaties the classification of native-owned land in Yokohama had assumed in most respects the forms now existing—that is, so far as taxation is concerned.

14. Lot No. 4, B, Bund, Yokohama, occupied by the new Yokohama United Club, contains 540 tsubos, and the annual ground rent thereon amounts to yen 151.06. With the new building this property is estimated to exceed yen 250,000 in value.

Lot No. 11, Bund, Yokohama, occupied by the Oriental Hotel, contain s498 tsubos, and the annual ground rent thereon amounts to yen 139.31. The property is capitalized at yen 300,000.

Lots Nos. 18, 19, and 20, Bund, Yokohama, occupied by the Grand Hotel, contain 1,735 tsubos, and the ground rent thereon amounts to yen 485.35. The property is capitalized at yen 250,000.

No purchase money whatever was paid for these lands by the original foreign holders, to whom they were allotted upon application approved by the consuls and upon the payment of a certain amount of ground rent in advance.

I may be able in a few days to add further information of interest in the premises. Meanwhile, I trust that these hastily written observations may be of some value to you.

I have, etc.,

Geo. H. Scidmore,
Deputy Consul-General.

N. B.—See supplementary report of Mr. Scidmore attached, giving full value of the Yokohama Club and the Oriental Hotel properties. Club land value, yen 75,000; tax, yen 151.06; rate, a little more than 0.002. Oriental Hotel land value, yen 50,000; tax, yen 139.31; rate, a little less than 0.003.

Consulate-General of the United States,
Yokohama, April 3, 1900.

Dear Minister Buck: The Yokohama Club property is valued thus:

	Yen.
Ground	75,000
Building	160,000
Machinery	30,000
Furniture, etc	50,000
Billiards and bowling	12,000
Library	10,000
Total	337,000

The Oriental Hotel property is estimated as probably worth:

	Yen.
Ground	50,000
Building	150,000
Furniture, good will, etc	100,000
Total	300,000

I shall send you figures for the Grand Hotel later.

Yours, respectfully,

Geo. H. Scidmore.

[Inclosure 3.]

Mr. Scidmore to Mr. Buck.

United States Consulate-General,
Yokohama, March 30, 1900.

No. 1829.]

Sir: I have this morning had a long interview with Judge Watanabe, president of the Yokohama Chiho Saibansho, relative to the land titles of the foreign settlement, and the following are the leading items of information then obtained by me:

1. Not a single transfer of foreigners’ property here has been presented for registration since the issuance of the ordinance No. 458, of December 27, 1899.

2. When a case arises it will be disposed of in accordance with that ordinance, and registration will be made in the form directed by ordinance No. 329, of July 6, 1899. (See Lonholm’s translation of law concerning registration of immovables, pp. 77, 88, and 90.)

3. A deed from a foreigner conveying land with buildings thereon must be registered in the land register and the buildings register, separately. The fact of such registration will appear by two indorsements on the deed.

4. The saibansho, under ordinance No. 458, will receive through the kencho and register a transfer of land only. The registration of the transfer of, or any right affecting, the buildings can be obtained only by separate and direct application to the saibansho.

5. The registration fee (a percentage on the value of the property) will be exacted in all cases except actual transfer of land. On mortgages, I am informed by the kanagawa kencho, this fee will be six one-thousandth of the value.

6. Judge Watanabe will send to me a copy of the register showing how a transaction will be treated. I am sorry that I can not get it to-day.

I have, etc.,

Geo. H. Scidmore,
Deputy Consul-General.

N. B.—In my letter No. 1822 of the 28th instant, paragraph 12, “one-third of the ground rent” should read “20 per cent of the ground rent.” Kindly make this correction.

[Inclosure 4.]

port of yokohama land regulations.

I. Mode of acquiring land.—Any person desiring to lease land within the location fixed upon for foreign renters must first apply to the consul or consular agent of his nation, officially and in writing, or if there be none appointed, to the consul of any friendly power, specifying as nearly as can be ascertained the locality and boundaries of the said land, and the said consul or consular agent will thereupon inquire of the land officer and the other foreign consuls whether any impediment exists to its settlement by reason of previous negotiation or application by third parties, or otherwise, provided always that if such impediment do exist, then and in such case a reasonable time shall be allowed the first claimant to settle for the said land; and the failing to do so within such reasonable time shall be considered and held a virtual surrender of such prior right of settlement, and the same shall revert to the foreigner next applying, on notice to that effect being given to his consul, and no good cause shown why it should not revert as aforesaid.

II. Only bona fide residents eligible to rent land.—Allotments of land will be made only to bona fide residents, and renters of land will be required, under penalty of forfeiture of title deed, to erect within six months after date of title deed, and in accordance with these regulations, buildings of a value of not less than: On water lots, $150 for each 100 tsubo measurement; on rearage lots, $50 for each 100 tsubo measurement.

III. Final settlement and title deeds.—The priority of the individual claimant having been determined as aforesaid, a note, under the hand and seal of the consul, will be furnished him for delivery to the land officer, who will without delay proceed with him to measure the land in question.

The measurement having been ascertained, the money for one year’s rental will be immediately paid to the chief land Officer, who will give a receipt in triplicate, with translation, for the same, stating also the measurement and boundaries of the said land. Two copies of the said receipt will be handed by the renter to his consul, who will transmit one copy to the governor. The governor will forthwith issue a title deed in triplicate in the form agreed upon and hereunto annexed, one copy to be archived by the governor, one by the consul, and one copy to be delivered to the renter.

The governor will also notify the other consuls of the issue of such title deeds, specifying the measurements and boundaries of the land.

IV. Boundary stones to be placed.—When land is rented a time will be appointed, and stones having the number of the lot distinctly cut thereon to define the boundaries will be fixed in the presence of an officer deputed by the consul,-or the land officer, or his deputy, and of the renter, in such manner that they may not interfere with the lines of road or the boundaries, or in any other way give cause for litigation or dispute hereafter.

V. Streets, roads, sewers, and jetties.—It is clearly understood and agreed to that land devoted to public use as streets, roads, etc., is not included in the measurement of rented lots, and is not to be infringed on in any way.

In the acquirement of new lots of land provision shall be made for the requisite extension or creation of streets, roads, and jetties.

The proprietorship of the soil being in the Japanese Government, the streets, roads, and jetties will at all times be kept in thorough order, and sewers or drains will be made when necessary by the Japanese Government, and no tax will be levied on renters of the foreign quarter for this purpose.

VI. Rent, when payable.—The annual rent payable to the Japanese Government on all land rented within the foreign quarters will be payable in advance on the ----- day of the ----- month of each year.

The governor will address the several consuls ten days previous to the said date, stating when, where, and to whom the said rent must be paid, and the said consuls will give notice to the renters. The officer appointed to receive the rent will give a receipt in triplicate, with translation, for the same, one copy of which shall be archived by the governor, one copy by the consul, and one to be delivered to the renter.

Should a renter neglect to pay the rent on the day fixed, the governor will acquaint the consul under whose jurisdiction the defaulter is, who will enforce immediate payment.

VII. Transfer of lots.—The interest in a lot shall always be held in law and equity to reside in that person in whose name the title of record appears, and no title shall pass unless the deed is lodged for record within three days from the date of the conveyance, but no lot can be transferred within one year after the date of title deed.

Within the said foreign quarter no Japanese shall erect new houses or sheds so near the residences or places of business of foreigners as to endanger them in case of fire, and if he does the governor will abate the nuisance.

No Japanese shall open a place of public entertainment within said location without the unanimous consent of the consular authorities under the penalties hereinafter provided against maintaining a nuisance.

VIII. Extent of lot and usage to which applied.—Straw sheds, bamboo or wooden houses, or buildings of inflammable kinds shall not be erected in the settlement, nor shall any trade or profession be carried on within its limits dangerous to the safety of life or property, or obnoxious to the general health, under a penalty of $25 for every twenty-four hours such nuisance shall remain unabated. Nor shall contraband goods or merchandise likely to endanger life or property—such as gunpowder, saltpeter, sulphur, large quantities of spirits, and such like—be stored in the premises of any individual, under a penalty of $25 and $25 for every twenty-four hours the nuisance shall remain. The place where such trades or professions may be carried on or which such merchandise may be stored must be sufficiently distant from either dwellings or warehouses to prevent all risk of damage or inconvenience, and be fixed upon by the authorities after consultation together.

The public roads must not be encroached upon or obstructed, as by scaffolding for the purpose of building or by building materials of any kind, beyond the time essential for the completion of the work, or in such manner as shall at any time block up or materially interfere with the thoroughfares, or by projecting eaves of houses, or fences, or gates, or doorsteps, or entrances; by the heaping up of goods for any length of time, and such like, under a penalty of $10 for each twenty-four hours they shall remain after a notification by the Japanese or consular authorities to remove them.

The public or individuals must not be inconvenienced by the accumulation of filth in gutters or upon the roads, by the firing of guns, carelessly creating noise or disturbance, furious riding or driving, or leading horses up and down the chief thoroughfares for exercise, or by any act coming legitimately within the meaning of the term nuisance, under a penalty of $10 on commission of either of said offenses. All fines shall be recovered before the consul of the nation to which the offending party belongs, or if there be none in the port then they may be recovered before the Japanese authorities, and shall be paid over to the committee appointed under clause 9 of these regulations, to be used for the purpose therein stated and for which said committee is appointed.

IX. Street lamps and police.—It being expedient and necessary that some provision should be made for the lighting and cleaning of streets and for a watch or police force, the foreign consuls aforesaid shall, at the beginning of each year, convene a meeting of the renters of land within the said foreign quarter to devise means of raising the requisite funds for these purposes; and at such meeting it shall be competent to the said renters to declare an assessment in the form of a rate to be made on the said land or buildings, and in the form of wharfage dues on all goods landed at any place within the said quarter, and to appoint a committee of three or more persons to levy the said rates and dues and apply the funds so realized to the” purposes aforesaid, or in such manner as may be agreed and determined upon at the said meeting. And to that end the said committee shall be empowered to sue all defaulters in the consular courts under whose jurisdiction these may be; and in case the said defaulters have no consular representative at this port, then the governor of Yokohama shall, upon application of the committee to the foreign consuls, recover from such defaulters the amount due from them for land assessment or wharfage dues and pay the same to the said committee.

Moreover, at such yearly meeting the accounts of the committee for the past year shall be laid before the assembled renters for their approval and sanction.

It shall be competent for the foreign consuls collectively or singly, when it may appear to them needful, or at the requisition of the renters of land, to call a public meeting at any time, giving ten days’ notice of the same, setting forth the business upon which it is convened, for the consideration of any matter or thing connected with the land; provided always such requisition shall be signed by not less than five of the said renters and that it set forth satisfactory grounds for such request.

The resolutions passed by a majority at any such public meeting on all such matters aforesaid shall be valid and binding upon the whole of the renters of land within the said limits, if not less than one-third of them are present. The senior consul present at any such meeting shall take the chair, and in the absence of a consul then such renter as the majority of voters present may nominate.

If renters of land in public meeting assembled as herein provided decide upon any matter of a municipal nature not already enumerated and affecting the general interest, such decision shall first be reported by the chairman to the consuls for their joint concurrence and approval, without which approval officially given such resolution can not become valid and binding upon the renters as a body.

X. Sale of spirits or liquors, opening of public houses, etc.—No foreigner or Japanese shall sell spirits or liquors or open a house of entertainment within the foreign quarter without a license’ to do so from the said consuls, or the majority of them, and if a Japanese, also from the governor, and upon good and sufficient security given for the maintenance of order in their establishments.

XI. Breach of regulations.—Should any one of the consuls at any time discover a breach of the regulations, or should information thereof be lodged with him, or should the local authorities address him thereon, he shall in every case within his jurisdiction summon the offender before him and, if convicted, punish him summarily.

Should any foreigner who has no consular authority at this port commit a breach of the regulations, then and in such case the Japanese chief authority may be appealed to by any one or more of the consuls to uphold the regulations in their integrity and punish the party so infringing them.

XII. Provisional clause.—Hereafter should any correction be requisite in these regulations, or should it be necessary to determine on further regulations, or should doubts arise as to the construction of or powers conferred thereby, the same must be consulted upon and settled by the consuls and governor in communication together, who shall equitably decide thereon, the consuls submitting the same for confirmation to the representatives of their respective countries in Japan.

The consuls referred to in these regulations are consuls (or persons duly acting as such) of powers having treaties with Japan.

• F. Howard Vyse,
  H. B. M. Acting Consul.
• E. M. Dorr,
  United States Consul.
• D. de Graaf Van Polsbrock,
  H. N. M.’s Vice-Consul.

A true copy;
Philip Buchanan Walsh,
Acting Junior Assistant.

[Inclosure 5.]

statement of mr. m’lean.

April 14, 1900.

What is the size of the lot occupied by the consulate-general in Yokohama, and what is the present estimated value? What is the amount of annual ground rent?

(Answer.) The lot measures 627 tsubos. The estimated value is 150 yen per tsubo. The annual ground rent is yen 175.40, payable in advance. Value of lot as above, yen 94,050. Ground rent, 0.0018 of value.

What is the value of the building occupied by the consulate, and what is the amount of house tax?

(Answer.) The estimated value of the building is yen 5,000. The house tax paid for six months amounted to yen 31.89. House tax for six months, 0.006 of value.

What is the estimated value of the lots on the Bluff owned by you, and what is the amount of annual ground rent?

(Answer.) Lot No. 206 Bluff contains 989 tsubos, and its estimated value is yen 15 per tsubo. Value of lot as above, yen 14,835. Ground rent, at 0.12 per tsubo, yen 118.68, 0.008 of value.

What is the value of the buildings on the said lots, and what is the amount of house tax levied thereon?

(Answer.) The present value of the buildings is yen 14,000. The house tax amounted to yen 14 for six months. House tax for six months, 0.001 of value.

John McLean.

1. Not printed.
2. Not printed.
3. Not printed.
4. Not printed.
5. Not printed.
6. Memorandum not printed. Articles referred to are as follows:
   • Article 86. Land and things fixed to it are immovable (fudō-san, the word used in the Japanese text of the treaty with France). All other things are movables. Obligations performable to bearer are deemed to be movable.
   • Article 87. If the owner of a thing attaches to it another thing owned by him for permanent use in connection with it, the thing attached becomes an accessory. The accessory thing is subject to all dispositions made of the principal thing.
   • Article 242. The owner of an immovable thing (fudō-san) acquires the ownership of a thing which is attached to it as an accessory, but this does not affect the rights of a person who by virtue of a special title has attached the thing to the other.
7. Not printed.
8. Not printed.