While this is a matter which concerns the Postmaster-General, the
Department of State would not make any recommendation to the
Postmaster-General in this particular without a full report from you,
setting forth the importance of the step.
The second question treated in Mr. Fowler’s dispatch is the right of the
Chinese Government to collect a 5 per cent duty on purchases made in
China of foreign origin which have paid duty on entry into China, and,
incidentally, or, rather, more particularly, the right to collect a duty
on shipments of a private character destined for consular officers in
China.
The Department is of the opinion that objects of foreign origin bought in
China and shipped to another point in China should be free of duty. The
final protocol (Article VI, paragraph e) provides
for a “5 percent effective on maritime imports;” that is, original
imports—imports from a foreign country—and any other interpretation of
it so as to make it include coastwise duties, or any other description
of import tax, is believed to be without justification.
As to original imports into China through the mails, the Department sees
no reason why we should ask for the privilege of having them exempted
from import duty, even though it may be that such imports through the
other foreign post-offices established in China escape the payment of
this duty. It would seem but equitable that so long as the Chinese
Government does not insist that foreign imports through foreign mails
shall pay the regular customs duties that it should not collect such
customs duties on imports from the United States or any other country
which has not its own postal service in China. This concession might be
asked of the Chinese Government, but not as a matter of right.
As to the right of a consular officer to import free of duty goods for
his own personal use and consumption, he is not entitled to any such
privilege. Even the importation of official consular supplies free of
duty is not granted in all countries. In the United States we only grant
it to the consular officers of such countries as give us similar
privileges. In case of goods destined for a diplomatic representative,
this is another matter entirely.
You will use your good offices with regard to the correction of apparent
abuse of the collection of the 5 per cent duty on purchases made in
China of goods of foreign origin which have paid a duty on entry into
China; but in the matter of the exemption from import duty of original
imports into China through the mails, the Department does not deem it
advisable that any action be taken until it has received a report from
you as to the advisability of the establishment of our own post-offices
in the foreign treaty ports of China.
[Inclosure.]
Mr. Fowler to
the Secretary of State.a
Consulate of the United States,
Chefoo, China, January 9, 1902.
No. 429.]
Sir: I have the honor to draw the
Department’s attention to its dispatch to me, No. 134 of February 6,
1901, acknowledging receipt of my various dispatches regarding
[Page 224]
the abuses of the Chinese
postal service, and respectfully but urgently request that you will
kindly take up those dispatches, as well as those previously written
by me on same matter.
I now renew this subject by inclosing copy of Minister Conger’s
dispatch to me, No. 1276 of December 24, and my reply of this date,
No. 465, with its several inclosures. Unfortunately, this
correspondence involves two great questions: The Chinese (customs)
postal service. (This title must be maintained, although it styles
itself “The Imperial Chinese post.” The Chinese officials have
absolutely nothing to do with it, it being exclusively under the
control of the foreign customs, while, on the other hand, the
Chinese Government does maintain an imperial postal service under
the control of the board of war at Pekin.)
The second question involved in the right to collect a 5 per cent
duty on purchases made in China of foreign
origin which have paid duty on entry into China. To explain this
clearly to you, if I wish to send my watch to Shanghai to be cleaned
now, I must pay 5 per cent duty on it, and it can not be cleaned
here. All the drinking water used in my house comes from Shanghai.
It is simply triple-distilled Shanghai River water (water in Chefoo
is unfit to drink), and yet 5 per cent duty is collected here on
that plain drinking water. Suppose you live in Alexandria, Va., and
this system prevailed, you would have to pay 5 per cent duty on
everything you purchased in Washington, with this difference, You
can get food, water, clothing, etc., in
Alexandria; and if your friends send you presents you must also pay.
If you have presents from abroad (our fourth-class mail, under 4
pounds), you must pay extra postage from Washington to Alexandria
and the duty.
As to the assessment of this duty, it can be obviated by declaring it
nonoperative on household stores, supplies, etc., purchased in China, and on articles in the mails.
As to the postal service, all you have to do is to ask the
Post-Office Department to revoke its instruction, No. 133311 to the
consul-general at Shanghai and instruct him to forward all mail
matter in sealed sacks to the consuls by the
very first ship leaving for their port.
Having done this, follow the example of the foreign powers, Great
Britain, Germany, France, Russia, and Japan, and establish our own
post-offices at each consulate, as Revised Statutes, section 4023,
fully authorizes you to do. The French, German, Russian, and
Japanese mails arrive here on first ship irrespective of flag. Our
American mails, being handed to customs at Shanghai by our
consul-general (all but first-class mail) in the bags made up and
addressed in San Francisco to the various ports, without being
opened in our Shanghai consulate, are sent only in those steamers
under their control. We are thus often kept a week, when, had the
mails been put on board a steamer as the others do, we would receive
it when they do.
To illustrate: The Chinese foreign customs post will not place our
mails on steamers flying the American, German, Japanese, or Russian
flag, but only on those belonging to the Chinese company,
Butterfield & Swire, and Jardines, the last two being granted
especial shipping privileges (in violation of treaties), not for carrying the mails, but for refusing to carry any mails not placed on
board by the Chinese customs; whereas the foreign powers send their
mails by the very first steamer, no matter what flag it flies.
Another illustration: The Russian post here will receive and deliver,
without extra cost, all international mails for Port Arthur and
Newchwang, delivery within three days at latter place, but, like all
the foreign posts, refuses customs mail (Chinese). The customs,
instead of handing the American mail over to the Russian for
delivery at Newchwang, etc., when it would be received free of cost,
keep control of it and send it to Chinwantao, thence overland to
Newchwang, etc., and charge domestic (customs) postage on all
letters, and double domestic rates on fourth-class matter, in spite
of the fact that they have paid full union rates; but all this has
been fully treated in my dispatches to you, and will show how they
have violated their promises to deliver this mail free to us.
Under separate cover I send you the portions of the wrappers of my
parcels (fourth-class United States mail) on which I was assessed
extra postage. You will see that the Chinese stamps were affixed and
canceled here, and, besides, I was mulcted
$2.42 duty ($2.34 gold carried them to China in United States mails,
while it cost me $4.22 Mexican extra to receive them at the first
port after arrival in China).
I again respectfully urge you to establish our own offices where we
have consuls and let us have the same treatment as other
nationalities, and trust that you will have the interpretation of
Sir Robert Hart—that we shall pay 5 per cent on our necessities
purchased in China—abolished, for not only does this affect every
foreigner in China, but unless stopped will surely decrease a
lucrative trade from the United States.
[Page 225]
Since the above was written I have received a small package from the
British colony of Hongkong. It came via Shanghai in customs mail,
but no extra postage was charged, yet I had to pay 25 cents duty. It
was a Christmas present, so thus far this
year I have paid $4.47. The contents of this package were a silver
pencil holder, a silver case bag, both of Chinese origin and
manufacture, and, even under the protocol, not dutiable; but the
customs must exist, and just so long as our Government allows them
to tax us, just so long will Americans suffer. The wrapper is
inclosed with those from the United States.
In conclusion, as to postal service, I need only remind you of my
cable of June 20, 1900, informing you how this service had taken
charge of our telegrams for Minister Conger, Admiral Kempff, and
others, and refused to deliver them to me, necessitating my
demanding copies from the telegraph office. Truly the Emperor was
right when he issued his edict authorizing Sir Robert Hart to
organize this “We shall then be able to keep the enemies’ letters
out.” The tariff does not affect the merchant. In some instances he
is better off now. It does not affect the Chinese in any way. The
Empress Dowager in twenty days in October received 20,000,000 taels
from sale of offices. She is not affected. It is only the foreigner
(nonmerchant) and, above all, Americans that now suffer.
I have, etc.,
