Mr. Buck to Mr.
Hay.
United
States Legation,
Tokyo,
Japan
,
January 4,
1902
.
No. 611.]
Sir: Referring to my dispatch No. 606 of date
of 20th ultimo, confirming your telegram of the 18th ultimo respecting
payment of taxes by Americans in Japan under protest, I have the honor
to inclose an informal communication from the minister for foreign
affairs concerning receiving and receipting for protests when presented
by persons paying “house tax.”
The tax officials in Yokohama up to this time have persisted in refusing
to acknowledge protests, claiming it to be unnecessary and that the law
did not recognize such a procedure. On making a personal appeal at the
foreign office urging that tax officials be instructed to receive and
receipt for protests when presented by parties paying that tax, since,
certainly, no reasonable objection to it could be made and because
American residents would not be satisfied otherwise, I received the
inclosed response, which it is hoped will result in obtaining
acknowledgments of receipts of protests.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure.]
Notes on the question of the payment supra
protest of house tax levied on buildings erected on land leased
in perpetuity in the former “foreign settlements.”
Japanese law does not recognize the process of payment supra protest
in regard to internal taxes. In the matter of the imposition of
customs tariff a written protest is necessary in order to reserve
the rights of any person who considers himself unjustly affected by
the action of the customs authorities (see article 51 of the
regulations for the execution of the customs duties law). But the
remedy prescribed by the laws of Japan in case of unjust imposition
of house tax does not begin by the filing of a protest. In fact, a
protest is not necessary to reserve the right of complaint or of
appeal, but a person feeling himself aggrieved by the action of the
municipal authorities [Page 698] in
the matter of the imposition of house tax (which is a municipal tax)
should seek the remedy in accordance with articles 104 and 105 of
the law of organization of cities (law No. 1 of the twenty-fourth
year of Meiji).
According to the provisions of these articles opposition against the
house tax should be presented to the municipal council within three
months from the date of imposition of the tax in question. Party not
satisfied with the decision of municipal council may appeal to the
fu or ken council, and from the decision of the latter lies a
further appeal to the administrative court.
As far as the reservation of the rights of American citizens are
concerned in the matter of the house tax imposed on buildings
erected on land leased in perpetuity in the former foreign
settlements, that reservation has already been made by the minister
of the United States in his official letter addressed to the
minister for foreign affairs on November 21, 1901, to which Mr.
Komura replied by giving the positive assurance that there shall be
no discrimination between the citizens of the United States and the
subjects or citizens of any other power in this connection. It
follows, therefore, that in the event the justice of the claims of
British, German, or French Government is recognized United States
citizens will stand in exactly the same position as British or
German subjects or citizens of the French Republic. In other words,
the rights of the citizens of the United States have been reserved
through the diplomatic channel exactly to the same extent as those
of the subjects or citizens of three other powers.
The respective Governments having thus reserved the rights for their
own nationals in this respect, it would be superfluous for the
individuals concerned to file protests individually, even if the
Japanese law on the subject recognized the process of payment supra
protest. As above stated, the Japanese law does not recognize the
process of payment supra protest in regard to internal taxes, and
the question at issue being in the hands of the Governments
concerned, the natural course for the individuals affected would be
to look to their own Governments for the adjustment of the question.
It appears, however, that some of the foreign taxpayers in Yokohama
are particularly anxious to file individual protests upon the
payment of the house tax in question. Hence, valueless as such
protests are, unnecessary friction will, perhaps, be avoided if the
municipal authorities in Yokohama will accept protests from whatever
foreign resident desires to file them upon payment of the house tax
imposed on buildings erected on land held under leases in
perpetuity. The mayor of Yokohama will therefore be advised in this
sense, so that he might, unless he has grave objections to the
course suggested, instruct the municipal tax collectors to accept
protests and to give receipts for them, if desired.
