Mr. Buck to Mr.
Hay.
United
States Legation,
Tokyo, March 18,
1902.
No. 627.]Sir: I have the honor to confirm my telegram
dispatched last night. This telegram was occasioned partly because of
inquiries embodied in a resolution passed at a meeting of American
residents in Yokohama yesterday. The resolution was submitted to United
States Consul-General Bellows, who inclosed it and a copy of a letter of
request from N. W. Mclvor, esq., with his dispatch of yesterday, the
17th instant. A copy of Mr. Bellows’s dispatch, with accompanying
incisures, is hereto attached, as also a copy of my reply of the same
date.
On the 14th instant the conclusion of the Japanese Government to submit
the question of “house tax” to arbitration was officially communicated
by the minister for foreign affairs to the representatives of the
interested powers in personal interviews with each. He, at the same
time, informed them that the collection of the tax, previously announced
by the municipal authorities at Yokohama to be enforced to-day, the 18th
instant, would not be postponed. The minister also said that, as a
natural consequence of the question being referred to arbitration,
should the decision prove to be adverse to the position already taken by
the Imperial Government, any taxes which might have been collected
inconsistently, in consideration of the decision, would be refunded.
This information was promptly communicated to our consuls for the
benefit of Americans interested.
On the 15th instant the minister for foreign affairs, in reply to the
British minister’s note, formally communicated to mm the fact that
[Page 706]
the Japanese Government
proposed arbitration of the question of “house tax” with the powers
protesting against the levy of the tax. Great Britain, Germany, France,
and the Netherlands only were mentioned as the powers to be recognized
as parties to the arbitration, and I am informed by the minister for
foreign affairs that the United States and other powers are not expected
to participate in the proceedings, because they have not officially
protested through their representatives.
Under the circumstances I have not thought it proper to ask that the
United States be included as one of the powers to participate in the
arbitration proceedings unless so instructed.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1.]
Mr. Bellows to
Mr. Buck.
Consulate-General of the United States,
Yokohama, March 17, 1902.
No. 896.]Sir: I have the honor to transmit for your
consideration a copy of a letter received this morning from the
secretary of a general meeting of American property holders in
Yokohama, held on the 17th instant, together with a resolution
adopted by said meeting.
From the remarks of the delegation that waited upon me to-day, it
appears that an official report has come from Tokyo to the effect
that the American Government has not joined the other powers,
through her minister, in protesting against the payment of the house
tax. Upon this, point the committee are very anxious to receive
official information, as upon its answer their future action will be
based.
I am, etc.,
E. C. Bellows, Consul-General.
[Subinclosure 1.]
Mr. McIvor to
Mr. Bellows.
Dear Sir: I have the honor, acting under
instruction, to transmit herewith a resolution and a list of three
questions passed at a meeting of certain responsible American
landholders in Yokohama, with the request that you will be good
enough to receive the information for us from the minister of the
United States.
Respectfully, yours,
[Subinclosure 2.]
Resolution.
Resolved, That in our opinion it is
imperatively necessary that our Government shall be a party to the
arbitration agreement, more especially because otherwise that
Government will have nothing to say in fixing the terms of the
arbitration, and also because the defection of our Government will
materially weaken the moral position of other powers who are making
the contest on the questions at stake, and will therefore materially
injure our interests.
The following information is respectfully requested:
- 1.
- Is our Government a party to the arbitration
agreement?
- 2.
- Can we be heard in fixing its terms?
- 3.
- We understand that the Japanese authorities intend to
enforce the collection of the tax before the submission, and
that both the central and local authorities refuse to give a
note of protest upon payment; our Government, we understand,
advises us
[Page 707]
when we
pay to pay under protest. Can this protest be made in any
other way than by allowing distraint on the property?
The above draft was, on vote, passed
unanimously by American property owners present or duly
represented at a meeting held on the 17th of March, 1902.
- John Lindsley, Chairman.
- N. W. McIvor, Secretary.
[Inclosure 2.]
Mr. Buck to Mr.
Bellows.
Legation of the United States,
Tokyo, March 17, 1902.
No. 591.]Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of
your dispatch No. 896, of this date, inclosing a letter to you from
N. W. McIvor, esq., accompanied by a resolution unanimously passed
by American property owners present or duly represented at a meeting
held to-day, asking questions respecting arbitration proceedings
upon the subject of the house tax, and whether protest against
payment of the tax can be made in any other way than by distraint
when the authorities refuse to give a note of protest upon
payment.
As to the first and second questions, “Is our Government a party to
the arbitration agreement?” and “Can we be heard in fixing its
terms?” I have to answer that, as the case now stands, our
Government is neither a party nor can it be heard in fixing terms of
arbitration, because it has not officially protested against the
imposition of the tax. Only those powers who have formally contended
against the levy of the house tax are now recognized by the Japanese
Government as parties at interest or to be heard in fixing terms of
arbitration. Whether our Government will become a party depends upon
telegraphic instructions I expect to receive from Washington in a
few days. If I am instructed to submit a claim in behalf of the
United States to become a party, I shall expect the Japanese
Government to accede to it.
Concerning the third question, I have to reply that a simple receipt
for a paper of protest, in my judgment, is sufficient for purpose of
protest. The failure to give a formal note of protest is, in my
opinion, unnecessary. Of course, allowing distraint is the highest
form of protest; but I do not think it wise or necessary, except in
default of any simple acknowledgment of receipt for the protest when
presented.
I am, etc.,
