File No. 4277/4–6.

Minister Rockhill to the Secretary of State.

[Extracts.]
No. 537.]

Sir: With further reference to the opening to international trade of Antung and Mukden, and in continuation of my dispatch No. 501 of January 9 last, I have the honor to inclose herewith a translation of a note from the Wai-wu Pu, dated January 30, which is the reply to my note of April 28, 1906, a copy of which has already been sent to the department in my dispatch No. 332 of June 26 last.a

I also beg to inclose a copy of my reply to His Imperial Highness, Prince Ch’ing, of February 5.

As the department will note from the correspondence under consideration, the chief point in dispute relates to the duty-free area of the opened cities. This has always been a vexed question between China and the treaty powers, the Chinese Government maintaining that this area extends merely to a settlement proper, the powers that it is not confined to this, but that it includes the whole area of the port. Great Britain has always insisted on this point, but it has never been conceded by China but once—in the case of Ch’ang-sha, in Hunan, opened under the Japanese treaty of October 8, 1903, where, after formally acknowledging to the British Government that the whole city was included in the meaning of the words “treaty port” and was therefore opened to foreign trade and residence, the Chinese Government has ever since been endeavoring to restrict and to limit the rights to within the settlement boundary. As a consequence, the duty-free limits of the treaty ports have never been formally defined.

For the above reasons, and in view of your approval of my note to the foreign office of April 28,b as expressed in your instruction No. 176 of August 29 last,c I did not hesitate, in my note of the 5th instant, to submit the proposition therein contained, to the Chinese Government, and I trust that my action may be approved by the department.

I have, etc.,

W. W. Rockhill.
[Inclosure 1.—Translation.]

The Prince of Ch’ing to Minister Rockhill.

Your Excellency: Some time since I had the honor to receive a dispatch from your excellency stating that in accordance with the commercial treaty between the United States and China Mukden and Antung were to be opened as places of international trade, and that it was desirable that at as early a date as might be convenient the United States and China should appoint delegates to consult together and make necessary arrangements, but with the clear understanding that, while special localities might be set aside for the convenience of foreigners as places of residence at the cities named, the city of Mukden itself, with its suburbs, was open to trade with foreign merchants, and that the [Page 222] same was true of Antung Hsien; that the establishment of settlements at the two places mentioned would not deprive the American consular authorities of the right to fix their residences within the cities of Mukden and Antung near the yamens of the Chinese authorities as being more convenient, and that the residence of American merchants within the fixed boundaries of the foreign settlements would not deprive them of the right secured by treaty of conducting their business within the cities named; that you hoped arrangements might be made at an early date for the consultation required to determine the location of the foreign settlements at the two places to be opened and the regulations required by treaty for the control of the same.

My board immediately communicated the contents of your dispatch to the tartar-general of Shengking for his consideration and that he might consult with the American consul-general at Mukden regarding the same.

I have now received a reply from the tartar-general at Shengking stating that the American consul-general at Mukden holds that the whole commercial area of Mukden is open to international trade and residence, and refuses to recognize such a duty as that of marking out settlements. Since the revised treaty between China and the United States provides that Mukden and An-tung shall be opened by China herself as places of international trade and that the selection of suitable localities to be set apart for international trade and residence, etc., the marking out of a settlement as a place of residence and trade for foreigners is certainly a measure in accordance with the treaty. If the whole commercial area of Mukden is open to international trade, it will certainly not be in accordance with the text of the treaty which provides for the selection of suitable localities for settlements.

Moreover, your excellency’s dispatch makes mention of the establishment of settlements at the two places referred to for the residence of foreigners. Since they are settlements, how can they include the whole commercial area?

Besides, the residence of consular officials within the city is in order that they may be near the yamens of the Chinese authorities, and does not at all mean that merchants, too, are to be allowed to reside here and there throughout the city, which is, moreover, directly contrary to the provisions of the treaty.

The claim made in your excellency’s dispatch of a treaty right to trade in the city refers to the entrance of foreign goods into the city in the ordinary course of business, and does not mean that foreign merchants may reside there at their pleasure.

The American consul-general has certainly misunderstood your excellency’s meaning, and it becomes my duty to send this dispatch to your excellency for your consideration, and that you may instruct the consul-general at Mukden that he must comply with the provisions of the treaty and consult with the tartar-general of Shengking.

A necessary dispatch.

[Seal of the Wai-wu Pu.]
[Inclosure 2.]

Minister Rockhill to the Prince of Ch’ing.

Your Imperial Highness: I have had the honor to receive your imperial highness’s note of January 30, acknowledging the receipt of my note of April 28, 1906, in which I stated that my Government was ready, for the purpose of carrying out the stipulations of Article XII, paragraph 3, of the treaty of October 8, 1903, to send a delegate to confer with the duly appointed officer of the Chinese Government on the “selection of suitable localities at Mukden and An-tung Hsien to be set apart for international use and occupation, and for the framing of regulations for the places set apart for foreign residence and trade at these cities.” I stated furthermore to your imperial highness in this note [Page 223] that it was the understanding of the American Government that, while special localities were to be set aside at these cities as places of residence for foreigners, the treaty clearly provided that the cities of Mukden and An-tung themselves were to be open to foreign trade, and that the consular representatives of the United States had the right to fix their residences within these cities near the yamens of the Chinese authorities. The fact that Americans resided within the settlements set apart for them did not, I added, deprive them of the right secured them by the treaty of conducting their business anywhere within the limits of the cities named.

Your imperial highness, in the note which you have now done me the honor to address me, says that your board duly communicated to the tartar-general at Shengking my note of April 28, 1906, for his consideration, and that he has now informed you that the American consul-general, Straight, with whom he has been discussing the matter, holds that the whole commercial area of Mukden is open to international trade and residence and refuses to recognize such a duty as that of marking out settlements.

In reply I have the honor to state that I am in receipt of a dispatch from the American consul-general at Mukden, in which he incloses a copy of a note which he addressed to his excellency the tartar-general on January 16 on this subject. In it he substantially repeats the remarks which I had the honor to submit to your imperial highness in my note of April 28 last, to wit: That Article XII, paragraph 3, of the treaty of 1903, provided, firstly, for the opening of Mukden and An-tung as places of international residence and trade, and secondly, that while within such places suitable localities were to be set aside for foreign residence and trade, nothing in this last provision was to be understood as in any way restricting the rights insured under the first phrase of the paragraph, particularly as regards the levying of inland dues on American merchandise within the cities of Mukden or An-tung. He does not decline to cooperate in choosing settlements, but only states the understanding his Government has of the question.

His excellency the tartar-general in his reply to the above note of the American consul-general, dated January 16 last, a copy of which I have before me, has, I think, failed to put a correct interpretation on the provisions of Article XII, paragraph 3, of the treaty of 1903, and consequently understand Mr. Straight’s remarks, for he says that “in opening Mukden and other places to international residence and trade, trade will be restricted to a fixed area and residence limited to a settlement.” Such an interpretation is absolutely incompatible with the provisions of the treaty and the object which the high contracting parties had in view—the extension and facilitating of international trade, not its restraining and embarrassing, as would be the inevitable result of the acceptance of such an interpretation.

There does not appear to my Government that any ambiguity exists in the provisions of the treaty; residential and trading rights are insured to Americans within the whole of the cities and suburbs of Mukden and An-tung, and special settlements to facilitate the same, but nowise intended to curtail such rights, are set aside thereat. Nevertheless, however clear the said provisions undoubtedly are, my Government desires to meet the wishes of the Imperial Government, which sees serious inconvenience in Americans residing here and there throughout these cities, and it would be willing to waive the former right and see the residential privileges of its citizens restricted to suitable settlements, provided that the treaty right to free trade in the cities and suburbs of Mukden and An-tung was clearly recognized, and that Americans could therein establish godowns and conduct business through their Chinese agents free from all inland taxation whatsoever.

I trust that your imperial highness, in the interests of the commerce and industry of China and the United States, which can only be served by removing all irksome impediments to their development and by affording ample room and opportunity for them to flourish, will therefore instruct his excellency the tartar-general to agree with the American consul-general to the above interpretation of the treaty provisions, after which the delimitation of settlements and the establishment of regulations for their government can be promptly and satisfactorily made, so that commerce may develop under conditions favorable alike to all.

I avail myself, etc.,

W. W. Rockhill.