File No. 893.512/42.
Consul Williams to
the Secretary of State.
No. 24.]
American Consulate,
Nanking,
November 23, 1914.
Sir: With reference to the Department’s
instruction No. 7 of September 23, 1914, respecting the status of
Nanking as a treaty port, I have the honor to report that shortly after
the receipt of the Department’s instruction mentioned, I was directed by
the Legation at Peking to submit to it a full report on the present
features of this question. A copy of my report made in compliance with
the Legation’s instructions is enclosed.
With particular reference to the question of likin collection at
Hsiakuan, the Standard Oil Company has complained of two distinct
matters: first, the collection of likin on goods destined for the city,
the objection in this case being on treaty grounds; and second, the
collection of likin by a barrier near their installation on goods
destined for Pukow. The ground for complaint in the second case is that
the barrier in question does not appear to be authorized, as it issues
no receipts, that it is within the area set apart by the Chinese as a
foreign settlement, in violation of all precedents, and that it is so
situated as to tax the American Oil, while the competing Asiatic
Petroleum Company, whose installation is also within the “settlement”
and not far from the Standard Oil Company, pays no likin. I have made
informal representations to the authorities on these grounds, avoiding,
however, the second point mentioned, except in a general way, lest the
contention might be taken as an admission of the correctness of the
Chinese attitude regarding the treaty port question in general. The
third point contains the real objection, as this likin collection
handicaps the Standard Oil Company to the advantage of the
competitors.
[Page 132]
As stated in my report to the Legation, I am awaiting its further
instructions before proceeding to any active protests for the reasons
set forth therein.
I have [etc.]
[Inclosure—Extract.]
Consul Williams
to Minister Reinsch.
No. 26.]
American Consulate,
Nanking,
November 21, 1914.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of the Legation’s instruction No. 770 of November 12th last,
directing me to report to the Legation on the present status of the
Nanking treaty port question.
With respect to this question, there is enclosed a copy of a recent
instruction from the Department of State; this, it is believed, sets
forth very clearly the position held by all the foreign consuls
resident in Nanking, a position which is summed up in the
Department’s words, “that the long delay in carrying out the
provisions of the treaty [French, of 1858] cannot alter the tenor of
that provision, and that Nanking, not Hsiakuan, is open to foreign
residence and trade.”
The question has not been formally discussed between the Chinese
authorities and the consular body for some years. Unfortunately the
archives of this office are not complete and I am unable to say
whether it has ever been so discussed or not. It is arising
constantly, however, in an incidental manner, and there is no doubt
at all concerning the attitude of the Chinese authorities. Thus
there is a special office charged with the conduct of affairs of the
“commercial port” (shang fou) of Hsiakuan; whenever local
regulations respecting land tenure, taxation, police, etc., appear,
the “commercial port” of Hsiakuan is always specifically mentioned
and often separately dealt with. It appears that the authorities
desire to limit foreign residence even further; for in some
instances Hsiakuan west of the Hui-min Creek is mentioned as the
area prescribed for that purpose, in other words the island of
Hsiakuan. This view excludes that portion of the mainland between
the city wall and the Hui-min Creek, where are several foreign
business houses. * * *
The authorities have not been successful, however, in preventing the
establishment within the city of foreign firms. I am informed by my
Japanese colleague that there are at present some “seventeen
Japanese houses carrying on business in the city. Some of these
houses opened their business only last year and one quite recently,
all with no difficulties raised by the Chinese authorities.” As the
opening of business houses does not require any positive action by
the authorities, such as the stamping of deeds in the purchase of
land, they would be practically powerless to prevent foreign
merchants from residing and trading in the city; they cannot well
expel them by force, and, of course, a protest to the Consulate
concerned would be useless. * * *
Should the Legation or the Diplomatic Body be inclined to force the
issue, I venture to suggest that a cause would be provided best by
an application for the issue of a title to property. A refusal to
pay likin would result in a temporary cessation of business, or in
the payment of the same “under protest,” a procedure which the
Chinese hardly appreciate or understand.
The argument suggests itself that the United States is in a
peculiarly fortunate position to support such a claim through the
absence of American concessions in China. For to hold that
foreigners were limited to residences in foreign settlements and
concessions would be to hold that Americans are barred entirely from
residing in many ports where the area set apart for foreign use
consists entirely of the concessions of other nations, to residence
in which Americans are admitted by favor only, not by right, and
often under more or less vexatious restrictions.
I venture to request the Legation’s instructions as to what steps it
is advisable to take locally in the matter. My personal opinion is
that nothing can be done beyond raising the question concretely and
formally.
I have [etc.]
