File No. 893.512/52.
Chargé MacMurray to
the Secretary of State.
[Extract.]
No. 683.]
American Legation,
Peking,
July 9, 1915.
Sir: I have the honor to enclose herewith for
the information of the Department a copy of a circular instruction which
the Legation issued on June 8 last to the various Consular officers in
China, communicating in reply to numerous inquiries the position taken
in regard to the Chinese Stamp Tax Law in conformity with the
Department’s instruction No. 90 of May 4, 1914.65
There is also enclosed a copy of a despatch (No. 514) from the Consulate
General at Shanghai under date of the 26th ultimo, making certain
inquiries as to the effect of the view thus taken; also a copy of the
Legation’s reply of today’s date, stating that the Legation construes
the attitude of our Government in this matter as having only the
negative effect of relieving its nationals from any obligation and from
any correlated disability imposed by the Stamp Tax Law; it cannot be
construed as in any way affecting [Page 223] the obligations and disabilities imposed by that
law upon Chinese citizens—unless it were that our Government, refusing
to recognize the payment of stamp tax as a condition to the legal
validity of a contract entered into between a Chinese and an American
citizen, might perhaps maintain the position that such a plea could not
be effective as a defense to an action in a Chinese court by an American
citizen or corporation seeking a remedy under such a contract. I
respectfully request to be instructed whether this interpretation
correctly sets forth the views of the Department.* * *
[Inclosure 1.]
[Untitled]
No. 40.]
American Legation,
Peking,
June 8, 1915.
circular.
To the American Consular Officers in China.
Gentlemen: In view of the inquiries
addressed to the Legation by several of the Consular Officers in
China, as to the liability of American citizens for the payment of
stamp taxes imposed by the Chinese Government under the Stamp Tax
Law enacted in October, 1912, I enclose for your information a copy
of the Diplomatic Circular No. 39 of February 19, 1914, to which is
appended a translation of the collective note in which the
Diplomatic Body advised the Wai Chiao Pu that it could not accept
the proposed law as applicable to nationals of the Treaty Powers in
China.
In accordance with the terms of this collective note, the Legation
regards American citizens and corporations as not being liable to
the payment of stamp taxes.
I am [etc.]
[Subinclosure.]
Diplomatic Circular No. 39.
Peking,
February 18, 1914.
With reference to the Circular No. 19, the Dean has the honour to
circulate herewith, for the signature of his Honourable Colleagues,
copy of the draft collective note to the Wai Chiao Pu on the Stamp
Tax Law, in the terms agreed upon at the meeting of February 17.
translation.
Peking
(
February 28, 1914).
Mr. Minister: In conformity with the
desire expressed by Your Excellency in a despatch of September 29
last, the Diplomatic Body has examined the question whether there
would be ground to apply, to documents and contracts concluded in
China between foreigners and Chinese, the law concerning the stamp
tax of which a copy was annexed to the communication cited
above.
The Chiefs of Mission are of the opinion that, before pronouncing
upon the imposition on their nationals of a new tax not contemplated
by the Treaties, they should refer the matter to their respective
Governments; and they consequently find themselves obliged to
protest against the statement—which can be the result only of
misunderstanding contained in the note from the Wai Chiao Pu, to the
effect that they had given their adhesion to the above mentioned
stamp tax law thus rendering it applicable to foreigners.
In transmitting these documents to their respective governments, they
believe themselves forced to direct attention to certain questions
raised by this communication, and to express the opinion that the
new law could not in any case be rendered applicable to their
nationals in its present form.
(Signed by Ministers and Chargés d’Affaires.)
[Page 224]
[Inclosure 2.]
Consul General Sammons to Chargé MacMurray.
No. 514.]
American Consulate General,
Shanghai,
June 26, 1915.
Subject: Chinese Stamp Tax.
Sir: With reference to the Legation’s
recent circular instruction on the Chinese Stamp Tax Law, to the
effect that in the opinion of the Legation American citizens and
corporations are not liable to the payment of such stamp taxes, the
Standard Oil Company of New York writes me under date of June 23,
1915, requesting information as to the effect of the law on
transactions between the Company and Chinese, submitting the
following query:
- 1.
- Is a native bank order, drawn by a Chinese in the
interior, payable to our order in a Treaty Port subject to
stamp tax?
- 2.
- Is any agency agreement, construction contract, or other
similar document, made out between this Company and a
Chinese subject to stamp tax, and would stamps have to be
affixed before taking such a document before a Chinese
Court.
I have the honor to request the Legation’s instructions on the
subject.
I have [etc.]
[Inclosure 3.]
Chargé MacMurray
to Consul Gauss, in charge.
C. No. 1165.]
American Legation,
Peking,
July 9, 1915.
Sir: The Legation has received the
despatch (No. 514) of June 26th in which you present in behalf of
the Standard Oil Company of New York two queries as to the effect of
the refusal on the part of the American Government to recognize the
Chinese Stamp Tax Law as applicable to its nationals. In reply, I
have to state that inasmuch as the questions presented are
hypothetical, the Legation can not undertake to give in advance any
authoritative advice or indication of the views by which the action
of the Government would be controlled in the event that a case
actually involving these questions were to arise.
Although not undertaking, therefore, to express any opinion upon the
specific points raised by these inquiries, I have to state, for the
information and guidance of the Consulate General, that the Legation
construes the attitude of our Government in this matter as having
only the negative effect of relieving its nationals from any
obligation and from any correlated disability imposed by the Stamp
Tax Law; it cannot be construed as in any way affecting the
obligations and disabilities imposed by that law upon Chinese
citizens—unless it were that our Government, refusing to recognize
the payment of stamp tax as a condition to the legal validity of a
contract entered into between Chinese and an American citizen, might
perhaps maintain the position that such a plea could not be
effective as a defense to an action in a Chinese court by an
American citizen or corporation seeking a remedy under such a
contract.
I am [etc.]
