893.113/1041

The Minister in China ( MacMurray ) to the Secretary of State

No. 983

Sir: With reference to my despatch No. 938 dated March 2, 1927, concerning a monopoly for the sale of sulphur and saltpetre and other chemicals established by the Canton Government, I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of a further despatch, No. 616, dated March 16, 1927, on this subject received from the American Consul General at Canton.

In view of the tenor of the reply from the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs to the American Consul General at Canton the Legation has instructed the Consulate General to take no further action in the matter until instructions have been received from the Department.

I have [etc.]

J. V. A. MacMurray
[Page 325]
[Enclosure]

The Consul General at Canton ( Jenkins ) to the Minister in China ( MacMurray )

No. 616

Sir: In connection with the Legation’s instruction of February 23, 1927, concerning a monopoly established by the Canton Government for the sale of certain explosives in Kwangtung Province, including sulphur, saltpetre, smokeless powder, Chilian saltpetre, and nitrate of soda, I have the honor to transmit copies of this Consulate General’s despatch of March 7 to the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and the latter’s reply of March 14, 1927. It will be observed that the Acting Minister is not disposed to acquiesce in the views expressed by the Legation in respect to the importation of the chemicals mentioned for ordinary industrial purposes.

Unless specifically instructed to do so this Consulate General will not reply further to this despatch from the Cantonese authorities.

I have [etc.]

Douglas Jenkins
[Subenclosure 1]

The Consul General at Canton ( Jenkins ) to the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs at Canton ( Ch’en )

Sir: I have the honor to refer to your despatch of December 18, 1926,53 concerning the creation of a monopoly for the importation and sale of explosives including such articles as sulphur, saltpetre, smokeless powder, Chilian saltpetre and nitrate of soda. It is observed that the monopoly is to be administered by the Lee Loong Company which has the right to collect fees for certificates to be issued in accordance with the existing regulations.

In reply I have the honor to inform you that this Consulate General is in receipt of a communication from the American Minister at Peking expressing the opinion that the list of prohibited goods mentioned in the despatch under acknowledgment should be made to contain only such articles as can reasonably be described as “arms and ammunition” since it is evident that only in this way can the list be made to comply with Rule 3 of the Revised Import Tariff. Moreover many of the articles mentioned in your despatch as subject to the provisions of the monopoly are extensively used for ordinary commercial and industrial purposes, and as such the American Legation does not believe their importation should be subject to a monopoly or otherwise restricted.

I have [etc.]

Douglas Jenkins
[Page 326]
[Subenclosure 2]

The Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs at Canton ( Ch’en ) to the Consul General at Camion ( Jenkins )

Sir: In reply to your despatch of March 7, 1927, concerning the monopoly established by my Government for the sale of certain explosives, and presuming that the explosives should not include articles used for ordinary commercial and industrial purposes, I have the honor to inform you that the creation of a monopoly for the sale of explosives is a matter falling with [in] the scope of the internal administration of my Government, and therefore is not subject to the intervention of foreigners.

Referring to Rule 3 of the Revised Import Tariff as mentioned in your despatch under acknowledgment, I may say, however, that the said Rule is an enlargement originally made on Article V[I], Rule 5 of the Commercial Treaty concluded in the 8th year of the Hsien F’eng Emperor (1858),54 which not only contains arms and ammunition, but also salt as well as those articles necessary for the manufacture of firearms. (In the Commercial Treaty made in the 8th year of the Hsien F’eng Emperor (1858), articles such as Saltpetre, Sulphur, Brimstone and Spelter are included).

You further mention in your letter that while many of the articles prescribed under the provisions of the monopoly are used for ordinary commercial and industrial purposes, you do not trust that they should be subjected to the restriction. I may point out, however, that in spite of salt being the daily necessity of the people, its illegal transportation and sale are also prohibited by my Government. It is obvious therefore that this case may be more or less misunderstood by the American Minister at Peking.

With compliments.

Chen Yu-jen
  1. Not printed.
  2. Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. i, p. 222, 230.