Office of the Historian

893.51/5300: Telegram

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

Peiping, June 23, 1930—7 p.m.
[Received June 25—8:05 p.m.64]

487. Legation’s 481, June 22, 2 p.m. Following telegram has been sent to the Minister at Nanking:

“June 23, 7 p.m. For the Minister: Legation’s June 22, 1 p.m.

1.
In mail despatch June 21st American Consul General at Tientsin states that a meeting of the Consular Body was held on that date concerning the Tientsin customs and that ‘discussion then turned to the question of recognition of the de facto customs in the event that Mr. Simpson is able to organize his staff and actually function. The personal opinion of most of the Consuls appeared to be that the customs must necessarily be recognized, but most of the consular officers indicated that they were awaiting instructions of their Government on this point. The Consuls then considered reports from Shanghai that the customs at that port require payment of Tientsin duties before clearances [clearing] shipments [ships] carrying cargo for Tientsin. Reports to American firms here state that these collections are being made with a refusal of any assurance or protection against a second assessment of the duties at Tientsin. My French colleague took occasion to point to the treaty provisions under which ships and cargo pay dues and duties at the defense [several] ports when [and where] they enter. He believes that any assessment of Tientsin duties at Shanghai, if followed by second assessment and demand at Tientsin, should be made the subject of protest by the powers to the National Government. I concur in his opinion. But it was not considered that the situation as it stands at the moment was such as to offer basis for joint Consular Body representations or report to the diplomatic representatives.’
2.
I have discussed the foregoing questions with the British Minister. We are both in complete agreement with the views expressed by Gauss, namely, (1) that a de facto customs organization functioning at Tientsin must necessarily be dealt with, and (2) that a protest should be made against any attempt to assess Tientsin duties at Shanghai if thereby double duties have to be paid by foreign merchants. Any other course would seem impracticable and likely to lead to endless confusion.

Repeated to the Department.”

For the Minister:
Perkins
  1. Telegram in two sections.↩