*
May 29, 1905.]
ones.
the English people can be satisfied that it is to their best interests to make it difficult for foreigners to come in, they have every right to do 80. Whether it is to their interest to shut out all aliens is, however, a doub ful question, the answer to which they ought to be very sure of before com- mitting themselves. It used to be a national boast that England, the home of a fres people, was an asylum for any oppressed So America was, also, but they apparently consider in the States that some races are born to be oppressed. Here in Hongkong, where every Chinaman of to- day may be counted as an alien immigrant, or the son of alien immigrants (who had to be coaxed in and persuaded to seitle by the Government), it is impossible for white workers to compete in many departments of labour. Yet business prospers on this cheap labour; and it cannot be said here, ns is being said in London, that "the employment of the labour of those whose cheap and low methods of living force the Briton into a competition for existence
crime poverty,
and general
causes
degeneracy!"
TH MACKAY TREATY,
(Daily Press, 24th May).
facts
It is abundantly evident from recently recorded that the China merchants who accused the Peking Government general breach of the MACKAY Treaty were
of
that
right; and that. Earl PERCY, who poo poobed their complaints on behalf of the British Government was wrong, and very wrong. That the provisions of that Treaty, with respect to mining regulations, have been set at defiance is notorious. The British officials, with a disgraceful obstinacy, de nanded specific instances,' and the official cur- respo deuce just publishe meets demand in the case of foreign mining enter prise. To ask for specific complaints at all in connection with China's wide and unequivocal undertaking to encourage (for that is what it amounts to) foreign mining enterprise, was an impertinence. Either China has fulfilled her pledge, or she has not; and any specific statement on this head should have come from the British officials, not from the merchants. How are we to satisfy the British Government that China has not, as promised, done anything in the direction of currency reform?
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
827
TH JAPANESE HOUSE-TAX
DECISION.
warning was necessary. That becomes his affair. In the subject matter, Chiny mer- chants are too much interested, however, to be affronted by official rebuffs and lack of
(Daily Press, 25th May.) The decision just rendered by the Hague. sympathy. Specific instances will be forth- coming. At present it would seem that the Tribunal in the matter of the dispute be Government has enough to go upon. The tween the Japanese Government and the Hankow Consulate and the Lagation at foreign communities in Japan will doubtless Peking have known for a long time how be loyally accepted by Japan as an authori- Article VIII, relating to the opening of tative interpretation of her treaty obligations. Changsha, &c., was being rupted. That the The dispute arose five years ago over the clause may be said to have lapsed does not interpretation of a clause in the Revised affect the issue, because the Japanese secured Treaties concluded with the Powers for the a renewal of the particular undertaking to surrender of "extra - territoriality "-that throw open Changsha two years ago. Mr. is to say, the surrender of the governmental BYRON BRENAN teils us that when new ports and judicial jurisdiction of the Foreign are opened, British enterprisers do not flock Powers over their respective subjects in reason for Japan. Under these Treaties the old into them. Perhaps there is a
were incorporated this. Perhaps British enterprise waits for Foreign Settlements
to be more with the respective Japanese communes the British Government businesslike in enforcing payment of its to form part of the general municipal bills. We have referred before to the native system of Japan. But while the Japanese opposition at Changsha to foreign hongs; authorities assumed all municipal obliga- but our Shanghai contemporary unfolds tions and duties in respect thereof, and some further history by way of specific the common funds and property (if any) example. It appears that the British belonging to such Settlements were trans- Consul-General at Hankow did not regard a ferred to the Japanese authorities, the treaty with great Britain as a dead-letter. Treaties contained a stipulation which may He pressed the claims of Mr. BENNERTZ at first sight be regarded as somewhat hard for compensation, which claims were also on the Japanese municipalities, but when recognise and pressed by the Legation. everything is considered it must be allowed It may be that in order to furnish further that the negotiators of the Treaties were specific examples, Mr. BENNERTZ trie i to re-justified by the circumstances in demanding
At bu-iness at Changsha.
open
rate, he arrived on April 14th last. reports:
to
46
carry
the
aly
He
Still
"
such a concession as this disputed clause was alleged by the foreign communities to confer. In the British treaty, which was After carefully consulting with H. M. the first to be concluded, the clause reads as Consul, I prepared to take my cargo into my follows: -“When such incorporation [of premises in the city of Changsha on the 18th the Settlement areas] takes place, existing of April, after daly getting the same passed leases in perpetuity under which property through the I. M. Customs, and paying the wharfage dues. I took delivery of them from is now held in the said Settlements shall be Messrs. Butterfield and Swire's codown out. confirmed and no conditions whatever other side of the city, and engaged fifty coolies than those contained in such existing leases
the shall be imposed firat consignment into
in respect of such city. On arrival of the goods at the city property." These perpetual leases were Government the Japanese gate, the keeper and likin authorities in granted by charge stopped the goods from proceeding directly to individual foreigners when the to my premises, stating that I must pay likin and should take the cargo back to the likin treaty ports were opened, and the holding was in every respect a full title except that it station and pay the likin, then only would they
was conditioned on the annual paying to allow them in. During that short period of conversation, what with fifty coolies and the Government of a so-called ground thirty-five packages of heavy cargo, and rent." It has been contended on behalf of thousands of roughs and other Chinese that the foreign lot-holders that this "ground- gathered round me, the shouting of the rent' was not a payment made by a
authorities to likin station
my coolies tenant for the land, but for all municipal stating that they would be punished for
purposes, and this view is fully borne out By sending samples bringing goods without passing the likin, the
conventional agreements by local situation was not at all a pleasant one. of the various new coinage mixtures since
I stood firm and did not move an inch; between the central Government and the introduced? Have we no right to expect simply told the authorities in charge that I landowners wherein it is expressly mentioned that British officials in China should for would either pass through the city gate with that the grount-rent was fixed at a figure - themselves ascertain whether China keeps my cargo free of likin, or they could take charge which would pay annually the amount of faith with their employers or not? There of same. As they did not allow me through. I the land tax then levied on adjoining lands, must be something rotten about the system dropped all the thirty-five packages inside the and the municipal charges of the foreign when such a position is possible as that we city gate, took away all my coolies to my hong
community. The arguiment of the lot- have recently witnessed. Private British in the city, and paid them their dues. The
ground reat a commuted land and citizens call attention to an important inter-matter is at present referred to the Minister, holders has been that the "
and I am again waiting without a cash of they paid was national contract, the terms of which are so indemnity yet paid for the stoppage of my municipal tax. plain that they cannot be misunderstood. business now since July 1904 up to date."
When, however, the Revised Treaties Those promises hina were for "value Our contemporary says it is a well-known came into force the municipalities began to received." Those promises were not kept. fact" that similar cases are occurring else-levy on the property holders in the former British officials receive the complaint to where. We agree that this one case is Settlements the same heavy municipal taxes ou business and incomes received from this effect, not sympathetically, but by fairly typical of how much a treaty with
were levied in other raising obstacles in the way of its forward- China is worth unless British officials and these properties as
wards of the administrative district. ation to headquarters. It does, however, the British Governmcat show a united front. reach the right place, thanks to private It is to be hoped that the House of Com- British property owners, relying on the enterprise; and is met by a request for
mons may not be bamboozled much longer wording of the British Treaty, protested
were the municipalities The idea does not into the belief that the MACKAY Treaty is that
debarred specific instances.
We are grateful for your or ever has been operative. appear to be help. Can you oblige us with further information ?** That would be very satis- Section 23 of the new Philippines Tariff Act factory; but the purport and tone of provides that where imported materials the official response seems to have been, which duties have teen paid are used in the "Give us proofs, or we refuse to hear your manufacture or production of articles manu- views." When we warn an individual that factured or produced in the Philippine Islands; an attempt is being made to pick his pocket, such articles a drawback equal in amount to we do not expect him to demand of us
the duties paid on the materials used, less one specific grounds for our belief that the
per cent. of such duties.”
•
on
there shall be allowed on the exportation of
by Treaty from levying these taxes, and this contention was clearly sustained by the French Treaty which specifically
contributions or conditions whatsoever provided that no imposta, taxes, charges, other than the amount of the anuual
commuted tax reserved in the original grant under the name of the ground-rent should be levied or made on account of these properties. # The Japanese Government however, held