2
I have submitted Mr. Litton's despatch to the Inspector-General of Customs, who has at once instructed the Commissioner of Customs at Teng Yueh, by telegraph, to endorse the certificate agreed upon, as requested by Mr. Litton,
I am so informing the Government of India.
(No. 2.) Sir,
I have, &c. (Signed)
WALTER TOWNLEY,
Inclosure in No. 2.
Acting Consul Litton to Mr. Townley.
Teng Yueh, May 26, 1903. I HAVE the honour to report that the Government of India has assented to the principle that the duty on goods which arrive by sea, and, after paying customs at Rangoon, are afterwards re-exported to Yunnan per the Teng Yueh custom-house, should be remitted.
With the assistance of the Commissioner here, I have prepared and submitted to the Government of Burmah a scheme for giving effect to this proposal. As the details have not yet been finally settled, I need only observe that it is suggested that merchants be permitted, when they pay duty, to register goods at Rangoon, and then, if they re-export any part of them to Teng Yueh, to take out a certificate at the Rangoon Customs stating what goods are being thus re-exported and what duty has been paid on them. This certificate will go with the goods to Teng Yueh, and the Commissioner there will endorse the certificate to the effect that the goods have actually passed the Imperial Chinese Customs. The certificate so endorsed will be returned to Rangoon, and will be accepted by the Customs there in payment of Indian duties to the amount mentioned in the pass.
But the Commissioner has to apply to Sir Robert Hart for special authority to give the necessary endorsement to certificates.
I do not suppose that the Inspectorate-General will raise any objection to a measure so beneficial to Chinese trade and revenue; but in case there is any hitch, I would request you to mention the matter for Sir Robert Hart's very favourable consideration.
I have, &c. (Signed)
G. LITTON.
3
is done after the packages are opened, but this is merely a "façon de parler;" for the result of my inquiries satisfies me that there are no boiling establishments whatever at Kan-chou, which is a depôt where opium and other goods passing through from Kuang-tung province into Kiangsi, across the Mei-ling Pass, are received and stored pending distribution. The Governor of Kiangsi further claims that the tax is in operation in other provinces under similar conditions, and therefore refuses to discontinue the levy.
In my reply to the Viceroy I contended that, although the opium was in the hands of Chinese subjects, it was not free to be taxed as the authorities chose. The goods in question were, I maintained, of British origin and manufacture, and, therefore, subject only to the charges allowed by Treaty. I also thought it advisable to remind the Viceroy, especially in the face of the line of action and argument adopted by him and the Governor of Kiangsi, that His Majesty's Government possessed the right to renounce the London Convention should they find that transit certificates did not secure the complete exemption from taxation contemplated under Article 7.
The Canton Government have by no means abandoned the scheme for raising additional funds by increased taxation on opium. At the present moment an attempt is being made, under pressure of the new Viceroy, who has recorded his determination to brook no resistance, to compel the opium merchants as a body, through their Guild, to pay into the Provincial Treasurer an annual sum of 1,000,000 taels. His Excellency has offered, as a favour, to make it 800,000 taels, and to allow the Guild to collect it from the different members, the amount to be paid over to his Treasury, not as a tax, but as a "voluntary contribution"—an excellent arrangement, obviating all questions under Treaty, and securing complete economy in collection.
As matters now stand, the Chinese authorities would appear to be gradually ignoring the stipulations of the London Convention, accepting them only so far as suits their own interpretation. A state of matters is fast arising which exactly corresponds with the difficulties and arguments which preceded the London Convention of 1885. Foreign opium pays taxes far in excess, pro rata, of the amount levied on the native drug. The latter costs some 600 dollars a picul, against 1,000 dollars a picul for foreign opium, and pays merely some 23 taels per picul, against 110 taels charged on the Indian product.
Now, according to the dictum of the Wai-wu Pu, no new tax should be imposed on foreign opium until these charges have been equalized; but this the Canton Government are determined to ignore, and will exhaust every effort to secure the collection of the new impost at the port of import.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
JAMES SCOTT.
No. 3.
Consul-General Scott to the Marquess of Lansdowne.—(Received August 17.)
Canton, July 15, 1903.
(No. 24.) My Lord,
I HAVE the honour to inclose copy of my despatch No. 23 of the 15th instant to His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, Peking, on the subject of the new opium tax at Kan-chou Fu, in Kiangsi, together with a translation of correspondence between myself and the Viceroy of the Two Kuang provinces on the subject, from which your Lordship will see that the Governor of Kiangsi has no intention of abolishing the tax.
(No. 23.) Sir,
I have, &c. (Signed)
Inclosure 1 in No. 3,
Consul-General Scott to Mr. Townley.
JAMES SCOTT.
Canton, July 15, 1903.
IN continuation of my despatch No. 21 of the 24th ultimo, regarding the new prepared opium tax now being imposed by the Governor of Kiangsi, I beg to inclose herewith copy and translation of further correspondence with the Viceroy of Canton on this subject.
As you will see from the language of the telegram from the Governor of Kiangsi, that official claims that the tax is being levied on Chinese subjects, alleging that this
(Translation.)
Sir,
Inclosure 2 in No. 3.
Viceroy to Consul-General Scott.
ON the 17th June my predecessor Viceroy Tê received a letter from you (quoted in full) objecting to the illegal levy of a tax on foreign opium at Kan-chou-fu in Kiangsi. He replied to you that he had at once wired in the sense of to the Governor of Kiangsi; and I have now received from the latter a telegraphic reply as follows:—
"This tax on prepared opium is one which is legally levied in all the provinces. There is not the slightest breach of Treaty Rules in making Chinese merchants pay an impost on foreign opium after the packages have been opened, nor can this be called a cunning application of a new designation. The coast and river provinces are now all one after the other instituting this levy, and in this matter Kiangsi is at one with them; there is nothing out of the way or any new levy in it to justify any withdrawal."
I would observe that the 3rd section of the Chefoo Supplementary Convention says that "such certificate shall free the opium to which it applies from the imposition of any further tax or duty whilst in transport in the interior, provided that the packages have not been opened, and that the Customs seals, marks, and numbers on the package have not been effaced or tampered with."
Again, by section 5, "when the packages shall have been opened at the place of
294