449
It is doubtless a difficult position to deal with, but if Japan were made to feel that unfair dealing will lead to estrangement and endanger the cordial relations with Great Britain which have been built up in the past, there may be some hope that a change in her procedure may be brought about. We thought it advisable in any case to let you know that the feeling here is growing that Japanese policy is insincere, that she is reverting to the Russian ante bellum policy in Manchuria, and that we fear the consequences may be far-reaching.
(No. 44.) Sir,
I am, &c.
(Signed) F. ANDERSON, Chairman.
Inclosure 4 in No. 1.
Vice-Consul Parlett to Sir C. MacDonald.
Dairen, May 12, 1908.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's despatch No. 14 of the 25th of last month, with its inclosures in original, from His Majesty's Minister at Peking.
The points raised in the letter of the Shanghae branch of the China Association to its parent body in London have, I think without exception, been the subject of report from this office during the last year, and there appears to be little that I can add to what has already been said.
I will nevertheless, with your Excellency's permission, briefly revert to the various questions on which the China Association letter touches:-
Obstacles to British Ships-Mr. Anderson's letter refers presumably to ships engaged in the coasting trade. Their grievances were alluded to in my despatch No. 7 of the 16th January last, when I had the honour to report that the Japanese authorities had promised to take steps to prevent a recurrence of the disagreeable incidents concerning which complaint was made. Nothing has subsequently occurred to lead me to believe that this promise has not been made good. The delays and obstructions suffered by the vessels bringing material for the South Manchuria Railway line formed the subject of my despatches Nos. 87 and 90 of last year. I have since obtained little information to add to what I then had the honour to submit, though I hear from a private and confidential source that the whole question of stevedoring charges in connection with these ships is being investigated by Messrs. Sale, Frazar, and Co. for purposes of their own.
To summarize this particular question, it will be sufficient to say that, though there have undoubtedly been instances in which subordinate officials have exhibited an unnecessary lack of consideration towards foreign ships, there is no sign that this is even sympathized with by their superiors. In my opinion the most disquieting feature, not only at the wharf, but also in business here generally, is the indirect influence which the Mitsui Bussan Kwaisha seems in a position to exert.
The Osaka Cotton Goods Syndicate. This is the next subject to which allusion is made in the China Association letter. The article from the "Osaki Asahi" was brought to your Excellency's notice in my despatches Nos. 77 and 79 of last year; while the "Manshu Nichi Nichi Shimbun" editorial on the same subject formed an inclosure to my despatch No. 26 of this year. The details of the financial assistance rendered to the Syndicate by the Japanese Government through the medium of the Specie Bank and the Bank of Japan were so obscurely worded in both cases that I was not quite able to follow them, and I am in any case unable to determine if the action of the Government was legitimate or not. The granting of "special facilities," as I have on more than one occasion reported, is absolutely denied. To assert that the falling off of the Shanghae trade with Manchuria is doubtless due to the granting of special facilities to Japanese goods is in my opinion a rather bold statement. Premising even that such facilities were actually given, I should have been disposed to include as a contributory cause the depression which, I am given to understand, has been more or less universal throughout China for some time past. It seems to me hardly possible that this should be entirely due to Japanese action in Manchuria.
I would also submit for the consideration of the China Association, as a partial explanation of the success which has apparently attended the efforts of the Osaka Syndicate, the fact that it is a Syndicate, in other words a number of spinning Companies which, sinking individual rivalries and divided interests for the common good, are banded together in absolute unity of action with the one object of ousting from the Manchurian market their foreign rivals. It is obvious that an organized body like this, particularly if it is in addition willing to submit to immediate loss for the sake of greater future gain, must enjoy from the outset great advantages over the foreign piece-goods merchants of the China ports with their different nationalities, conflicting interests, and acute trade rivalries. Were it possible to form a foreign combination on the same lines as the Japanese and thus to fight the latter with their own weapons, I think it not improbable that victory would ultimately rest with the foreigner. He is still the superior of the Japanese in commercial organization, and there can be no question as to who has the stronger backing in capital. I fear, however, that this is somewhat in the nature of a "counsel of perfection." Nevertheless it would be well to remember that it is this very unity of interests, organization, enterprise, and capital that enable the British American Tobacco Company to compete successfully with the Japanese Monopoly Bureau for the control of the Manchurian tobacco market.
Trade of Dairen and Newchwang for 1907.--I have already had the honour to report to your Excellency that the figures for the trade of Dairen quoted in the China Association letter are, owing to a grave miscalculation on the part of the Chinese Customs at this port, quite incorrect. In the Trade Report contained in my despatch No. 23 of the 30th March, I estimated the correct value of the trade of Dairen for 1907 as being in the neighbourhood of 4,500,000l. It would now appear that the actual amount is close on 4,700,000l. This total is arrived at by adding to 4,349,318l. (the figures given in the Kwantung Government-General revised Tables, contained in my despatch No. 42 of the 9th May) 356,100l., the difference between these Returns and those of the Japanese Financial Department. The latter, as far as they go, are probably correct. It will thus be seen that the trade of this port is approximately 500,000l. less than that of Newchwang for the year 1907.
It would, however, perhaps be well if further comment on this particular subject were deferred until the Trade Report for Dairen and the revised Tables referred to above have appeared in print. The China Association will then be in a better position to compare the trade of the two places under discussion; while, at the same time, it may be able to point out some of the inaccuracies which, with such unreliable figures to work upon, must have inevitably crept into the Report itself.
Tenure of Land. The statements made in the China Association letter referred to a condition of things which no longer exists. Leases up to a maximum period of twenty years are now obtainable. This applies to land hired from the Japanese authorities; leases taken over from the original Russian holders are of course subject to the conditions under which they were originally granted by the Russian authorities.
Encouragement to Chinese.-On this point I have no reliable evidence at my disposal, though I have always been given to understand by the Japanese officials that they were most anxious that Chinese merchants should settle here, their presence being, so it was asserted, esteemed essential to the success of the port. This would seem quite credible, if, as is the general belief among foreign merchants in China, the diversion of the Newchwang trade to Dairen is the object the Japanese have in view.
I would deprecate placing too much reliance on Chinese evidence in connection with this question, because it is frequently coloured by ill-feeling against the present possessors of the territory. How far the attitude of the Chinese is justifiable I have no means of gauging, though undoubtedly instances have not been wanting in which Japanese, both officials and individuals, have behaved towards the natives with unnecessary arrogance and even brutality. At the same time it must be borne in mind that the animus of the merchant is not a little accentuated by the fact that he feels the pinch of competition with the new-comers, and, feeling it, thinks regretfully of the happier days when Russian money was poured out in Dairen and Port Arthur like water. This question was brought to your Excellency's notice in my despatch No. 39 of the 5th August, 1907.
Immigrants.-The comments made in the letter under consideration are on this subject, though exaggerated, to a certain extent justified. As I had the honour to report in the despatch quoted immediately above, in my Trade Report for 1907, and in my despatch No. 39 of the 1st of this month, the Japanese immigrants to Manchuria represent the least desirable elements of the nation. This is, within limits, unavoidable in a newly-opened country, and it can only be hoped that the Japanese Government will do its best, if it is unable to check the influx of undesirables, at all events to curtail their opportunities for ill-doing.
I am unfortunately unable to agree with the assertion that "the Japanese are far too clever to allow definite cases to arise in which clear evidence can be quoted against them."
It seems to me frankly something in the nature of a confession of weakness
5