CO882-(2-3) — Page 450

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

ICO. 882

3

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC. COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

42

of them had cargoes of foreign merchandize, or I should have heard of it. Large numbers of small vessels are engaged in running salt-a Government monopoly-and small quanti- ties of opium, which, if caught, are invariably fined or confiscated. The duty on both these articles is so high that it offers a premium on smuggling, and I have been told that one cargo out of three pays, and, certainly, more than that escape the salt and revenue cruizers. The assertion that all, or nearly all, these seizures have taken place in British waters is simply incredible. There were one or two cases of seizure brought to my notice in which, during the pursuit, both junk and cruizer got into Hong Kong waters, but one only was really proved, and the commander of the war-tax cruizer had his button taken awayand was degraded by the Viceroy, on my complaint, for disobeying the strict orders given not to go into the Colonial jurisdiction. The others appear in the list appended to this Report. I know of no others, and do not believe any occurred. It is this kind of exaggeration and mis-statement which throws a doubt upon the integrity of the Petition, and causes what truth there may be in it to be viewed with suspicion. The case of the Kum-Hop-Sing" junk, mentioned in the Petition, will be found in the appended

K

Return.

I believe, as stated in the petition, these twelve ports on the south and east coast of ́China, and six in the Island of Formosa, and many more besides, not opened to trade, would do a large traffic, and are capable of doing more if there was steam communication with them, but, on a stormy coast like that of China, the vessel called a junk, is a slow, cumbrous, and uncertain mode of conveyance, and, consequently, I am inclined to the opinion that it is the absence of a speedy and safe transit for goods and produce, and the impossibility of insuring them, as is done by Chinese shippers in foreign steamers, that prevent the development of the great resources of the east coast, and not the action of the Customs cruizers. As it is, Chinese trade is well represented at Hong Kong by an average, yearly, of some 28,000 junks in, and the same number out, making a total of 56,000 vessels of 3,600,000 tons, all loaded with cargoes; for a junk in ballast is an unusual occurrence. Of these, two-thirds are from the south-east coast, so that it does not appear as if the Canton Hoppo's blockade tended to drive the native trade from the port of Hong Kong, or prevented its development. What, however, it does do is, it protects the honest merchant from the competition of the dishonest one, and places trade upon a certain and firm basis. What is now occurring in Hong Kong is but a repetition of what occurred in the open Chinese ports some years since, and before the foreign inspectorate system was established. There was a constant squabble between the merchants and the native Customs about the payment of duties, and many would not pay at all; smuggling was rife, and the authorities were paralyzed, but, with the establishment of foreign Custom- houses, order succeeded disorder, and, since then, such scandals are unknown. To the prayer of the petition I can only say that the case of the "Kum-hop-Sing" was obstructed by the refusal of the owners and master to appear before a Mixed Commission, when offered to investigate their complaint, as is shown in the annexed Appendix. But as, when captured, she had no port clearance or Customs receipt for the duties for the cargo on board, it appeared to me a clear case of smuggling, but without the appearance of the complainants I could not investigate it. On what grounds, however, the petitioners pray for compensation for the seizure and confiscation of this junk and her cargo, and of the China has never surrendered various other junks and their cargoes, I am at a loss to see.

her jurisdiction over her own subjects in her own territory, or waters, or on the high seas, and her right of search and seizure within them cannot be questioned; and, in the exercise of such right, these captures were made for breach of the Revenue laws of China. If the petitioners conceive that they have suffered an injustice thereby, they should seek redress from their own Government. I am aware that it is the opinion of the Governor of Hong Kong that the interests of any of the respectable members of the native community should be protected as far as possible, but I am inclined to think there is an element of danger in this to our amicable relations with the Chinese Government, and that it would be better not to interfere in any Chinese matter occuring beyond the Colonial jurisdiction; and, thinking thus, and considering that the action of the Canton Government in employing all legitimate means for collecting their duties and preventing smuggling, in the absence of any support from Hong Kong in doing so, is only the exercise of a territorial right, and is not directed against the trade of the Colony, nor injures the legitimate portion thereof, and that the interference of Her Majesty's Government, as prayed for by the petitioners, would form a precedent which would not ouly open a door for fraud and evasion, at which the Chinese are adepts, but make the Colonial Government a species of Court of Appeal against that of Canton, or the means, at least, of promoting their interests, through the authority and influence of Her Majesty's Government, without expense or risk to themselves.

1

43

Further, considering that neither by the Treaties with China, nor by international law, such interference is warranted, and would possibly lead to grave complications, I respectfully submit that the complaints in question are not well founded, or such as call for the interference of Her Majesty's Government.

As regards the letter from Messrs. Caldwell and Brereton, transmitting the Petition to the Colonial Secretary, I may remark, with reference to the second paragraph, that Chinese universally have a great objection to putting their names to documents of any kind, and I am not surprised at the difficulty that was experienced in getting the Petition signed by the few native firms whose names are attached to it. The assertion that more would have signed but for fear of consequences that might have resulted to themselves and their families from the resentment of the Authorities, is a saying which has been transmitted from the days before Treaties with China existed, and is useful as an argument at the present time.. It seems strange, considering the number of petitions and requisitions for assistance transmitted to me, that the Chinese have not discovered it dangerous to address the Colonial Government on the subject of their rights and wrongs, or that I should never have heard of such vengeance having been taken. The truth is there is a smuggling element in most of the cases of seizure, and respectable Chinese firms do not care to be mixed up with them, The rest of the letter requires no comment.

I may state I am not prepared to say that harsh treatment of junk traders, according to European ideas, does not exist, but, with an arbitrary Government, such is often the result and is a consequence of its institutions. In order to meet the representations of the Hong Kong Government, I have endeavoured to correct alleged inconveniences detrimental to the trade of the Colony, and abuses in the management of the Custom-house cruizers by arranging with the Government here for the establishment of two Customs stations at points near Hong Kong, where junks can call, report their cargoes, and obtain a port clearance, which will protect them from stoppage or seizure by the cruizers, instead of, as heretofore, having to obtain it from the Custom-house at Canton, some ninety miles up the river, whereby much time and trouble is saved. Not being satisfied but that there might be some grounds for complaint against the steam cruizers, I arranged they should be placed under the Foreign Collectorate of Customs at Canton, and, an English officer on that establishment having been appointed especially to the duty of their supervision, not one case of complaint has since been brought before me.

Finally, I may mention the difficulties which surround the Canton Government in this question are great. They can not only obtain no assistance from Hong Kong, but are subjected to complaints against the only plan they can devise to prevent smuggling, as being detrimental to the trade and interests of the Colony. The position they are placed in is, consequently, embarrassing, and from this, both for their sakes and ours, I would gladly see them relieved. At Hong Kong the Chamber of Commerce, and the merchants generally, with some exceptions, denounce the blockade system and call for its removal, but fail to point out any substitute for it. It is this unreasoning attitude which adds to the difficulty of arriving at a fair adjustment of the question. But of this the Colonists may rest assured, that the Canton Government will not remove the blockade to meet their convenience, or without the substitution of some plan by which the payment of the Imperial dues can be secured.

I have the honour to return the petition and maps inclosed in your Lordship's despatch.

I have. &c.

The Right Hon. the Earl of Derby,

&c,

&c.

&c.

(Signed)

Inclosure 2 in No. 5.

B. ROBERTSON, Consul.

Resume of cases of Seisure of Trading Junks by the Canton Customs and Salt Commis- sioner's Cruisers, from the 1st of July, 1872, to the 30th of June 1874; forwarded by the Colonial Government of Hong Kong.

I

EIGHTEEN cases in all were brought to my notice during the two years ending the 30th of June, 1874.

In November 1872, two cases were before me of junks smuggling opium. The Petitions did not deny that opium had been smuggled, but declared that such was done unknown to the masters of the vessels. An inquiry was duly made into the matter, and the following facts elicited :-

4

Page 450Page 451

44

In one of the boats, the "Kue Cheong-tai" junk, was found a small quantity of opium, so stowed in the cargo that it was evident the master must have been cognizant of the concealment. The amount, however, was very small, and a nominal fine was imposed, and the junk released, the opium being confiscated.

The case of the other of these boats, the "Kum Shun-wo" junk, was worse. Besides the opium there were fifty bags of sulphur on board, which is contraband, carefully concealed among the cargo. In this case the junk was detained a longer time, and a heavier fine imposed, but ultimately she was released.

In 1873, fourteen cases were brought to my notice; the first two were those of the "Tsit hing-sheng," alias the "Cheat hing-shing" or "Chieh hsing-sheng," and the "Kum chun-fat," or " Chin chên-fa,” junks. In these two cases the Petitioners confessed they were loaded with contraband which they intended to run from Hong Kong to the mainland, but urged that the Chinese cruizers scized their junks in Hong Kong wåters. A third case was that of the "Ng-Hop-Sing," or "Wu ho-shing," which was going to Hong Kong with a cargo of sugar from Taiwan (Formosa), on which no export duty had been paid. The intention to defraud the Chinese revenue was not denied, but it was alleged the vessel had been seized in Hong Kong waters.

The three cases were investigated at Canton by a Joint Commission appointed by the Viceroy and myself, and the following are the facts:-

1

The seizure of the "Tsit hing-shing" was brought to my notice in the beginning of July by the Hong Kong Government. The allegation of the complainant was that the vessel was owned by the Ta-li firm in Hong Kong. She left the Colony on the 12th of June for Cheong-po, in the Kwang-tung Province, loaded with rice and saltpetre (contraband); that the junk anchored close under the land at Hong Kong in the Pak shui-wan Bay, and consequently in British waters. Presently a Chinese Customs cruizer came alongside, and, to an inquiry as to the nature of the cargo, the master said he had rice. Search was made, and the vessel was found to be carrying saltpetre, she was therefore taken to Canton and confiscated.

When the case was represented to the Chinese authorities, they denied that the junk had been seized in British waters, and forwarded the report of the foreigner in charge of the cruizer stating she was seized in Chinese waters.

The Court was composed of the Acting Vice-Consul and Interpreter Gardner; Yeh Tze-chu, the Customs Treasurer; and Pu Peng-chi, the Magistrate of the Nanhai district. The witnesses from Hong Kong, and the Europeans and Chinese in the cruizer that made the seizure, having been examined, it appeared that the "Tsit hing-sheng" junk lay for several days in Sy-wan Bay in Hong Kong waters with the saltpetre on board, waiting for an opportunity to run it to the mainland. The Revenue cruiser, a sailing-vessel under the command of a German named Vanderlearh, had intelligence of this, and, on the 10th of June, concealed his vessel behind Tai-tu Island. On the 12th an east wind sprang up, and the "Tsit hing-shêng "junk thinking the coast was clear got under weigh, and tacked down the channel till one of the tacks brought her east of Slope Island right on to the cruizer, which at once seized her, she being in Chinese waters. She was under sail, and not at anchor when captured. The Court was unanimously of opinion that she was taken in Chinese waters.

The case of the "Kum-Chum-Fat" was brought to my notice a few days later. The Petitioners alleged that the junk left Hong Kong for Chao-Chow-Fu, in the Fo-kien Province. This, however, could not be, as Chao-Chow-Fu is in the Kwang-tung (Canton) Province. The vessel left Hong Kong on the 13th of June, loaded with 338 bags saltpetre, and other cargo. She went to the Tan-tu Customs station and reported, and then returned to Hong Kong, and anchored in Ly-Wan Bay. A boat, with Europeans in it, came from the Customs cruizers, seized the junk, and took her to Canton, where she was confiscated. The matter being reported to the Chinese Authorities, an answer precisely similar to that in the "Teit hing-Shêng" case was given, and similarly the question was tried by the Court, and on the same day. From the evidence given it was proved that the " Kum Chum-Fat" junk left Hong Kong on the 13th of June at 11 P.M., and attempted to run, but was hailed by the Customs cruizer at Tai-tu Island. Directly she heard the hail she went about (a slight south-west wind blowing), and sailed to the north-west, towards Ly-Wan Bay. A boat was lowered from the cruizer, and, after a short chase, overhauled and captured her. There was no doubt she was taken running, the distance from Tai-tu to the Hong Kong shore being only a mile. The question arose whether, before being taken, she had or had not been able to run half that distance. This point the Court did not attempt to decide. But the Viceroy had already, to prevent cases arising, ordered that no seizure sbould be made nearer the Hong Kong shore than Tai-tu, Slope Island, and Lam-tan. Ile accordingly gave the "Kum Chun-Fat "junk the benefit

45

of the doubt, and determined to restore the vessel and cargo. On referring, however, to the Haikwan (Superintendent of Customs), it was found that the saltpetre had been sent to the "Board for Maintaining Order." Meanwhile the junk and cargo had been sold at auction, and had realized 180 dollars, while the price at which they were valued by the owners was 2,100 dollars. In this, however, was included the price of the saltpetre, which the Viceroy valued at 900 dollars. The total, 1,080 dollars was sent to the Hong Kong Government, who paid it over to the owners.

The third case, tried on the 31st of July, was that of the Ng-Hop-Sing junk. In this case it was plainly proved that the whole of the allegations of the complainants were false. The vessel was seized many miles from Hong Kong, with a cargo of smuggled sugar, which had not paid duty at the port of export-Swatow, and not Tamsui, as alleged by them. The owner of the junk belonged to the Swatow Guild, to which body the Superintendent of Customs submitted the case. In his evidence before the Swatow Guid the owner stated the junk was seized seven miles outside of the Potang Channel, and he owned it had left Swatow without paying duty. The Swatow Guild imposed a slight fine, and begged that the vessel might be released. The owner of the junk had given a document expressing his satisfaction with this arrangement, and the Superintendent had agreed to the request of the Guild, and under these circumstances the Court considered the case was definitely settled.

The decisions of the Court in the above three cases were communicated to the Governor of Hong Kong, who expressed his concurrence therein, and requested me to convey his thanks to the officers who composed the Court.

The next two seizure cases were brought to my notice in September 1873. They referred to pilot boat No. 317, and to a Stanley boat (a village in Hong Kong) named the "Yun a hang." The first was alleged to have been seized by salt cruizers in Hong Kong waters, but the case was dropped, I believe, because of fabrication, as the aggrieved parties would not come to Canton to prove their case, or be confronted with the officers of the station they accused of extorting money from them. I was unable, therefore, to proceed with it.

\

The next was a complicated case. The complainants alleged that duty had been paid on 80 balls of opium, to be carried in the "Yi Au" junk, and the opium was trans- shipped, without authority, into the "On ke" junk. It was finally ascertained that the 80 balls had not paid duty, but that forged duty chops had been presented for them. In the junk there were also 31 balls of opium which had no duty receipts at all. The forged and the true chops were compared, and the Superintendent of Customs requested that, if the consignees had been deceived, they should come to Canton and state where they got the chops from. The Superintendent said he did not think they were honest people, as they had a small parcel of opium with the true chops, and he believed they were trying to impose the false ones. The complainants decline to come to Canton to prosecute their case.

In November 1873, was also brought before me the case of the "Chên-fong "junk. In this case it would appear there were some mistakes on both sides. Some goods on board, unmanifested, caused the junk to be detained for examination, and a parcel of opium was taken away under, as it turned out, the erroneous impression that it was being smuggled. On the truth being ascertained, the opium was returned, and a nominal fine imposed for a false manifest, and the vessel released."

The case of the "Sing Kat-li" junk concluded the cases brought to my notice in 1873. In this case it was owned that smuggling had been attempted, but certain of the shippers declared themselves innocent, and a further allegation was made that the junk had been seized in Hong Kong waters. In this case, a woman who spoke English very well was put forward by the real owner of the goods seized, as the complainant, and she came to Canton and saw Mr. Vice-Consul Gardner, who asked her to show the port clearance and the duty receipts given to shippers of cargo. These, however, were not forthcoming, but she handed certain documents to Mr. Gardner, and, inadvertently, a letter to the real owner of the cargo from the master of the junk. This letter stated that the master, according to instructions, tried to run the cargo, but was seized east of the Potang Channel, that the Chinese authorities would release the vessel and cargo on the duties and certain fines being paid, and that he, the master, did not think more favourable terms could be obtained. Further investigation showed that the petition to the Hong Kong Government was merely presented on the chance of obtaining more favourable terms, through its intervention, from the Chinese authorities. As soon as I ascertained this, I declined to proceed with the case.

Previous to June 1874, two cases were brought to my notice, that of the "Kum-hop- fêng" junk,, which was seized, and released on the payment of a slight fine, but which,

[218]

N