155
(4)
It is no doubt necessary to concede to Korea, in principle, the right to levy duties and protect its own Revenue laws, but before the Tariff which the Treaty prescribes is assented to, the Korean Government, as having had no previous experience in such matters, may reasonably be required to furnish to the British Officials a Code of Customs Regulations and of proceedings for adjudication in the case of a breach of fiscal rules. The want of such a Code, and the absence of any provision in the Tientsin Treaty for a system of trial or adjudication, led to the grossest miscarriage of justice during the earlier years of the establishment of the Foreign Customs Inspectorate in China, and the Committee hopes that Her Majesty's Government will take adequate precautions for the protection of the property of British subjects against unjust Customs seizures when Korea becomes opened to foreign trade.
The Committee is of opinion that the Tariff of Customs Duties upon Imports and Exports generally should not exceed those levied in China under the Treaty of Tientsin, and considers that the scale of ad valorem duties upon Imports therein, viz. 5% upon entry and 21⁄2% Commutation of Inland Dues, should be adopted also in Korea, and would not be excessive, provided that measures should be taken to give satisfactory and complete effect to the stipulation in the concluding lines of par. 4 of this article—"that no other dues, duties, fees, taxes, or charges of any sort shall be levied upon such Imports either in the interior of Chosen or at the ports." Here, however, appears to be repeated another defect in the Treaty of Tientsin which provides no guarantees for redress in the event of a breach or evasion on the part of local officials of a similar stipulation in that document. The Committee suggests that the clause should run "and that any other dues, duties, fees, taxes, or charges of any sort, which may be levied upon imports either in the interior of Chosen or at the ports, shall be recoverable from the Chosen Customs at the port of entry of such imports."
The distinction between articles of daily use, which are to be subject to an ad valorem duty of 10%, and articles of luxury, which are to pay more, is much too vague and cannot fail to be productive of endless disputes. The Committee would propose that Schedules of the several articles be drawn up and agreed upon with British Officials before the Treaty is confirmed, and has moreover to point out that no provision is made for any drawback of Duty in the case of goods, which have paid import duty, being re-exported.
As regards tonnage dues no stipulation appears that these levies shall be applied to their usual and legitimate purposes—viz., the lighting of the Coast and the improvement of rivers and harbours. No definition is given as to the character of the ton whether of register or burthen, or of the money in which payment is to be made as to its being Korean or Chinese currency.
In Chinese money the tax would be far too heavy.
A serious, and in the opinion of the Committee, a fatal objection remains to be urged against this article as a whole, because it places British subjects on a more unfavourable footing than Japanese who by their Treaty of 1876 are, as the Committee understands, relieved from the payment of any Import Duties. As the "favoured Nation clause Article 14 is not made retrospective in its effect, and as the Chinese under their "Regulations" claim a right in the case of the "subject state" of Korea to favoured treatment, different in its character from that which other nations on the ordinary footing would obtain, it is certain that, if Duties are to be levied upon British Trade on the scale authorized in Article 5, British vessels and subjects will be virtually excluded from Commerce with Korea.
"7
Article 6.—The second clause of this article refers to ports in Korea open to foreign commerce and to the concessions within the limits of which British subjects may alone reside. The list of such open Ports is not given in the Treaty, and no provision is made for the marking out or setting aside such "concessions." Under the Treaty of Tientsin the British Government became the Lessee from the Government of China, at equitable prices, of an allotment of land at each port newly opened by the Treaty, for the purposes of occupation by British subjects, but the provisions of the Korean Treaty leave it to be a matter of conjecture as to the meaning which is to be attached to the term concession."
(5)
The second clause proceeds to stipulate that buildings or land may be leased and residences or warehouses may be constructed within the "concessions," that no coercion or intimidation (presumably by British subjects) in the acquisition of land or buildings shall be permitted, and the land rent shall be paid as fixed by the Authorities of Korea. These stipulations imply that the acquisition of land is to be a matter of private arrangement between intending purchasers and the native owners, and while the language of the clause permits an unmerited and offensive imputation to be thrown on the character of British merchants, no safeguard is taken that exorbitant or prohibitory prices will not be demanded for land, and that the rents to be fixed by the Authorities will not be excessive.
The third clause provides that all rights of jurisdiction over persons and property within the concessions remain vested in the Authorities of Korea except in so far as such rights have been expressly relinquished by the Treaty. As the only rights relinquished are those reserved by Article 4, and relate solely to civil and criminal cases between natives of Korea and British subjects, it follows that cases in which British subjects are concerned against each other, or those in which they are engaged with foreigners of other nationalities, will have to be adjudicated by the Korean Authorities. The Committee cannot suppose that Her Majesty's Government will sanction such an arrangement.
It is further to be remarked that it appears doubtful whether, by the terms of this Treaty, the Native Government, as in the cases of the Treaties between China and Japan and Great Britain, has waived the ordinary right of the sovereign of the soil to tax the persons and property of British subjects within the areas of the "concessions," and that no provision is made in it for the Municipal Government of those concessions. The difficulties which have from time to time arisen in the conduct of the Municipal affairs of the foreign settlements in China and Japan show the necessity of making arrangements, such as experience has shown to be adequate, to meet the serious questions and controversies which otherwise cannot fail to arise under similar circumstances in Korea. The Committee has now before it "a code of Municipal regulations of the Japanese settlement of Fusan in Korea" dated 9th November, 1881, under which "the entire charge of Municipal affairs devolves on the permanent residents in the settlement," and does not doubt that Her Majesty's Government will not permit British subjects to be placed in a more unfavourable position in the country than those of Japan.
The fourth clause prohibits British subjects from transporting foreign imports to the interior or from proceeding thither to purchase native produce and from transporting native produce from one open port to another open port.
As to the prohibition against British subjects visiting the interior, it will be seen that this stipulation involves a retrograde step, placing British subjects at a great disadvantage, when it is compared with the freedom of travel granted to foreigners in China and Japan and with similar facilities given to Chinese and Japanese traders in Korea. Under the Chinese "Regulations" Chinese merchants may open commercial establishments in Yang Wha Chiu and in the capital and by applying to the Commissioner of Trade they may obtain passports to go into the interior for the purpose of trade or pleasure.
11
The prohibition against the transportation by British traders—the clause does not mention British ships though the stipulation may be supposed to include them—of native produce between the open ports, the Committee regards as one of the most objectionable provisions in the Treaty. This prohibition cannot be defended on the ground that it affords a necessary protection to Korean shipping, because the Japanese enjoy the right of trading between the ports opened to them under their Treaty of 1876, and the Chinese under their "Regulations" will assuredly claim a similar privilege. The carrying trade, under such a disability as this attaching to British and Foreign shipping generally, would be virtually handed over to the Japanese and Chinese flags, notwithstanding that the larger proportion of imports to Korea would be goods of British origin, and the Committee needs hardly remark upon the onerous…
155
(4)
It is no doubt necessary to concede to Korea, in principle, the right to levy duties and protect its own Revenue laws, but before the Tariff which the Treaty prescribes is assented to, the Korean Government, as having had no previous experience in such matters, may reasonably be required to furnish to the British Officials a Code of Customs Regulations and of proceedings for adjudication in the case of a breach of fiscal rules. The want of such a Code, and the absence of any provision in the Tientsin Treaty for a system of trial or adjudication, led to the grossest miscarriage of justice during the earlier years of the establish- ment of the Foreign Customs Inspectorate in China, and the Committee hopes that Her Majesty's Government will take adequate precautions for the protection of the property of British subjects against unjust Customs seizures when Korea becomes opened to foreign trade.
The Committee is of opinion that the Tariff of Customs Duties upon Imports and Exports generally should not exceed those levied in China under the Treaty of Tientsin, and considers that the scale of ad valorem duties upon Imports therein, viz. 5% upon entry and 24% Commutation of Inland Dues, should be adopted also in Korea, and would not be excessive, provided that measures should be taken to give satisfactory and complete effect to the stipulation in the concluding lines of par. 4 of this article-"that no other dues, duties, fees, taxes, or charges of any sort shall be levied upon such Imports either in the interior of Chosen or at the ports." Here, however, appears to be repeated another defect in the Treaty of Tientsin which provides no guarantees for redress in the event of a breach or evasion on the part of local officials of a similar stipulation in that document. The Committee suggests that the clause should run "and that any other dues, duties, fees, taxes, "or charges of any sort, which may be levied upon imports either in the interior of Chosen "or at the ports, shall be recoverable from the Chosen Customs at the port of entry of such "imports."
The distinction between articles of daily use, which are to be subject to an ad valorem duty of 10%, and articles of luxury, which are to pay more, is much too vague and cannot fail to be productive of endless disputes. The Committee would propose that Schedules of the several articles be drawn up and agreed upon with British Officials before the Treaty is confirmed, and has moreover to point out that no provision is made for any drawback of Duty in the case of goods, which have paid import duty, being re-exported.
As regards tonnage dues no stipulation appears that these levies shall be applied to their usual and legitimate purposes-viz, the lighting of the Coast and the improvement of rivers and harbours. No definition is given as to the character of the ton whether of register or burthen, or of the money in which payment is to be made as to its being Korean or Chinese currency.
In Chinese money the tax would be far too heavy.
in
A serious, and in the opinion of the Committee, a fatal objection remains to be urged against this article as a whole, because it places British subjects on a more unfavourable footing than Japanese who by their Treaty of 1876 are, as the Committee understands, relieved from the payment of any Import Duties. As the "favoured Nation clause Article 14 is not made retrospective in its effect, and as the Chinese under their "Regulations" claim a right in the case of the "subject state" of Korea to favoured treatment, different in its character from that which other nations on the ordinary footing would obtain, it is certain that, if Duties are to be levied upon British Trade on the scale authorized in Article 5, British vessels and subjects will be virtually excluded from Commerce with Korea.
"7
Article 6.-The second clause of this article refers to ports in Korea open to foreign commerce and to the concessions within the limits of which British subjects may alone reside. The list of such open Ports is not given in the Treaty, and no provision is made for the marking out or setting aside such "concessions." Under the Treaty of Tientsin the British Government became the Lessee from the Government of China, at equitable prices, of an allotment of land at each port newly opened by the Treaty, for the purposes of occupa- tion by British subjects, but the provisions of the Korean Treaty leave it to be a matter of conjecture as to the meaning which is to be attached to the term concession."
( 5 )
The second clause proceeds to stipulate that buildings or land may be leased and resi- dences or warehouses may be constructed within the "concessions," that no coercion or intimidation (presumably by British subjects) in the acquisition of land or buildings shall be permitted, and the land rent shall be paid as fixed by the Authorities of Korea. These stipulations imply that the acquisition of land is to be a matter of private arrangement between intending purchasers and the native owners, and while the language of the clause permits an unmerited and offensive imputation to be thrown on the character of British merchants, no safeguard is taken that exorbitant or prohibitory prices will not be demanded for land, and that the rents to be fixed by the Authorities will not be excessive.
The third clause provides that all rights of jurisdiction over persons and property within the concessions remain vested in the Authorities of Korea except in a so far as such rights have been expressly relinguished by the Treaty. As the only rights relinquished are those reserved by Article 4, and relate solely to civil and criminal cases between natives of Korea and British subjects, it follows that cases in which British subjects are concerned against each other, or those in which they are engaged with foreigners of other nationalities, will have to be adjudicated by the Korean Authorities. The Committee cannot suppose that Her Majesty's Government will sanction such an arrangement.
It is further to be remarked that it appears doubtful whether, by the terms of this Treaty, the Native Government, as in the cases of the Treaties between China and Japan and Great Britain, has waived the ordinary right of the sovereign of the soil to tax the persons and property of British subjects within the areas of the "concessions," and that no provision is made in it for the Municipal Government of those concessions. The difficulties which have from time to time arisen in the conduct of the Municipal affairs of the foreign settlements in China and Japan show the necessity of making arrangements, such as experience has shown to be adequate, to meet the serious questions and controversies which otherwise cannot fail to arise under similar circumstances in Korea. The Committee has now before it "a code of Municipal regulations of the Japanese settlement of Fusan in Korea" dated 9th November, 1881, under which "the entire charge of Municipal affairs devolves on the permancut residents in the settlement," and does not doubt that Her Majesty's Government will not permit British subjects to be placed in a more unfavourable position in the country than those of Japan.
The fourth clause prohibits British subjects from transporting foreign imports to the interior or from proceeding thither to purchase native produce and from transporting native produce from one open port to another open port.
As to the prohibition against British subjects visiting the interior, it will be seen that this stipulation involves a retrograde step, placing British subjects at a great disadvantage, when it is compared with the freedom of travel granted to foreigners in China and Japan and with similar facilities given to Chinese and Japanese traders in Korea. Under the Chinese Regulations" Chinese merchants may open commercial establishments in Yang Wha Chiu and in the capital and by applying to the Commissioner of Trade they may obtain passports
into the interior for the purpose of trade or pleasure.
to go
11
The prohibition against the transportation by British traders--the clause does not mention British ships though the stipulation may be supposed to include them of native produce between the open ports, the Committee regards as one of the most objectionable provisions in the Treaty. This prohibition cannot be defended on the ground that it affords a necessary protection to Korean shipping, because the Japanese enjoy the right of trading between the ports opened to them under their Treaty of 1876, and the Chinese under their "Regulations' will assurely claim a similar privilege. The carrying trade, under such a disability as this attaching to British and Foreign shipping generally, would be virtually handed over to the Ja- panese and Chinese flags, notwithstanding that the larger proportion of imports to Korea would be goods of British origin, and the Committee needs hardly remark upon the onerous
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.