CO129-302 - Public Offices - 1900 — Page 572

JAPAN: TREATY REVISION.

CONFIDENTIAL.

No. 1.

[September

0.0

18727

RECR

Rece, 14 JUN 00

SECTION 1..

563

Sir E. Satow to the Marquess of Salisbury.-(Received September 18.)

Tokió, August 3, 1899. (No. 139.) My Lord,

IN continuation of my despatch No. 128 of the 24th July respecting the duty recently imposed on tea exported from Formosa, I have the honour to inclose translation of the reply which I have received from the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs.

His Excellency, with reference to my quotation from Article VIII of the Treaty of 1894, states that, as he understands it, the word "export" means the transportation of goods from the territory of one country to the territory of another, and he is of opinion that as regards the provision contained in the last section of Article VIII, the sense is that no distinction is drawn as to whether the destination of goods exported from one of the contracting countries is a port of the other of the contracting countries, or a port of a third country.

In this note the word "country" is evidently intended by his Excellency not to be taken in a geographical sense, but as equivalent to "independent Power."

I venture to think that the meaning which Viscount Aoki seeks to give to the word "exportation" is too limited, and that, in English, it covers transport from a port of Canada, for instance, or any other possession of Her Majesty, as well as from

a port of an independent Power, to Great Britain, or vice versa.

In the second place, the wording of the Article is not "a port of the other Contracting Party," but "a port of either of the Contracting Parties," and in order to give this meaning to the text, his Excellency has been obliged to introduce into the official Japanese translation of the Article quoted in his note words which are not there.

I do not know whether duties are still collected at Rangoon, as they used to be, on the exportation of rice, but if it were so, I presume that the VIIIth Article of the Treaty would prevent such duty being levied on rise exported to Japan or China unless it were also imposed on rice exported to Great Britain."

As will be seen from Viscount Aoki's note, the Island of Formosa is distinguished

ララ

from "Japan proper." It is, however, a dependency, not a part of Japan, the Japanese Constitution does not apply there, and it is governed by different laws. In fact, it occupies with regard to Japan much the same position as India with regard to Great Britain.

If, however, it were admitted that Formosa and Japan form one country for the purposes of Article VIII, and that, therefore, the objection does not lie, yet, as the tea in question is not consumed in Japan, but is re-exported from Kobe free of export duty to another country, say, the United States, the objection would be valid that the tea is charged with duty when exported from the dominions and possessions of Japan to Amoy, while to a port of another Power it is exported free.

To sum up the facts, Formosan tea is at present exported mainly via Amoy, passing through the hands of British merchants, and conveyed in British vessels.

The proposed discrimination will tend to divert the business into the hands of Japanese merchants and Japanese steamers via Kelung and Kobe. At Kelung port clearance dues of only 2s. and 1s. 2d. respectively are to be collected, no export duty being afterwards levied at Kobe on the tea when dispatched to the United States or Canada in United States, Japanese, or British steamers, while on the same teas exported in British vessels from Tamsui to Amoy for reshipment to Great Britain, to the United States via the Suez Canal, to the continent of Europe, Australia, and the Dutch Colonies export duties of 3s. 2d. and 28. 4d. will be respectively imposed.

I suggest that Kobe as a place of destination is "a port of one of the Contacting Parties" (the wording of the Article is "a port of either of the Contracting Parties **), and that higher charges ought not to be levied on exports to Amoy than on those to Kobe. If it is not such a port within the meaning of Article VIII, then it is a port of Japan equally with the ports of Formosa, and the same duties should be levied on exports from it as from the ports of Formosa.

[.202d-1]