This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
No. 1.
5584 1
59
July 20.
SECTION 5.
Mr. Townley to the Marquess of Lansdowne.—(Received July 20.)
(No. 221.)
Peking, June 4, 1903.
My Lord,
MR. LITTON has sent to your Lordship a précis of his despatch No. 9 of the 21st April, which reached me on the 31st May, reporting his settlement of the recent li-kin case at Ta Li Fu, and also requesting instructions on certain general points connected with the levy of li-kin in Yünnan Province.
As the despatch from the provincial authorities to Mr. Litton, recording the terms of the proposed settlement of the li-kin case, contains a distinct assurance that their denunciation of the offending official is equivalent to his dismissal, I am inviting the Board of Foreign Affairs to communicate to me the Decree cashiering him, with a view to the closing of the case.
The reasons given by Mr. Litton for accepting a smaller sum by way of compensation than that he originally demanded seem to me to justify his action, and I venture to hope that He was, as he admits, too hasty in accepting the proposed settlement, but in other respects I think he deserves much credit for the energy he showed in dealing with the case.
The points on which Mr. Litton asks for instructions are both new and difficult. The view I take with regard to them is set forth in the despatch to him, of which I have the honour to inclose a copy, and I shall be glad to learn whether it meets with your Lordship's approval.
I have, &c. (Signed)
WALTER TOWNLEY.
(No. 3.) Sir,
Inclosure in No. 1.
Mr. Townley to Consul Litton.
Peking, June 4, 1903.
MY views with regard to the general questions raised in your despatch No. 9, of the 15th April, are as follows:—
I think there is no doubt that the Chinese are entitled to require that a Transit Pass should contain the name of the district for which the goods are intended. After the destination has been reached and the goods separated from the Pass, they should, of course, be only liable to such taxation as is imposed at the same place on goods that had paid li-kin en route, but the system described by you of compounding for li-kin by a single payment certainly makes the application of this Rule very difficult. The case, as I understand it, stands thus: at a given point there may be goods in circulation of three classes (1) goods that have paid no li-kin; (2) goods that paid li-kin in a lump sum at some other li-kin station; and (3) goods that came up under Transit Pass but have been separated from their Pass so that there is no means of proving that they ever had its protection. If it were possible to prove that the last class had come up under pass, they would, I consider, be entitled to the exemption from taxation enjoyed at any particular place by the second class, i.e., goods that have compounded payment of li-kin, but if there is no way of proving this, I do not see how they can avoid being classed with the goods that have paid no li-kin at all.
The only remedy that occurs to me is that Transit Passes should be taken out for smaller quantities of goods, so as to postpone to the latest possible moment the separation of the goods and the passes, but I do not know how far this is possible. On the surface it would seem that if the dealers in goods for which no Transit Pass is taken out can arrange matters so that the goods retain the protection given by the "big ticket" you mention, the dealers in Transit Pass goods ought to be able to do the same.
[2077 u-5]
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.}
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
No. 1.
5584 1
59
[July 20.
SECTION 5.
Mr. Townley to the Marquess of Lansdowne.-(Received July 20.)
(No. 221.)
Peking, June 4, 1903. My Lord,
MR. LITTON has sent to your Lordship a précis of his despatch No. 9 of the 21st April, which reached me on the 31st May, reporting his settlement of the recent -kin case at Ta Li Fu, and also requesting instructions on certain general points connected with the levy of li-kin in Yünnan Province.
As the despatch from the provincial authorities to Mr. Litton, recording the terms of the proposed settlement of the li-kin case, contains a distinct assurance that their denunciation of the offending official is equivalent to his dismissal, I am inviting the Board of Foreign Affairs to communicate to me the Decree cashiering him, with a view to the closing of the case.
The reasons given by Mr. Litton for accepting a smaller sum by way of compensation than that he originally demanded seem to me to justify his action, and I venture to hope that He was, as he admits, too hasty in accepting your Lordship will take the same view. the proposed settlement, but in other respects I think he deserves much credit for the energy he showed in dealing with the case.
The points on which Mr. Litton asks for instructions are both new and difficult. The view I take with regard to them is set forth in the despatch to him, of which I have the honour to inclose a copy, and I shall be glad to learn whether it meets with your Lordship's approval.
I have, &c. (Signed)
WALTER TOWNLEY.
(No. 3.) Sir,
Inclosure in No. 1.
Mr. Townley to Consul Litton.
Peking, June 4, 1903.
MY views with regard to the general questions raised in your despatch No. 9, of the 15th April, are as follows :---
I think there is no doubt that the Chinese are entitled to require that a Transit Pass should contain the name of the district for which the goods are intended. After the destination has been reached and the goods separated from the Pass, they should, of course, be only liable to such taxation as is imposed at the same place on goods that had paid li-kin en route, but the system described by you of compounding for li-kin by a single payment certainly makes the application of this Rule very difficult. The case, as I understand it, stands thus: at a given point there may be goods in circulation of three classes (1) goods that have paid no li-kin; (2) goods that paid li-kin in a lump sum at some other li-kin station; and (3) goods that came up under Transit Pass but have been separated from their Pass so that their is no means of proving that they ever had its protection. If it were possible to prove that the last class had come up under pass, they would, I consider, be entitled to the exemption from taxation onjoyed at any particular place by the second class, i.e., goods that have compounded payment of li-kin, but if there is no way of proving this, I do not see how they can avoid being classed with the goods that have paid no li-kin at all.
The only remedy that occurs to me is that Transit Passes should be taken out for smaller quantities of goods, so as to postpone to the latest possible moment the separation of the goods and the passes, but I do not know how far this is possible. On the surface it would seem that if the dealers in goods for which no Transit Pass is taken out can arrange matters so that the goods retain the protection given by the "big ticket" you mention, the dealers in Transit Pass goods ought to be able to do the same..
[2077 u-5]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.