}
632
2
international trade and residence are confined to the limits of the areas marked off for such trade and residence. From your despatch under acknowledgment it appears that you have not grasped my arguments. I therefore once more expound to you fully and accurately the distinctions between a Treaty port and the interior, in order to obviate any misunderstanding.
China in her various Treaties with other nations, in regard to ports opened to international trade, has been obliged to mention the usual designation of such places. This by no means implied that the whole of such a place was the place of inter- national trade. Therefore the Treaties state plainly that in such and such ports places of international trade and residence will be marked off. This was to give notice that in opening more marts foreign trade and residence would be confined to the limits of the areas designated.
If your statement that the whole of Mukden is open to foreign trade and residence were correct, then, in the area already granted for international trade, there would be a further allowance of a special Settlement. A proper appreciation of the provisions of the Commercial Treaties between China and Japan and China and America, and of the actual state of affairs at the various Treaty ports, proves you to be entirely in the wrong.
If the whole town is to be recognized as the site of international trade, there would be no need of the mention of a place for international trade in the Treaty, and if the whole town is to be recognized as the place for foreign residence, there would be no need of the mention of an area for that purpose. From this exposition of the wording of the Treaties it is shown that the international trading port does not mean the whole town.
If we argue from the actual facts, then, as there is a Settlement area, it cannot, of course, include the whole town. If the whole town is recognized as open, then there is no need of mentioning a Settlement. A Settlement and the entire town are mutually incompatible terms, and cannot be arranged in combination. From this exposition of the actual facts it is again shown that the international trading port does not mean the whole town.
In your despatch you quote me as saying in my previous despatch that. I maintain that the foreign merchants and people must be confined in their international trade and residence to a special place and area. I cannot admit their right to live where they please and trade where they like.
With regard to the collection of inland duties, the first essential is to recognize the Settlements as the places of international trade at the Treaty ports.
The Treaty Regulations can then be followed as to what goods should be exempted from taxation, and as to where taxes should be levied. Foreign merchants are bound by the provi sions of these Regulations to observe them.
For instance, in the case of foreign goods: if they are going from one Treaty port to another, and have exemption certificates, the second port will not levy further duties. If they are going into the interior, and are provided with transit certificates, the li-kin barriers en route will all pass them without charge. As regards native goods, if they are going from one Treaty port to another, and are provided with proofs that they have paid export duty, the second port will only levy a half duty thereon. If they go on to the interior, they must pay duty at Customs stations and li-kin at barriers passed en route. If native produce is bought in the interior for export abroad,. the Treaties allow the issue of transit duty certificates, which are exchanged for transit passes, and no duties are leviable en route till the goods reach the last barrier, when they pay transit duty and proceed to the Treaty port. If such goods have no transit duty certificates, they must pay duty at Customs stations and li-kin at barriers en route.
The distinctions are extremely clear, and needless fears should not be enter- tained.
In sending you this reply, I must refer to your statement that it has been settled that the whole town of Changsha is open to foreign trade. It occurs to me: that you must have some record of this case in your office, and I beg you will favour me with full particulars.
I have, &c.
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.] C
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL
[10075]
No. 1.
[March 28.]
SECTION 1.
13823
The London Chamber of Commerce to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received March 28.) 19 APR 07,
Oxford Court, Cannon Street, London, Sir,
March 27, 1907. AT the last meeting of the Council of this Chamber it was stated that little or no progress has been made for more than a year towards obtaining the enactment of satisfactory regulations governing the registration of trade-marks in the Chinese Empire.
It was also stated that a fresh set of regulations governing the registration of trade-marks in China had been issued by the Board of Commerce, but that His Majesty's Minister at Peking had declined to discuss these new rules, and that he was pressing for further discussion upon the old rules which were prepared and circulated in 1905, and upon which comments had been made by Chambers of Commerce and others interested.
In view of the importance of the matter to owners of trade-marks, the Council of the Chamber were strongly of the opinion that the completion and enactment of these regulations should no longer be allowed to remain in abeyance, and I was directed to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will continue to maintain the position taken up by His Majesty's Minister at Peking, and will insist that the draft rules which were under consideration in 1905 shall be brought into force at the earliest possible date.
[2394
een
·1]
I am, &c.
(Signed)
KENRIC B. MURRAY,
Secretary.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.