6
Inclosure 12 in No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Prince Ch'ing.
(This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA,
CONFIDENTIAL.
[September 9.]
SECTION 8.
CO
35776 Rece 249 The P OCT O
Your Highness,
Peking, July 16, 1907. I AM informed by His Majesty's Consul at Changsha that on the 19th May the agent of the British-American Tobacco Company reported the stoppage at the west gate of the city of six cases of cigarettes, pending payment of dues ("lo ti chuan") to the Li-kin Office.
His Majesty's Consul thereupon wrote to the Taotai, giving notice that the goods would be sent into the city on the following day, to which the Taotai replied that, while the Tobacco Company had the right, under Treaty, to send its goods into the city to be sold by native firms, they should be ordered to pay the "lo ti" tax according to the Regulations.
It was then explained by His Majesty's Consul that these goods, having paid customs duties, were not liable to any further charges whatever within the limits of the Treaty port.
The Taotai answered to this that when Changsha was opened as a port a site outside the North Gate was fixed upon as the foreign Settlement, and that it was not admitted that the city was included in the Treaty port. The goods of foreign merchants, therefore, though they might be sold in the city, were liable to the consumption tax,
A few days later the Taotai wrote again, demanding that the native firm, Yuan T'ai, who were the consignees in the city, should pay the tax, but to this His Majesty's Consul could not agree. The Taotai, however, would only admit that foreign goods. were exempt from li-kin and other imposts within the Settlements of Treaty ports. The city of Changsha, he contended, was outside the Settlement, and foreign merchants could not be permitted to establish business premises therein, nor could foreign goods sent into the city be exempted from the consumption tax. On three grounds, therefore, these goods were subject to the payment of li-kin: First, the locality was not within the Settlement: secondly, the goods had passed into the hands of native merchants; and thirdly, no additional special surtax of one and a-half times duty has been levied.
The question as to whether the city of Changsha is included in the Treaty port has been gone into thoroughly between your Highness' Board and this Legation, and I do not propose to go over that ground again. The Board has admitted that there was no intention of making limitations and of not permitting foreign merchants to open business establishments in the city; yet the local authorities defy this decision of the Central Government, and still contend that the city is to be considered as a place in the interior.
I have the honour to request that urgent instructions may be sent by telegraph to the Governor to cease all such attempts to levy any taxation other than customs duty on foreign goods in the city of Changsha, whether in foreign or native hands, and to issue a clearly-worded Proclamation to this effect.
Should this step not be taken, I must presume that the Wai-wu Pu is not in a position to enforce the observance of Treaty rights by the provincial authorities, and that the Central Government regards the Province of Hunan as beyond its control. If His Majesty's Government is to adopt this view it will be difficult to avoid serious consequences, and I therefore take this opportunity of declaring to your Highness that further interference with British goods at Changsha will not be tolerated.
Awaiting the honour of an early reply, I avail, &c.
0
(Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
P
[30106]
No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received September 9.)
(No. 349.) Sir,
Peking, July 21, 1907. SINCE the receipt of your despatch No. 105 of the 11th March last, I have continually discussed with my French colleague and Major Nathan the question of the land belonging to the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company which has been occupied by the French authorities at Chingwantao.
"At the first interview which I had with M. Bapst it was agreed that the French Consul at Tien-tsin should be allowed to inspect the title-deed of the Company covering At the the land in dispute, which was deposited at His Majesty's Consulate-General. same time he maintained that the land was occupied in 1900, nearly a year before the first protest was made by the Company in October 1900.
As this statement did not seem to tally with Major Davies's Memorandum, which formed one of the inclosures in your despatch No. 105, I instructed Mr. Consul-General Hopkins to inquire of Major Nathan whether the date of occupation could be definitely fixed apart from that Memorandum. I also requested him to give the French Consul- General every facility for the inspection of the deed.
In his reply Mr. Hopkins informed me that the land along the bay was divided up among the Powers by a Commission appointed by the various Adniirals in October 1900 and January 1901, but no written Agreement on the subject could be found. The title-deed for the land on the bluff was in perfect order, but no further evidence of the date of seizure was procurable.
In a subsequent telegram, dated the 28th May, Mr. Hopkins stated that the French Consul proposed to ask the Viceroy to depute an official to examine and pronounce on the authenticity of the Company's deed and the seals thereon. In reply to my inquiry as to whether he saw any objection to the French Consul's proposals an whether the deed was originally sent to the Chinese authorities prior to registration at His Majesty's Consulate-General, Mr. Hopkins informed me that Major Nathan saw no particular objection to the proposal, though he thought that there was probably a desire to draw the Chinese into the dispute. The deed had not been sent into the Chinese authorities before being registered, because at that date (August 1901) they had not yet returned to Tien-tsin.
On the 9th June I received a letter from M. Bapst, copy of which I have the honour to inclose, sending me a communication from the Viceroy Yuan Shih-k'ui, in which his Excellency declined to appoint Delegates to examine the title-deed in question.
To this I replied in a letter, copy of which is inclosed, reminding him that, as he had expressed a doubt as to the competence of the French Commission which had examined the title-deeds in 1903, we had agreed that he should appoint a fresh Commission for the purpose. I added that I should be greatly obliged if he would arrange for the examination to take place at an carly date.
At the same time I sent copies of the correspondence to Mr. Hopkins and requested him to find means to point out to the Viceroy that the Chinese could gain no advantage by supporting the French claim, as the permanent occupation of the land by the French authorities would only be more fully insured by the elimination of
the British element.
Some correspondence, copies of which I have the honour to inclose, then ensued between M. Bapst and myself in regard to the procès-verbal signed by Admiral Bayle on the 19th October, 1903, in which it was stated that the title-deeds had been M. Bapst examined by a French Commission and admitted to be "assez sérieux.” maintained that this procès-verbal had been disavowed by the French Government, and I requested him for information as to when this disavowal took place, as it appeared from M. Pichon's note to Sir F. Bertie of the 25th February, 1907, that the French Government had no knowledge of the document in question. In reply, M. Bapst furnished me with copies of correspondence between the French Legation and the French Government, from which it appeared that the French Minister had declined to
[2652 i-8]
B
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.