CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908 — Page 822

815

2

absent; and it was pointed out by the French Minister that, in view of the German Government having yielded to the Chinese contention in the ease of Chinan-fu, the co- operation of Graf Rex would be essential.

It should be borne in mind, however, in any joint action which may ensue, that the above definition of a Treaty port, which was framed in 1888 to meet the case of ports in Formosa, no longer quite meets the requirements of the case. foreigners have acquired land at several ports which is situated some miles

In recent years the anchorage and which is not in the city. At Cauton, for instance, Messrs. Butterfield from away and Swire have a large establishment which would not fall within the scope of the definition, and at Wuhu the tendency is to extend on the side of the Settlement furthest away from the city.

With the varying conditions of the ports it is unlikely that a general definition can be framed to meet all cases, and the most practical solution-the delimitation of each port--is, I fear, beyond our reach, as there is little prospect of inducing the Chinese Government to grant sufficiently liberal limits, especially in the older ports. At Shanghae, for instance, a radius from the custom-house of 6 or 7 miles would be required to embrace all the districts connoted by the name of the port, and a way would have to be left open for future expansion of the limits after a period of years.

I have, &c. (Signed)

(No. 6.) Sir,

Inclosure 1 in No. 1.

Consul-General Mansfield to Sir J. Jordan,

J. N. JORDAN.

REFERRING to your despatch (unnumbered) of the 7th ultimo and its inclosures

Canton, March 2, 1908. on the subject of the Nanning Trade Regulations, I have the honour to report that no developments have taken place with regard to Mr. Edwards' agency within the city of Nanning, temporary permission for which has been given. I may point out that so far no houses have been built on the foreign Settlement, and that it is highly improbable any foreigner will be at the expense of building there until, at any rate, it is clearly laid down that the city and suburbs are within the area exempt from li-kin. If it prove impossible to obtain free right of residence for foreigners in the port area, a possible, though unsatisfactory, compromise might be to allow native agents of foreign firms to so live. No foreign authority was consulted as to the location of the foreign Settle- ment, and it has obviously been badly chosen. It is some three-quarters of a-inile below the city, the chief business suburb of which is on the far side, and a considerable amount of money has been sunk in a bund of faulty construction, much of which has already collapsed.

I can hardly conceive any possible gain to foreign trade as likely to accrue from the present so-called opening of Nanning.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

R. W. MANSFIELD,

3

the generous and the only possible construction to be placed upon such declaration is that the port as a whole is open.

It cannot be maintained that the Treaty port of Shanghae is limited to the Settle- ments. If in fact the Settlements constitute the Treaty port, then li-kin may be justly levied upon every ounce of cargo disembarked from shipping anchored in the stream, and it would be necessary to apply for a transit pass for all cargo taken from a steamer to the shore. It is to be noted, however, that there has been no consistent attempt on the part of the Chinese authorities to establish such a practice. This levy of li-kin within the harbour is occasional only, which gives rise to the assumption that it is an unauthorized attempt at extortion not definitely supported by the higher powers.

There

is no doubt that many unauthorized persons claim to be connected with some hi-kin office, and by such means impose on the owners of cargo. The amounts demanded are as a rule small, and the owners of the cargo generally pay the tax rather than involve them- selves in the trouble of taking the collectors into Court.

The fact, however, that such occasional levies are sometimes acquiesced in can constitute no justification therefor. Still less can we admit the defence that such levies are legal because they are not made in that part of the harbour comprised within the Settlements.

Were the Settlements of Shanghae large enough to permit the accommodation of all shipping and all cargo there, such an argument might be advanced with some show of reason. As a matter of fact, however, the accommodation therein does not begin to suffice for the trade, Since Shanghae became a Treaty port the trade has gradually grown to its present large proportions, and from time to time it has been necessary to extend the harbour limits. The present limits were established early in the present year, and an official plan thereof was issued by the Imperial Maritime Customs for the information of all.

To now restrict the privileges of the harbour to the narrow part thereof which comprises the Settlement area would create an impossible situation. Not only would the shipping be seriously hampered, but grave loss would result to the large interests in warehouses and wharves outside of the Settlement area, but within the harbour limits. As at present conducted, foreign merchandize is brought within the harbour of Shanghae, it is passed through the Imperial Maritime Customs and pays duty and harbour tax, and it is either left aboard the ship, which is assigned to a particular buoy by the Harbour- master, an employee of the Chinese Government, or else it is stowed in a godown, which in the great majority of cases must be without the Settlement limits.

It cannot be too strongly insisted upon that foreign merchandize which has thus paid the customs and harbour dues and is only stored outside the Settlements because it cannot possibly be stored within them is exempt from further taxation within the limit of the port.

In order to put an end to the dispute and misunderstandings injurious to the trade of the port, which arise from such illegal taxation, we ask that a Proclamation be issued prohibiting the levy within the Treaty port and harbour limits of taxes of every nature on foreign goods excepting those provided for by Treaty,

We presume to express the hope that this view will meet with your approval, and that there will be in the future no occasion to protest against any arbitrary and unlawful imposition of li-kin taxes upon foreign merchandize within the Treaty port and harbour limits of Shanghae.

An early reply is requested.

We have, &c. (Signatures of Consular Body.)

Inclosure 2 in No. 1.

Shanghae Consular Body to Shanghae Taotai.

Your Excellency,

WE have the honour to report that there have been brought to our attention recently

Shanghae, October 30, 1908. several cases of exaction of li-kin within the limit of the harbour of Shanghae on foreign merchandize of several nationalities.

The allegation in defence of these exactions appears to be that it is only the Settle- ments of Shanghae which are exempt from li-kin, which may be levied at will outside the Settlements though within the harbour.

We strongly condemn this practice, and we cannot admit the allegation made in defence thereof.

The spirit of the Treaties between China and the foreign Powers is that of good-will towards trade. In this spirit, when a port has been declared to be open to foreign trade,

(No. 16.)

Inclosure 3 in No. 1.

Consul-General Sir P. Warren to Sir J. Jordan.

Sir,

Shanghue, February 6, 1908. IN my despatch to you, No. 125 of the 1st November, with reference to Messrs. Burkill and Son's Namtao li-kin case, I had the honour to inclose a copy of a letter which had been addressed by the Consular Body to the Taotai protesting against the exactions of the i-kin authorities, and requesting the issue of a Proclamation prohibiting the levy within the harbour limits of the Treaty port of taxes on foreign goods of every nature excepting those provided by Treaty.

[1515 i--6]

B 2

ZLATANADANEPAT PARAM