210
THE HONGKong governMENT GAZETTE, 15TH MAY, 1875.
15. An important question in this consideration is-What right has the Hoppo of the Canton District to levy export duties on goods which have come from parts of China not in his jurisdiction, and which are allowed by the Hoppos of those places to leave for Hongkong free of export duty? This is a course of action which has never been followed by any other Canton Hoppo, and seems to be a new idea on the part of the present Hoppo, for the purposes of increasing his own revenue.
16. To the Hoppo, the conveyance of goods into and out of Hongkong may seem smuggling, but the Commission, bearing in mind the Treaty under which the island was acquired, cannot agree in that opinion. Hongkong is declared a free Port, and the Commission can come to no other conclu- sion than that any individual who encourages interference with the right attached to that condition of things, is acting in defiance of the Proclamations issued by this Government for the regulation of its trade.
17.
The Commission beg leave to draw the serious attention of this Government to the position held by the Hoppo. From the information they have collected, he appears to be a person to whom the export and import duties on goods conveyed in native junks, is farmed. He pays a certain sum for his privileges, and, in the pursuit of his gains, does not show that regard for treaty or international rights which the Colony has a clear right to expect and is justified in demanding from the Chinese Government.
18. The letter of H. B. M.'s Consul in reply to the remonstrances of this Government in the case of the Kum-hop Sing junk is so characteristic of the general replies given by the Chinese Authorities in such cases, that the Commission deem it right to draw particular attention to it. This junk, it turns out, was not captured by Captain PALMER, and has not been handed over on payment of a fine or otherwise. SIR BROOKE ROBERTSON in his letter, says:-
"HER MAJESTY'S CONSULATE,
66
·CANTON, 25th March, 1874.
"SIR,
"In the case of the seizure of the Kum-hop Sing junk, reported in your despatch No. 70 of the "11th of February, I have the honor to inform you that after a searching enquiry into the case, both personallly with, and by letters to, the Authorities, I have come to the conclusion that the vessel "in question was legally seized in Chinese waters and under Chinese law for the following reasons:
66
19
"She had on board 520lbs. of fine and 9,104tbs. of coarse Tea, besides sugar and other produce, and "the Master could show no export duty receipt for the same and only a Lekin or war-tax duty chop.
"She was captured by the Revenue Cruizer in command of Captain PALMER, in whose judgment "and sence of justice I have confidence.
27
"The Owners and Master appeared at the Office of the Superintendent of Customs, acknowledged "the attempt to smuggle the goods into Hongkong, and paid a fine for the release of junk and cargo, "which were handed over to them."
66
"2
"Under these circumstances, I consider it a case in which further interference is unnecessary. "The same may be said with regard to the seizure of the Kum-hop Fung, which was brought to "my notice in your despatch No. 74 of the 14th February. The Kum-hop Fung was seized, not "for carrying sugar to the Colony of Hongkong, but for having evaded the export duty on the sugar, and, as regards this junk having been captured by pirates in the River on her return to Hongkong "with a cargo of wood, the Vice-Roy imforms me that enquiries are being instituted, but I am inclin- "ed to think there is not much truth in the story. The Master of this Junk and his Hongkong Agents "have caused a great deal of trouble owing to their concealment of the real facts attending the seizure "of their junk, in the hope, I believe, of getting off the payment of duties, and this second complaint appears to be of about as doubtful a character as the first, however, the Master has his own Authori- "ties to appeal to and we are in no way his protectors."
"I have, &c.,
(6
(Signed,) "B. ROBERTSON,"
"Consul,”
"The Honorable J. GARDINER AUSTIN,
ኃ
Colonial Secretary,
"HONGKONG."
19. That the Hoppo of Canton should have the power to seize and confiscate a vessel like the Kum-hop Sing, bound from a port in Formosa to this Colony, seems contrary to all ideas of justice, in- asmuch as the official above named has no jurisdiction whatever in Formosa, and even the jurisdiction of the Imperial Government of China is so ineffectual, that it has often pleaded its inability to punish the natives of that island, when they have committed outrages.
20. In the case of the Shing-kut Li junk which was seized and condemned on the plea that she carried a case of muskets among her other cargo, the members of the Commission agree with the Acting Attorney General in his opinion that the seizure was a great hardship. The Commission, however, go further, and hold that the vessel having legally cleared from this Colony, her capture comes under the second class of grievances detailed in this Report, and that the Chinese had no authority to interfere with her cargo, whether a portion of it consisted of arms or not, until she attempted to land it on Chi- nese soil.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.