44
258
↓i
of maritime and transit dues, forgone all further right of taxation on whatever can be shown to constitute foreign trade," and he goes on to point out the absurdity of the supposition that the provincial governments have any right to surcharge the duties agreed upon; again, in the same month, he writes to the Tsungli Yamén that:
"The likin constitutes a violation of Treaty rights" and that "a British Minister can have no discretionary power in pro- testing against it as a violation of Treaty." Yet iu 1870 (consult Gladstone) we find Sir Rutherford, in replying to the Shanghai General Chamber of Commerce, expressing his surprise that the Chamber should "persistently maintain an interpretation distinctly and anthoritatively repudiated by the only compet- ent authorities in such a matter,' and he complains that the merchants should reiterate a fallacy, and insist upon an interpretation which rests upon no better foundation than their own opinion against all evidence and authority." Can absurdity go further? This remarkable change in front was no doubt caused by the opinion given by "My Lords of the Com. mittee of the Privy Council" in May 1869, that when once goods have passed out of his" [ie, the British merchant's] "hands, they must take their chance in common with native goods, and bear whatever impositions the rapacity and necessities of Chinese administration may in- flict!"
Shade of Lord Elgin! was that what he meant by his Treaty; was that what we went to war for? Again (I think in 1870) the British trader in China was informed by Lord Clarendon that it was the policy of the British Government to limit points of connection with the Chinese to the most restricted area; truly an encouragement to British enterprise! It may be as well to repeat here what was Lord Elgin's intention in framing his Treaty of 1850; we have it clearly expressed in his des- patch to the Foreign Office of 8th November, 1858, in which, in writing of the newly ar- ranged transit dues, he defines them as a sum in name of transit duty which will free goods whether of export or import to pass between port of shipment or entry to or from any part of China, without further charge of toll, octroi, or tax of any description whatsoever;" further in the same despatch he writes "I have always thought that the remedy" (against arbitrary inland taxation] "was to be sought in the sub- stitution of one fixed payment for the present irregular levies." But I am putting the cart before the horse; what is the wording of the Treaty itself? Clanse XXVIII lays down that after payment of the "single charge .. a certificate shall be issued which shall exempt the goods from all further inland charges what- soever." It is on the plain working of this clause of the Tientsin treaty that we merchants in Shanghai have consistently fought, and as to how strongly we have fought I would refer those who are interested in the matter to the correspondence between Sir Rutherford Alcock and the Shanghai General Chamber of Commerce at the time of the Convention of 1869; despite snubs received from the Minister in Peking and from the Government at home, we maintained our protest against Sir Ruther ford's Convention as giving away rights secured by previous treaties, and in this view we were backed by practically every Chamber of Com- merce in Great Britain interested in the China trade; in consequence the Convention was never ratified.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
of Tientsin, foreign merchandise is not liable to any greater internal taxation than existed at the time when that Treaty was made, and we know that the likin tax did not exist then; conse- quently it is an illegal tax. The Clause in the Convention was strongly objected to, and it was reserved for consideration at a later date;" it was in fact virtually abrogated by the "addi- tional article" to the Convention signed in 1885. Yet at this very time the Chinese are claiming that, under the Chefoo Convention, they can limit the trading rights of foreigners at the new ports opened by the Shimonoseki Treaty to the settlements which have been set apart for foreign occupation; that in fact trade with the cities themselves is not permitted except under payment of likin and of such other rapacious charges as the ** necessities of Chinese administration may inflict;" yet the wording of the Treaty, in common with the wording of previous Treaties, is that the ports and cities nameed shall be opened to foreign trade. It is understood that this pretension of the Chinese is being strongly opposed in Peking, and it may be hoped that it will not form another addition to our "long and painful experience."
"
The foregoing, I think, demonstrates clearly enough why we have accepted a "condition of stagnation in China as in the nature of things; why, in the absenes of governmental support, we have ceased to kick against the pricks, and have considered our time better employed in taking advantage of such trading opportunities as remain open to us. At the risk of having the fable of Hercules and the waggoner thrown at me, I maintain that any apparent want of enter- prise has not been on the part of the British merchant but that his stagnation in China is the natural outcome of a vacillating and weak policy in London, of which the Chinese have been astute enough to take advantage in the direction of denying Treaty rights which were gained for the world at large by the ex- penditure of British blood and money. Why is it, I would ask, that the spare cash of the foreign communities in China has been diverted from the country? Why is it that we have wasted our hard-earned savings on such ventures as Arizonas, Colorados, Selangors, Peraks, Sheridans, 1muris, and many more, wild-cat schemes? Why, in fact, does our money go (and never come back! to develop the resources of these outside countries? The answer is prefectly plain, namely, that no opportunity is allowed us of honest enter- prise in the country in which we live. We did not come out here for the benefit of our health, nor to waste our time in academic discussion with a careless Government as to the interpretation of Treaties; we came as business men to employ our money and enterprise on business lines; for many years we fought for what we considered, and still consider, to be our rights; but; without support from our govern- ment we have been beaten in an unequal strug- gle, and have therefore elected to follow what Mr. Brenan describes as the "line of least re- sistance." What, outside the restricted area of our operations, is offered us in China for legiti- male speculation ? Every one of us knows of the undeveloped wealth which lies at our doors; scheme after scheme has been put before us by Chinese officials on terms of "heads I win, tails you lose." No, we prefer the shadowy security of enterprises in countries of which we know nothing. What were we told the other Is it to be wondered at that after this "pain- dap? The Taotai of Shanghai informed ful experience of thwarted efforts," merchants
us that partnerships between foreigners in China were inclined to let things slide, and and natives were not recognised by Treaty, and to move on Mr. Brenan's "line of least resist he refused to take up a case enforcing claims ance ?" Accordingly it appears that we went on Chinese shareholders in a British Company, sliding along until 1876, when we received despite the fact that these same Chinese had another "painful experience" in the shape of signed special documents binding them to their the "Chefoo Convention" which was "done in liability; before the foreign merchants in China Chefoo" in September of that year, the joke in embark their money in what they know to be Shanghai being that Sir Thomas Wade was the boundless resources of the country, they "done" at the same time. Section III (1) of want some better security than that of the word the Convention proposed to give away practic-of Chinese officials, whose chicanery needs no ally the whose question of likin; it magnani- demonstration. One word more in reply monsly freed our merchandise from likin so
to any charge of want of enterprise in long as that merchandise remained within the Shanghai; what happened on the sign limit of our so-called Concessions," thereby ing of the Shimonoseki Treaty? Immedi- implying that likin was a legal impost outside ately there sprung up in Shanghai four the Concessions. The contention of foreign mer-large cotton mills, and other industrial works, chants always has been, and is, that by the Treaty involving a capital of fully four million taels, of Nanking, expressly confirmed by the Treaty raised almost entirely in China; a considerable,
46
|
|
[September 29, 1897.
amount of this money was subscribed by Chinese traders, affording convincing proof that both foreigners in China, as well as the Chinese trading classes themselves, have no laok of enterprise provided that their business in- stincts tell them that the security is good enough; but no such security can be found in Chinese officialdom,
It would seem that the necessities of the Chinese Government must shortly sweep away the accepted" stagnation," to which Mr. Brenan alludes; to all appearance we are on the eve of vast changes in the relations between China and Western civilisation, and it is surely impossible that we British, after our "long and painful experience" in the country, after the millions we have spent, and the blood that we have shed, can accept any other position than that of nulli secundus, and to maintain that position we only require a firm policy in London, the rest we have got in Peking and in British enterprise.-C. J. DUDGEON in N. C. Daily News.
THE UNITED STA: ES DIFFEREN- TIAL TARIFF.
The General Agent of the Canadian Pacific Company has received telegraphic advice that the United States Government has decided that the additional or discriminating duty of 10 per cent. which it was feared would be imposed, under Section No. 22 of the new Customs Tariff' will not apply to shipments from China and Japan by the Canadian Pacific Railway Com- pany.
Section No. 22 reads as follows:-
"That a discriminating duty of ten per cent. ad valorem, in addition to the duties imposed by law, shall be levied, collected, and paid on all goods, wares, or merchandise, which shall be imported in vessels not of the United States, or which being the production or manufacture of any foreign country not contiguous to the United States, shall come into the United States from such contigu- ons country; but this discriminating duty shall not apply to goods, wares, or mer- chandise which shall be imported in vessels not of the United States entitled at time of such importation by treaty or convention to be entered in the ports of the United States on payment of the same duties as shall then be payable on goods, wares, and merchandise imported in vessels of the United States, nor to such foreign products or manufactures as shall be imported from such contiguous coun- tries in the usual course of strictly retail trade."
THE HONGKONG POLICE FORCE.
The Hongkong correspondent of the N. C. Daily News writes:-
I note that an officer of the Royal Irish Con- stabulary (District Inspector Howe) has been seconded for duty here, to reorganise the Police Force. I understand that he has only been lent for a year, and that it is not in contemplation to appoint any new officers over the heads of those now in the Force. What, then, is Inspector Howe coming out to effect? No doubt he can give the Force some valuable advice and perhaps render it more efficient. But he certainly cannot by reorganisation rid it of the suspicion of cor- ruption lately engendered. If any permanent good is done to the Force the Chinese element in it must be expunged. Every official whose opinion was ever worth having connected with the Police-except perhaps Capt.-Supt. Deane- has declared that the lukongs are as a body cor- rupt, as a body utterly worthless in an emer- gency, and of very limited utility in minor matters, such as preserving order and regulat- ing traffic in the streets. The late Mr. Charles May was very decided in his views on this subject, and no Hongkong official has ever had a better appreciation of the Chinese as police- men. He himself came here direct from Scotland Yard, and during a long residence in the Colony acquired a most accurate knowledge of Chinese character. The late Dr. Stewart was also strongly opposed to the Chinese being employed as police. Mr. Horspool, late Deputy Supt... who has retired on pension, held most pronounced views on the subject. He would have restricted the employ-
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.