No. 606.]

No. 155.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, February 23, 1880. (Received April 26.)

SIR: I have the honor to hand to you here with three imperial decrees in regard to the Kuldja treaty and Chung How's case, which were issued on the 15th instant.

You will notice that the Chinese have rejected, practically, the Kuldja treaty, and have directed their minister at London to proceed to St. Petersburg to reopen negotiations.

You will see, also, that Chung How is now said to have exceeded his instructions, and that he is turned over to an extraordinary council for trial.

I have, &c.,

GEORGE F. SEWARD.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 606.]

AN IMPERIAL DECREE.

Their Imperial Highnesses the Empress Dowager and the Empress Mother decree: It was ordered in an earlier edict that the report of the council composed of the grand secretariat, the six boards, the nine lower courts, and the Hanlin academy, upon the treaty concluded by Chung How, together with the memorials sent to us by the various officials of higher and lower grades, be referred to the princes of the firstand second ranks, the ministers of the imperial presence, the privy council of states, the prince and ministers of the foreign office, and the presidents of the six boards, the nine lower courts, and the censorate, for careful and proper consideration, and that Prince Chung take part in their deliberations.

We have now received their memorial in report, and a memorial of the same tenor from Prince Chung, both of which state that, in the treaty and regulations concluded by Chung How, while abroad as our envoy by our command, there are points in which he violated our instructions and exceeded his powers. Reports have also been received from officials of high and low grade in the capital and provinces, all declaring that the treaty contains much that is objectionable and impracticable.

Let the Marquis Tseng, &c., &c., &c., go at once to Russia and deal with the matters which demand attention.

It is to be hoped that, in view of the serious importance of international affairs, a satisfactory solution may be reached by him.

Respect this.

FEBRUARY 15, 1880.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 606.]

AN IMPERIAL DECREE.

Some time since, because Chung How, without awaiting the imperial will, ventured of his own motion to return to this capital, we decree that he be deprived of rank, arrested, examined, and handed over to the board of punishments, to be dealt with for his offense.

The board of punishments now memorialize us, in reply, that the circumstances in the case of the degraded officer named are of the gravest nature, and they pray that the princes and high ministers of state be directed to take cognizance of the business, At the same moment we received the memorial report conjointly sealed of the high council of princes and ministers of state to the effect that Chung How, who went abroad by the imperial will to manage certain matters, violated his instructions and exceeded his powers in the most serious manner.

Let the princes of the first and second grades, the ministers of the imperial presence, the privy council of state, the prince and ministers of the foreign office, the grand secretariat, and the presidents of the six boards and the censorate, consider what panishment shall be inflicted upon the degraded official in question, and report to us. Respect this.

PEKING, February 15, 1880.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 606.]

AN IMPERIAL DECREE.

Their Imperial Highnesses the Empress Dowager and the Empress Mother, decree: In the deliberations of the high council as to the punishment to be inflicted upon Chang How, let Prince Chung take part, and report to us.

Respect this.

FEBRUARY 15, 1880.

No. 156.

No. 614.]

Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, March 1, 1880. (Received April 26.) SIR: The foreign press of China has published of late various statements indicating that the emigration of Chinese to the Sandwich Islands is being promoted by the Chinese Steam Navigation Company, with the approval and concurrence of this government. Statements have also been made that emigration to Cuba will soon begin again.

In view of these statements I have thought it well to inquire at the foreign office whether the information is correct. Mr. Holcombe waited upon the ministers, accordingly, yesterday, and was told promptly that the government had not assented to the reopening of emigration to Cuba, and has done nothing looking to the promotion of emigration to the Sandwich Islands.

It is quite certain that this government will prevent the emigration of its people to Cuba until all outstanding questions with the Spanish Government are disposed of, and that it will disfavor, in a more or less positive way, emigration to the Sandwich Islands.

All statements that it is moving to encourage emigration in any direction may be considered unfounded.

I have, &c.,

GEORGE F. SEWARD.

No. 618.]

No. 157.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, March 8, 1880. (Received April 26.) SIR: I have the honor to advise you that the grand council, to whom the charges against Chung How, the late ambassador to Russia, were referred, have reported, and that a decree has been published approving the finding of the council and sentencing the ambassador to be decapitated after the next autumn assizes, say, in December next. I inclose a copy of the decree. The report of the council has not been made public.

Prince Kung and his associates are credited with having defended the unfortunate minister. It would appear rather to be an act of blind fanaticism committed by the reactionary party, and made possible by what they have considered substantial grounds for dissatisfaction with the treaty in question.

Under these circumstances the extreme action taken toward Chung

How is believed by many to be a blow aimed at Prince Kung and the more moderate persons who stand with him, and to indicate the decided ascendency in the palace councils of a reactionary spirit.

That this spirit, which is so strong in China, should exhibit itself in a more positive manner at a moment when, for the first time in more than thirty years, the empire is at peace within and without her borders, is not singular. But there is this matter for satisfaction in the situation. There is undoubtedly, at the moment, a moderate party in the state which is not destitute of influence. Prince Kung may be considered to belong to it; the viceroy at Tientsin is a distinguished member of it, and other officers of standing and experience could be named in the same connection-as, for instance, Ting-Jih-Chang, lately governor at Foochow, Kwoh-Sung Tao, lately minister to England, and Tseng Chi Che, now minister to England and Russia. Beyond these must be ranged upon the same side all persons who are interested in commerce and those who, by reason of their studies and observations at home or abroad, have come to favor measures for the development of the material interests of their country. Whatever incidents of an unfavorable sort may occur, therefore, it is possible to believe that other incidents: will occur which will be of an encouraging sort.

In point of fact, simultaneously with the appearance of the decree condemning Chung How to death, a memorial bearing the imperial approval has also appeared, by which high officers of state throughout the Empire are called upon to search out persons of ability, especially those who are acquainted with foreign languages and sciences, and to send up their names for employment. This also may be dictated by the reac tionary spirit, but it implies a certain advance of opinion regarding foreigners which will tell hardly less strongly in their favor than if it had been dictated by a friendly spirit.

I see nothing in the situation which requires any change in our attitude. Our policy has been to deal justly with this government, and to do what we can to hold it to the observance of treaty stipulations. I think we could have no better policy. It is possible, in view of it, to feel sympathy for China without descending into the region of sentimentality. It is possible, also, to regard the unfavorable incidents of intercourse with moderation, instead of taking from them lessons of inconsiderate condemnation. There are persons, if not parties, in the East who go upon the one side or the other, and who are eager to impress their views upon the world at large. I cannot sympathize perfectly with either, but while asserting that a policy of justice must be tempered by charity in the one direction, and by vigilance in the other, I am prepared to expect many surprises, some of which will be gratifying, and others, perhaps, disappointing.

I have, &c.,

[Inclosure in No. 618.]

GEORGE F. SEWARD.

AN IMPERIAL DECREE.

Their imperial highnesses the Empress Dowager and the Empress Mother decree: Prince Li* and others having memorialized us in a report of the grand council as to the punishment to be inflicted upon the degraded Chief Censor Chung How, proposing that, in accordance with law, he be beheaded after the assizes, let it be as proposed. The proper board will take notice.

Respect this.

MARCH 4, 1880.

* The fifth prince, who takes precedence by virtue of his seniority.-S.

No. 623.]

No. 158.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, March 16, 1880. (Received May 11.) SIR: I have the honor to hand to you herewith a dispatch (No. 135, of 27th ultimo) which I have received from Mr. De Lano, reporting that the customs authorities at his port have notified by circular to the merchants there their intention to levy a tonnage due, or in lieu thereof, at the merchants' option, a registration fee upon boats used in the lighterage of cargo in process of shipment or landing.

My colleague, Sir Thomas Wade, has received the same information from his consul at Foochow, and also from his consul at Chefoo.

My colleagues generally, before whom the subject has been placed by Sir T. Wade and myself, agree with us in the opinion that all such levies would be in contravention of the treaties. They agree with us also in the opinion that customs regulations generally should be promulgated by the direction of the central government and in a formal manner. One, at least, goes so far as to declare that he cannot consider any rules binding upon his countrymen which have not been communicated to him by the government and received his assent; while another declares that the practice of the Chinese in putting out at the ports rules affecting trade, regardless of a right construction of the treaties and with a view to hampering trade, is becoming inveterate, and should be met by opposition at the ports, and by claims for indemnity vigorously urged, in case they are put into operation notwithstanding such opposition.

My own view is that we cannot deny the right of the Chinese Government to make rules and regulations affecting all matters within their sovereignty, but that we may scrutinize all rules and regulations made or proposed by them which affect our nationals, and object to them if we find them in contravention of treaty stipulations, or suggest their withdrawal or modification if they appear burdensome and unnecessary. Holding to this view, I think also that we may, without offense, endeavor to lead the Chinese to communicate to us in advance all such rules and regulations, in order that we may examine them and state in advance of their publication whether we should be likely to complain of them as in contravention of our treaties.

The question of principle involved is an important one, and has occasioned a great deal of discussion and unpleasant feeling both in this Empire and in Japan. I cannot doubt, however, the correctness of my own view. I have acted upon it ever since my arrival in this capital, and shall continue to do so unless instructed to the contrary by yourself.

In the present instance, after much controversy, it was agreed by the diplomatic body, as a preliminary step, to send an interpreter to the foreign office to inquire whether instructions sustaining the action of the Foochow and Chefoo customs had received the approval of the foreign office, and, if so, to ask about the occasion for the adoption of the system. The Chinese secretary of the British legation was deputed for the purpose, and has reported that the ministers appeared to know nothing of the matter, but said that they would inquire into it and communicate the result to the foreign legations.

In view of the facts set forth above, I am addressing a circular letter to the several consuls, a copy of which I inclose.

I have, &c.,

GEORGE F. SEWARD.

No. 153.]

[Inclosure 1'in No. 623.]

Mr. De Lano to Mr. Seward.

FOOCHOW, February 27, 1880. SIR: I have the honor to call your attention to a customs notification issued at this port on the 21st instant, by the commissioner of customs, a copy of which I inclose herewith, calling upon the owners of cargo-boats to apply for the re-registration and renumbering of such boats, and intimating that from the 1st proximo they will be required to pay tonnage dues, "in accordance with the rate fixed by treaty," or a registration fee of $20 upon each boat.

All foreign-owned lighters (or so-called cargo boats) employed in carrying cargo between ship and shore, within the limits of the harbor at this port, are numbered by the customs, and each number is, I am informed, entered in a register kept for that purpose at the custom-house, but no registration fee or tonnage dues have hitherto been demanded. The foreign owners of such boats object now to complying with the demand.

Upon being addressed officially by the American firms owning such boats, making known their objection, I addressed a letter to the commissioner of customs to the effect that it did not seem clear to me that the customs authorities were authorized to exact such dues, and inasmuch as I was not advised that the new regulation had been made with the assent or concurrence of the ministers at Peking. I suggested that the matter be kept in abeyance until the resident consuls should be instructed by their superiors.

In the commissioner's reply, received yesterday, he says, "My instructions from the office of the inspectorate at Peking are very clear in regard to the claim for tonnage dues, and the authority given this office to offer the alternative of a registration fee. Still, as the date from which the enforcement of the terms of the treaty in regard to this particular class of dues is not mentioned, I am prepared to meet your views to the extent of altering the date on which the terms of the notification should be complied with from the 1st to the 31st proximo."

I am clearly of the opinion that the exaction of tonnage dues or registration fees for lighters is not authorized by the treaties; also, that if this sudden departure from a long-established precedent had been arranged with the sanction of the representation of the treaty powers at Peking the consuls at the various ports would have been advised of the fact.

It is understood that the claim is based upon Article XXXI of the British treaty of Tientsin, and that the right to offer the alternative of a registration fee is authorized by Article XXII of the French treaty.

The phraseology of Article VII of the American treaty of 1845 is much the same, but it appears clearly to me that, in each case, the contest points to a class of boatslorchas, papicos, &c.-which have been employed in carrying passengers, luggage, letters, and dutiable goods between certain ports, say between Canton and HongKong, or Canton and Macao, or between any of the treaty ports, but not to lighters plying between ship and shore.

Force is given to this view by the following literal translation from the Chinese text of Article XXXI of the British treaty of Tientsin:

"English merchants at the several ports, themselves using covered boats for the conveyance of passengers, luggage, letters, provisions, and duty-free articles, need not pay tonnage dues. If they bring with them or carry with them dutiable articles, then once every four months they shall pay tonnage dues, one mace per ton.”

The fact that for so many years lighters have been in use at the various ports and tonnage dues have not been demanded, points to the conclusion that it has never hitherto been understood that payment of them was provided for by treaties. Whether it is contemplated by the customs authorities that a registration fee (if the boat-owner should choose the alternative of paying such a fee) shall be collected annually or only once, the "notification" does not state; but it is fair to conclude that if they are authorized to cancel the certificates or licenses now in effect, they can do the same next year and claim the "fee" on each occasion. In such case it would entail on one American firm at this port an annual tax of about seven hundred dollars.

It is not likely that I shall be in possession of your response to this on the date fixed for the enforcement of the terms of the notification; in which case, if payments must be made, I shall advise that they be made under protest pending the receipt of advices from you.

I have the honor, &c.,

M. M. DE LANO.