De Lano to George F. Seward, February 27, 1880

Mr. De Lano to Mr. Seward.

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 boats—lorchas, papieos, &c.—which have been employed in carrying passengers, luggage, letters, and dutiable goods between certain ports, say between Canton and Hong-Kong, 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 cart 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.,