James Burrill Angell to Walker Blaine, April 30, 1881

No. 159. Mr. Angell to Mr. Blaine.

Sir: In my No. 95, of January 14 last, I reported the latest negotiations between the diplomatic body and the foreign office on the subject of transit passes outwards. The decision which the representatives of the western powers reached at their conference of January 4 was communicated on January 9 to the Tsung-li Yamên by Mr. von Brandt in a paper herewith inclosed.

As before stated, that decision was to adhere to our previous propositions, except that Rule II should be modified so as to state specfically what articles of foreign manufacture or origin and what articles of native manufacture or origin shall be duty free.

On February 9 the Tsung-li Yamên replied to Mr. von Brandt in a communication, a copy of which is inclosed. They take exception in some particulars to the amended Rule II (inclosed in No. 95), and especially indicate that in their opinion the terms “household stores” and “ship’s stores” need to be defined. They ask us to wait until the inspector general of customs has furnished them a list of articles which can be considered “ship’s stores.”

As to goods manufactured from native produce, they still desire that these shall be reported to the customs for examination.

I have delayed forwarding these papers in the hope that we might come to some definite understanding on the subject. But progress has been so long hindered by various causes that I deem it best to acquaint you with the present state of the correspondence.

I have, &c.,

The Tsung-li Yamên to His Excellency Mr. von Brandt, in reply.

This office has had the honor to receive your excellency’s dispatch of January 9, last, containing, among other statements, the following:

* * * “My colleagues and myself propose to the Yamên to accept instead of Trade Rule No. II as read until now, the version annexed herein, which to my colleagues and myself seems to have the undoubted advantage of doing away with the ambiguity which your excellencies seem to find in the expressions used in the original rule. * * * We hope that the Yamên will see its way to accept this proposal which we substitute for section II of the former proposal. * * * With regard to the second point, the treatment on exportation of native produce bought in the port by a foreigner and exported by him, my colleagues and myself must insist upon the necessity of giving to the treaty rule that on such produce nothing but the tariff export duty has to be paid a full and explicit reassertion in the proposed agreement. * * * On the subject of goods manufactured out of native produce, my colleagues and myself fail to see how, by such a process going on at the open ports, the goods so manufactured paying export duty on exportation, any confusion can arise. * * * My colleagues and myself would feel exceedingly obliged to your excellencies for a speedy reply.”

This office finds, in Rule II now proposed by your excellency, in the list of goods of both native or foreign origin which it is claimed shall be duty free, the two items, viz: Indian meal and sago; whereas it is stated in the export tariffs of all the treaties that “rice or paddy, wheat, millet, and other grains” shall pay an export duty of 1 mace for 100 catties; butter is also claimed to be duty-free in the same list, when the Russian treaty stipulates that this article shall pay an export duty of 3 mace per 100 catties. The above articles are therefore not included in the list of duty-free goods according to the treaties.

The Chinese text of Trade Rule No. 2 reads thus: “* * * foreign clothing, jewelry, plated ware,” &c. In the form of Rule 2, now submitted, the items clothing and plated ware are included in the list of goods of foreign manufacture or origin, while jewelry is included in the list of both foreign or native manufacture or origin; this difference is not in harmony with the original purport of the rule.

Then again, the words, “household stores,” and “ship’s stores” are very comprehensive terms. If the goods included under these designations are not particularized, all manner of goods may he termed stores and thus claim exemption from duty, to the great detriment of our revenue.

The addition of the characters “and articles of this class” to the item cutlery is also open to the above objection.

This office proposes to wait till the inspector-general of customs will have made out a list of the articles used in dock-yards to be considered ship’s stores, when correspondence can again be had between us to determine with precision what articles are included in the foregoing designations.

In regard to the second point, the treaties state in explicit terms that native produce purchased by foreign merchants shall pay on exportation no more than the tariff export duty.

It is therefore quite proper that this point be explicitly stated in reassertion of the spirit of the treaty.

With regard to goods manufactured out of native produce, purchased by foreign merchants, it is apprehended that irregularities will occur if the goods are not previously reported at the customs for examination, while it will be quite simple to proceed with the operation after the goods have passed the examination. This office forwarded, in a previous communication, two rules in this connection which clearly explain the requirements of the situation, and we have still to request your excellency to give to them your favorable consideration.

Apologizing for the delay in answering your excellency’s communication, we remain, &c.

Cards and compliments.