No. 2.Observations by Sir H. Parkes on the memorandum of the Japanese embassadors., November 30, 1872

No. 2. Observations by Sir H. Parkes on the memorandum of the Japanese embassadors.

The antecedents of this question are not clearly stated in this memorandum.

This indemnity became due under the Shimonoseki convention of 22d October, 1864, as compensation for the numerous attacks made by the daimio of Chio-Shiu on French, Dutch, and United States ships, and for the expenses incurred by those powers and Great Britain in depriving that daimio of further means of offense.

The option of opening an eligible port to foreign trade in lieu of the indemnity was reserved by the same convention to the Japanese government, but was declined by the latter.

It was understood, therefore, that payment should be proceeded with, as stipulated, in six quarterly installments of $500,000 each; and the four powers agreed to a plan of division, by which France, Holland, and the United States were to receive $420,000 as compensation for the injuries done to their ships, and the remaining $2,580,000 were to be divided equally between the four powers. At that time (1865) the United States minister in Paris (Mr. Bigelow) contended that, although the United States only contributed one small vessel to the expedition against Chio-Shiu, the value of the moral force of the United States co-operation justified a claim to an equal division in the indemnity.

In connection with this point it may be observed that the House of Representatives reported this year (see Sir Edward Thornton’s dispatch No. 322) that all the injuries sustained by Japanese attacks on United States vessels or property did not amount to $40,000, and that the expense of providing the small vessel above alluded to cost only a few thousand dollars. That the United States Government having received in return for these injuries and outlay upwards of $700,000, the committee reported a bill releasing the Japanese government from payment of the United States’ share of the portion of the indemnity remaining due. This bill passed the House of Representatives, but not the Senate.—(See Sir Edward Thornton’s dispatch No. 457.)

The first installment of $500,000 was paid by the Japanese government in August, 1865, and they at once asked for delay in the liquidation of the remaining five installments.

Upon this, the four powers offered to remit four installments, or $2,000,000, altogether, provided the Japanese government opened at once the ports of Hiogo by Osaka, obtained the ratification of the Mikado to the treaties, and revised the tariff on a basis of 5 per cent.

The Japanese government complied with the two latter conditions, but declined to open the port of Hiogo until the time stipulated for doing so, (1868,) and declared their preference for the full payment of the indemnity, which they again undertook to complete without further delay.

Payment of two more installments followed; but in April, 1868, they again applied for postponement in the discharge of the remaining three installments, or $1,500,000, being the sum which still remains due.

The good feeling shown by the Japanese government in the negotiations of the tariff in 1866, and again in the arrangements made for the opening of Hiogo and Osaka, at the time appointed, (1868,) induced the British, French, Dutch, and United States representatives in Japan to recommend to their respective governments that payment of the above amount should be deferred until May, 1869, at which date the Japanese government declared that they would not fail to meet their obligations. This proposal being acceded to, the latter thus obtained three years’ time, with interest chargeable on two only of these three years. It was tacitly understood that the rate of interest would be 5 per cent.

Civil war intervened, and the Tycoon’s government was replaced by that of the Mikado. In the spring of 1869 that government was reminded that payment of the remaining moiety of the indemnity would soon become due, and they met this notice by a request for a further extension in time of three years, and for the remission of all interest due until the end of the said three years, and also for the two preceding years, five in all, on condition that they should not raise the duties on tea and silk—which they possessed the right to do at that date, 1869—until the treaties came to be revised in 1872.

This proposal was accepted by the four powers, but on the express condition that it was to be regarded as a final settlement of the question, and that no further postponement of payment should be asked for by the Japanese government. Accordingly, the representatives of the four powers, in making known to the Japanese government the acceptance of the above proposal, used the following clear language on this point, in a note identique which they addressed on the 7th March, 1870, to the Japanese ministers:

“It is incumbent, however, on the part of the undersigned, to add that, in view of the repeated delays which have occurred in the payment of the said indemnity, it becomes necessary that the notes now exchanged between their excellencies and the undersigned should declare that the present postponement is final, and that the Japanese government will not fail to pay, to the four powers interested in the Shimonoseki indemnity, on the 15th May, 1872, the whole of the moiety remaining due, namely, $1,500,000.”

To which the Japanese ministers rejoined on the 9th April, 1870:

“In reply, we have the honor to inform you that we accept the delay offered, namely, till the 15th May, 1872. In view, however, of the repeated delays in the payment of the said indemnity, it is agreed that no further postponement shall take place.”

Nothing further passed between the Japanese government and Her Majesty’s representatives in Japan until the three years thus granted expired, last May, when the Japanese minister informed Mr. Adams, exactly a week before the payment became due, that the embassador, Iwakura, who had then left Japan nearly five months, had been charged to treat on this subject with Her Majesty’s government.

The arguments in the embassador’s memorandum for the remission of the money, which three years ago the Japanese government explicitly declared they would pay in May, 1872, without further question, are now put forward for the first time. They urge as concessions to foreign commerce the ratification of the treaties by the Mikado, the revision of the tariff in 1886, earlier, as they allege, than the time appointed, the construction of light-houses, the abolition of fees on landing and shipping permits, the Establishment of a warehousing system, and the opening of the port of Osaka. But they should remember that the refusal of the Mikado to ratify the treaties would have been a hostile act; that the revision of the tariff was not undertaken before the time appointed, as it could be claimed under the treaty any time after 1863; that the new tariff can be shown to be more advantageous to their interests than the old one; that the provision of light-houses is as beneficial to native as to foreign shipping, and that the cost of construction or maintenance may be met with light-dues; that the abolition of permit-fees put a stop to abuses which were not creditable to the Japan custom-house; that the warehouse system, as they work it, has not proved serviceable to foreigners, and that the permission to foreign ships to anchor off Osaka, which is an accommodation of trivial value and seldom used, was fully met by the delay granted to the Japanese government in the opening of Yedo and Niigata. In return, however, for the good feeling which these arrangements denoted, the Japanese government were allowed an extension of three years’ time in the payment of half of the indemnity, namely, from May, 1866, to May, 1869, and a year’s interest on the same was remitted to them.

It would appear, therefore, that if they now seek the remission of the $1,500,000 still remaining due, they should offer some equivalent of corresponding value, but no proposal of this kind is made in the memorandum of the embassador.

So long as the indemnity is not paid, the Japanese government cannot claim the higher silk and tea duties agreed to in 1869, and these low duties are doubtless an adequate equivalent for the interest due on the moiety of the indemnity which remains unpaid. The Japanese government also have it in their power to make other concessions if they are actuated by a sincere desire to expand foreign intercourse and commerce.