Prince Kung to Von Brandt, July 19, 1881
Prince Kung to Mr. Von Brandt
On June 20 a despatch was received from your excellency stating that in view of the difficulty of coming to an understanding on the subject of native produce purchased by foreign merchants, the proper course would be to follow the treaties already in force. The dispatch also contained a categorical restatement of the points relating to the trade in native produce, &c.
With regard to your excellency’s assertion that native produce purchased by foreign merchants at the ports may be used for manufacturing purposes, or that it may be resold at the port, in its original or manufactured state, we have to reply that no explicit statement to this effect is contained in any of the treaties or regulations for trade; your excellency says, in respect to this that there is no reason why the treaties and regulations need not be followed; but we do not know which treaty or regulation it is that you say ought to be followed. The purchase of native produce by foreign merchants, if not exported, but if used for manufacturing purposes, or resold at the port, would be equivalent to allowing foreigners to do the same trade as Chinese merchants, and would be prejudicial to the business of the latter. Moreover, if the goods are not exported, the duty to which they are liable will be lost to the imperial exchequer. In view of this loss to the revenue, and prejudice to the interests of Chinese merchants, it is the duty of the local authorities, in observance of the treaties, and according to circumstances, to decide upon methods of procedure that will meet the necessities of the situation. And it is further desirable that this office should consult with your excellency and the representatives of the other treaty powers with a view to reaching some satisfactory mode of procedure.
In the draft presented to us by your excellency, you presented two propositions which you suggested should be put in operation as a trial; but as it is not clearly stated in any of the treaties and regulations that native produce purchased at a port may be used for manufacturing purposes, or resold at the port, we proposed to discuss with you another method of procedure which had suggested itself to us; but your excellency insisted that our proposition was in contravention of the letter and spirit of the plain language of the treaty, and widely divergent from the practice which had been followed for the last twenty years. We are puzzled to know how this can be.
If it were clearly stipulated in the treaties of the different powers that native produce purchased by foreigners at a port may be used for manufacturing purposes or resold at the port, one naturally thinks that the practice must already have been in operation ever since commercial relations have existed at the open ports. Where is the necessity for stipulating clearly at this time that it be introduced as an experiment? And why the necessity for stating clearly that if either of the parties sees any objections to it (he will be at liberty to denounce it)?
In our many consultations with your excellency, on this subject of regulations for the trade in native produce, we have not failed to be actuated by sincere motives in our consideration of the subject, always hoping that benefit might result to all parties. Hoping that your excellency will consider this subject with an unimpassioned mind.