Isaac F. Shepard to James Burrill Angell, March 28, 1881

Mr. Shepard to Mr. Angell.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge your very courteous dispatch No. 9 of February 23, in response to my No. 55. In behalf of our natural interests I warmly thank you for your prompt attention to the subject and the energetic progress you have made.

It is my duty to say that notwithstanding the assurance of the Tsung-li Yamên that the regulation I have discussed is “not intended in any way to change the status of the cargo on which the foreigner has paid duty, and that such cargo is not to be subjected to lekin anywhere along the route,” yet the dangers that the charterers and shippers may be subjected to annoyances by the claim and exercise of the assumed right to stop junks for the payment of port dues along their route is so great and varied, and kindred annoyances have been so arbitrary heretofore, that not a pound of freight will be risked by shippers on board of such craft as long as the exaction exists. The regulation is in fact an absolute death-blow to the junk business, and was doubtless so intended possibly and probably to force all this freighting business into the channel of the China Merchant Steam Navigation Company’s steamers, thus creating a powerful monopoly. An American charterer here has tested the result beyond cavil. He managed to secure a charter of a junk, and took from me the ordinary letter to the foreign customs for official facilities. He has labored earnestly for weeks, and has been utterly unable to get any portion of a cargo, even the slightest.

Shippers say very decidedly they will not subject their merchandise to the possible detentions and annoyances to come from responsibility to two customs, the native and the foreign, with no full protection from either. Not a single junk has been cleared through this consulate since the proclamation appeared.

In your further consideration of the matter, I respectfully call your special attention to the German treaty of 1861. It is in French in the copy I have, but it is very explicit. Article VI recites the three ports of Chinkiang, Kinkiang, and Han Kow, demonstrating that all privileges of trade were secured for the Yangtsze as far as to other ports. Riverine trade was guaranteed. The last clause of article XXIII distinctively and absolutely fixes the tonnage dues on the craft in question, and, of course, intended those dues should be paid where tonnage on all foreign vessels is paid, viz, into the foreign customs. It seems to me this vital point in the matter should be insisted upon, and that tonnage dues shall be only paid as the treaties require, and on chartered junks as on foreign-owned vessels; that is to say, all vessels in foreign control should have but one kind of treatment. No other result can give any relief to the junk traffic.

I specially note, and acquiesce in, your suggestions as to possible abuses of unscrupulous foreigners. I have constantly aimed to prevent such, and shall continue to do so with jealous regard to Chinese rights, as well as our own treaty privileges. Only a few months ago the intendant brought to my notice certain presumed abuses in chartering junks, and I promptly commenced an investigation. The agent saw fit to put obstacles in the way of my inquiry, when I promptly closed up his business by declining to give him any further official facilities.

I mention the incident to show that while I am zealous for American interests I mean ever to be just towards all native rights.

Trusting you may eventually secure a complete revocation of the objectionable regulations,

I am, &c.,