No. 152.
Mr. Seward
to Mr. Evarts.
Peking, February 10, 1880. (Received April 26.)
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that the several representatives of foreign powers now present in this capital have considered Prince Kung’s response to the collective note of November 10, and have agreed upon a second note asking that the request made in their earlier letter for a conference with the ministers of the Yamên be granted at such early moment as may be convenient.
In writing to the Yamên we have indicated that the note of November 10 has been somewhat misunderstood by them, but we have not thought it necessary to speak with particularity upon the subject.
My dispatch No. 510 will have shown you that I anticipated such an answer as we received, and that I pointed out the danger to my colleagues. For one reason or another they thought it inconvenient to move in such manner as to avoid this danger, and I yielded to them.
You will remember that when the conferences of September-November last indicated a considerable divergence of opinion among the several representatives as to whether it is better to adhere to existing treaty stipulations, and, if not, as to the remedies which should be proposed, I suggested that we would do well to agree, first, upon a statement of grievances, and at a later moment return to the question of remedies, and that this view was assented to by the conference.
Our statement of grievances, made in pursuance of the conclusion thus taken, has undoubtedly produced a great effect upon the Chinese. They have seen in it evidence of union among the foreign representatives, and they cannot feel entirely at ease in view of what must seem to them, and in fact is, a formal declaration that they have not executed the treaties in a just way.
The primary object of a further conference with them will be to place before them proof of the facts alleged by us. It is necessary to do this for our own defense and in justice to them.
But right here there arises a certain danger. The Chinese will advance against us at once the declaration that they read the treaties differently from our reading, and, while admitting our facts, urge that they do not prove a breach of treaty in this or that direction.
For this attitude of the Chinese we must be prepared by reaching among ourselves, in advance, a thorough understanding as to the intent of the treaties. The statement of grievances was signed by all of us, and indicates a large measure of accord, but points will arise which may not be covered in this way.
I have, therefore, urged upon my colleagues the wisdom of holding at once a farther conference among ourselves in order to settle our conclusions as to the intent of the treaties, and to prepare our work for the conferences with the Chinese. My colleagues have absented to the justice of my arguments, but as yet we have held no meetings.
[Page 224]It is my intention, when these meetings are called, to bring forward the further proposition, that the time has arrived when we should decide finally whether we will urge our governments to hold fast to existing treaty stipulations, or to seek a common standing ground with the Chinese in such modifications of the treaties as will more or less perfectly satisfy both sides.
My earlier dispatches have shown that I am much indisposed to seek change of existing stipulations. It would appear to me, however, that the present moment is the most favorable one which we are likely to have, in which to enter upon the question, and that having emphasized our differences with the Chinese, we may well devote some time to the inquiry whether there is not some compromise to be found which will avert controversy, and secure a measure of advantage to all concerned.
To be more definite, we claim, for instance, that all imports may be subjected only to an import duty of 5 per cent, about, and to transit duties when carried into the interior, which transit duties may be commuted by the payment of a half duty, or 2½ per cent., in addition to the import duty.
The Chinese claim that when our goods are in native hands, they have the right to tax them as they see fit, and they do so. The advantage of a treaty tariff under such circumstances is very problematical indeed.
But the collection of duties upon our goods from Chinese is a matter of difficulty and expense. A large number of collectors must be sustained. They have to pitch upon the goods where they can find them, and in the midst of their difficulties and the difficulty of supervising them, all kinds of irregularities take place.
The ready means of averting the irregularities so indicated would seem to lie in an agreement with the Chinese, under which our goods would pay all duties on importation. Our merchants, however, say that under such an agreement they would nay an increased duty at once to their certain cost, and that the stipulated freedom of the goods from further taxation would be delusive.
This may be all true, but, nevertheless, the difficulties now met are so grave, and the chance of bringing about a better state of things under existing stipulations is so poor, that I am inclined to urge a trial of the remedy. This could be done by a convention with the Chinese, under which the new system would be put into effect for a period of, say, five years. We should thus yield nothing of our view of the intent of the treaties as they stand, and should be in no worse position than at present in case the new system should fail. If it should succeed, it would be of decided benefit to us and to the Chinese, and the principle could be extended to exports, which are also burdened with irregular taxes.
I shall place these views before my colleagues whenever we meet. If they accept them, I shall, of course, advise you of the fact at once, and request your instructions.
I have, &c.,