The question is still unsettled.
[Inclosure in No. 600.]
Mr. Denby to
Messrs. Russell & Co.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your communication of the 14th instant with inclosures. I
thought that Sir Robert Hart had the power to make the order that you
desired to bond the Pootung Warehouse, I therefore had an interview
[Page 275]
with Sir Robert. He informed
me that any application to change the existing rules of the bonding
system must be made to the Tsung-li Yamên, and that he had no authority
to make any change therein.
I shall not make such application until you, your directors, and your
stockholders have more maturely considered the subject and have
indicated to me in the most positive manner that such is your deliberate
desire. I submit my reasons for your careful consideration. I need not,
of course, say that my only object in this and all other matters which
come before me officially is, consistently with the just rights of
others, to advance the rights and interests of those who consult me, and
especially of my own countrymen.
Is there not grave danger that the interests of your company will be put
in peril by bringing the contemplated demand to the attention of the
Yamên?
The situation, as I understand it, is this: All kerosene now arriving at
Shanghai is stored in your godowns. You at present monopolize that
storage. The introduction of the bonded system has not, in the least,
affected your business. Nor has it affected the business of dealers,
because each and all of them have equal rights and there is no
discrimination. The dealers lose the interest on the import duty, the
Pootung Company loses nothing. Possibly the importation might increase
with the extension of the bonding system to kerosene. Therein alone lies
your prospective advantages. Let us look at the other side, at the risks
to be run in applying now for the desired privilege.
It is not a matter of simple conjecture, but it is highly probable that
if I ask that your warehouse may be bonded for kerosene, on the
perfectly legal ground that this article is entitled to this right, the
Yamên may answer, “Yes, we will instruct the China Merchants’ Company to
procure a river front, a wharf, and godowns for that purpose.”
The actual result, then, of my friendly effort to do you a benefit would
be an injury; you would lose the benefit of all the storage, which would
go to the new ware-house.
I am not prepared to advise you to take this risk. You are no doubt
better posted on your own business than I am, but it must be taken for
granted that my position here gives me some insight into subjects of
this character. If China were to provide, of its own accord, a warehouse
for bonding kerosene, then the whole question would be au tapis, and I would not hesitate to press on the Imperial
Government my opinion of the injustice of granting to one corporation,
whether Chinese or foreign, a monopoly of an important business. While I
admit the undoubted right of China to establish, own, and control
Government bonded warehouses, I dispute the equity and justice of such a
policy as applicable to the anomalous condition and history of Shanghai.
I especially dispute the equity and justice of granting to one
corporation, whether Chinese or foreign, a monoply of a business which
the industry, skill, and means of all the merchants of all nationalities
have built up.
If any dealer in kerosene were to present to me a claim to the right to
bond kerosene, I should unhesitatingly admit his privilege to do so and
should feel bound to further it. But the question now comes from the
Pootung Company, which is interested in the storage of the article.
It, therefore, seemed proper to put the responsibility of the issue on
that company, and in order to assist it in arriving at a correct result,
to present my views. I have done so not in any wise as dictatory, but
simply as advisory. I will be pleased to hear from you further.
I am, etc.,
