the duties due from them to the Chinese Government does not show
that it was arbitrary. After the discovery of the fraud, the Company
asked for time to make investigations, and the Commissioner acceded
to their request. It was only after the lapse of a month that the Com-
missioner, as a result of the refusal of the Company to pay the duty or
to give security therefor, informed them that he could not pass any
more cargo for them until the sum owing to the Government had been
paid. The motorcar and tyres which the Customs subsequently
declined to release were detained-not confiscated-in consequence.
  With reference to your criticism of the Commissioner's action in
thus refusing to pass cargo for the Frazar Company until they had
paid the duties owed to the Chinese Government, I may state that this
method of procedure is sanctioned by custom and precedent, by in-
structions of the Chinese Government in specific instances, and by
treaty. Vide article XLVI -of the Treaty of Tientsin (1858) (Great
Britain) 49 which reads:
  "The Chinese Authorities at each port shall adopt the means they
may judge most proper to prevent the revenue suffering from fraud or
smuggling".
  I note your opinion, referred to above, that if it is claimed that there
was a fraud on the revenue our remedy was to have recourse to proper
proceedings in the competent court and that any attachment of prop-
erty must be made under the order of the Court and not by the
Customs. As a statement of broad principle divorced entirely from
post-treaty developments and from the practical requirements of
commerce, no exception can be taken to this view provided the Customs
were permitted to act in this way. But I request you to consider the
effects which such an interpretation would have upon trade if it were
generally acted upon. I have no hesitation in asserting that traders
in general would prefer to submit to what I may term the summary
jurisdiction of the Customs rather than find themselves obliged to
answer to Customs charges in their national Courts. Moreover, it
must not be overlooked that if the Customs have taken upon them-
selves certain powers which you conceive they have no right to exercise
under the treaties, they have also secured for commerce very valuable
privileges which those treaties do not confer. The circumstances in
which the Customs function in China are not comparable with those
obtaining in other countries and I suggest that it is wiser to attempt to
adjust differences in a spirit of mutual accommodation rather than by
invoking the treaties. If a merchant considers he has a grievance
against the Customs he can at any time appeal to his national authori-
ties and I think you will concede that the Inspectorate is always ready

49 Signed June 26, 1858, British and Foreign State Papers, vol. XLVIII, p.
47.



577



CHINA