793.94/240
The Secretary of State to President Wilson
My Dear Mr. President: Our telegram to Tokio1 had the desired effect. It brought out the fact that the additional concessions were presented as requests—not as demands. They were presented at the same times that the demands were made but the Ambassador, who called today, in leaving the memorandum which I enclose,2 explained that there is a material difference between the presentation of the requests contained in this article and the demands set forth in the memorandum left with us. He emphasizes the fact that he, himself, did not know of these additional requests; but when the papers kept reiterating them he made inquiry of his Government.
You have a flimsy of the telegram just received from Guthrie3 and from it I think you will draw the same inference that I did, namely, that they will not press these requests. I think our telegram will contribute something toward the disposition on their part not to press the requests.
I tried to get you by phone this morning but had to leave the house before you were able to come to the phone, and, having to go by and call on Solicitor Johnson (who, by the way is improved) I had not reached the office when you called me here.
I was going to ask you whether it would not be well to repeat to Peking our telegram to Guthrie and then give him the substance of our recent communication from Tokio. . . .
What answer do you think we ought to make to Guthrie’s telegram, now that we have both it and the enclosed memorandum left by the Japanese Ambassador?
It seems to me it might be well for us to present your views on the subject now that these requests have been officially communicated and the following is the way the matter presents itself to me:4
[Page 406](Sections Two and Seven need not be considered since they are not objectionable.)
One: As to the first, it may be assumed that the Chinese Government would not discriminate unfairly in the employment of advisors—an advisor, of course, having no power to compel the acceptance of the advice given.
I do not know of any other Government that asks for the employment of any of its citizens as advisors. Surely this Government does not although it is perfectly willing to have Americans employed by China in any capacity.
Third: The Japanese Ambassador informs us, as does Mr. Guthrie, that the paragraph in regard to the employment of Japanese police officers relates to Manchuria only.
That was the most menacing of the requests because it did not as published limit the area of their employment and left it to be inferred that Japan desired to share in the general police system of the country. Even as it is, it is objectionable unless it is understood that Manchuria is to pass over entirely to Japan. I am not sure but that it would be worth while for China to agree to the cession of Manchuria to Japan if, by doing so, she could secure freedom as to the rest of the country. As China probably would not be willing to give up Manchuria she would rightfully object to being forced to organize joint police control.
Fourth: The proposition that China should buy a certain percentage of her arms of Japan, or establish in China joint Chino-Japanese factories for the manufacture of Chinese arms is, to my mind, quite objectionable.
No other country is asking for any such privilege and it is so closely connected with the control of the country as to impair the political independence of China, not to speak of an infringement of the “open door” policy.
Fifth: The railway concessions asked for in Paragraph 5 ought not to be granted unless China desires to grant them.
In view of the experiences she has had I should think that China would quit granting railroad concessions and build for herself the railroads she needs. If she lets a concession to the capitalists of any country they insist upon extensions and then desire to control the territory through which they go, as, see for instance, the request now being made in the province in which the German road was built.
Sixth: The provision asked for in regard to the province of Fukien would virtually close that province to other countries because Japan would not be likely to allow foreign capital to go in there. This would bring another province under Japanese control.
In other words, there are two objections to the five requests made: First—that they menace the political integrity of China; and, Second—that [Page 407] they interfere with the agreement for the equal treatment of all nations.
If you think it wise to bring this matter to the attention of Japan we can follow the plan adopted in the last telegram and express gratification that these are not made as demands but merely presented as requests, and, thus, our discussion of them upon their merits will not be objectionable.
With assurances [etc.]
- Foreign Relations, 1915, p. 93. For correspondence previously printed concerning the 21 demands, see ibid., pp. 79 ff.↩
- Ibid., p. 97.↩
- Ibid., p. 96.↩
- The references in the following paragraphs are to the sections of article V of the demands. For text of the demands, see the undated memorandum from the Chinese Minister, ibid., p. 93.↩