File No. No. 763.72112/3617
The Minister in China (
Reinsch) to the
Secretary of State
No. 1454
Peking,
April 14, 1917.
[Received May 12.]
Sir: In connection with my telegram of today
relating to commercial intercourse between American citizens and Germans
resident in China, I have the honor to enclose a copy of an instruction
(No. 2291) of the 13th instant, to the American Consul at Changsha.
I have the honor to request your instructions particularly on the point
as to whether the military cooperation of the United States with France
and Great Britain would affect the established American rules concerning
enemy domicile, as relating to incidents in China.
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure]
The Minister in China (
Reinsch) to
the Consul at Changsha (
Johnson)
C. No. 2291
Peking,
April 13, 1917.
Sir: Replying to your despatch (No. 112)
of the 2d instant, I have to advise you that the Legation approves
the position taken by you, that no opposition should be offered to
proper attempts of the Chinese authorities to ascertain the
whereabouts, and to acquaint themselves with the names and numbers,
of German subjects, even though employed by American firms or
missions, or resident upon property owned by them.
In regard to the question of relations between American citizens and
German subjects in China, in view of the state of war now existing,
the Legation hopes to be able to communicate to you in the near
future the views of our Government. In the meanwhile, the Legation
offers tentatively for your guidance the following observations:
[Page 435]
In the view hitherto adhered to by the American Government, the test
of enemy character has been domicile rather than allegiance; and it
is at least doubtful whether residence in China, under the
extraterritorial jurisdiction of an enemy government, would under
that rule be held to be an enemy domicile. There is therefore a
question whether, under the rule referred to, American citizens
would be precluded, on the principle of non-intercourse with enemy
nationals, from relations with German nationals resident in China,
in matters of business purely local in character, i. e., unconnected
with the trade of the German Empire. Such a conclusion is, however,
complicated by certain other considerations. In the first place, the
American Government is now understood to be acting for belligerent
purposes in military cooperation with certain countries (such as
France) which have hitherto accepted allegiance rather than domicile
as the test of the enemy character, and with Great Britain which
during the course of the present war has (by orders in council and
regulations in regard to enemy trading) extended the scope of the
term “enemy domicile” to include the subjects of enemy nations
resident in countries where the system of extraterritoriality
prevails: and there appears to be some ground for the contention
that the legality of transactions by American citizens might (at any
rate in certain circumstances) be affected by the principles adopted
by the nations with which the American Government is cooperating as
a belligerent. It is furthermore to be borne in mind that the
circumstances of the present war may not inconceivably force our
Government to the adoption of a more inclusive and more drastic rule
than it has hitherto followed in the determination of enemy
character; so that, apart from other less material considerations, a
reasonable sense of expediency would bid Americans to act with the
utmost circumspection in dealing with persons or firms of German
nationality, and particularly in entering upon any transactions with
them involving future obligations or commitments of any sort.
I am [etc.]
