893.74/115: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Japan (Bell)
102. Your telegram 132, April 11, 11 a.m.
You will address to the Foreign Office a note acknowledging theirs of April 9,52 and continuing as follows:
“It is noted that the Japanese Government supports the Mitsui Company in its claim that a letter from the Chinese Ministry of the Navy dated March 5, 1918, subsequent to and separate from the company’s wireless telegraph contract of February 21, 1918, and giving evidence of no consideration, was effective to create an obligation upon the Chinese Government not to erect nor permit any party other than the Mitsui Company to erect wireless stations for communication with Europe and America: and it is contended that the monopolistic right thus claimed is justified by reason of the character of wireless installation which ‘could not be multiplied as a paying proposition’. The case is sought to be distinguished from that of a monopoly of mines or railways; but it is obvious that this distinction is one of degree rather than of character, and that there is no more intrinsic reason for assuming that communications may be monopolized for the benefit of a favored concessionaire than that railway or mining enterprise should be similarly exempted from competition. The American Government can not therefore concede that the monopoly thus asserted is reconcilable with the rights assured to its nationals (for instance by its treaty of 184453) to be free from impediment in their business by monopolies or other restrictions.
It is, moreover, contended that by its treaty of 186854 this Government conceded the right of the Chinese Government to deal at its uncontrolled discretion with such matters as railways and telegraphs. It should be evident, however, that the wording of Article 8 of that treaty not only does not qualify the earlier stipulations against the establishment of monopolies, but is to be construed as assuming that the Chinese Government shall at all times be at liberty to seek impartially such assistance as this Government or others might be desired to furnish, and certainly does not lend itself to the construction that China should enter into such arrangements with private individuals of other nationalities as would preclude it from resorting to the contemplated assistance from the United States. The intent of the Article is manifestly that telegraphic enterprise should be upon the same basis as in fact railway enterprise has been—with regard to which it is not conceived that any of the Treaty Powers would concur in the grant of exclusive rights throughout Chinese territory to any third power.
[Page 441]In support of the interpretation urged by it the Japanese Government instances the cases of the monopoly of cable communication claimed by the Great Northern Company. In this connection, I have to advise you that my Government has never given its assent to the monopoly claimed by the Danish Company, and is in fact in the present case of the Federal Company denying its validity. The absence of protest on this subject by the American Government was not, therefore, as the Japanese Government has supposed, an indication of its acquiescence, but rather the result of its inability to learn the true status of the case because of the secrecy enveloping the contracts upon which the claim to a monopoly was based.
It is with regret that the American Government has been apprised of the disposition of the Japanese Government to maintain in behalf of its nationals a claim based upon a similarly secret arrangement which was not avowed by the Japanese Government when making public the other relevant documents on April 16, 1919, in pursuance of the declared intention to disclose all such secret arrangements as might exist between its nationals and the Chinese Government, and its disappointment has been the more keen that the Japanese Government should urge, for the purpose of excluding a legitimate American enterprise, a claim based upon a letter whose legal validity is at least questionable, and whose purport is so obviously inconsistent with the assurances conveyed to the Government of the United States by the Ishii Mission with respect to the interpretation to be placed upon the policy of the open door in China as reaffirmed at that time.
My Government is frank to express its belief that the desired cooperation among the powers in China can be effective or helpful, either to the interests of China or to the common interests of the treaty powers, only if it is founded upon a policy of vitalizing and extending the principle of the open door rather than countenancing limitations or restrictions upon its implications.
The Government of the United States has never associated itself with any arrangement which sought to establish any special rights or privileges in China which would abridge the rights of the subjects or citizens of other friendly states; and it is the purpose of the Government neither to participate nor to acquiesce in any arrangement which might purport to establish in favor of foreign interests any superiority of rights with respect to commercial or economic development in designated regions of the territories of China, or which might seek to create any such monopoly or preference as would exclude other nationals from undertaking any legitimate trade or industry or from participating with the Chinese Government in any category of public enterprise.”
You will orally indicate that the discussion of this case would now appear to have covered all relevant issues, and that in the view of this Government it seems unnecessary to pursue the question further.
The Department is taking a similar attitude with regard to the British and Danish protests, and in response to an inquiry is addressing [Page 442] the Chinese Legation in the sense of the final paragraph of the note quoted above.54a
Advise the Department immediately by telegraph upon the delivery of the note.
Copy to Peking by mail.