Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1925, Volume I

793.00/54: Telegram

The Chargé in China (Mayer) to the Secretary of State

Peking, July 2, 1925—10 a.m.
[Received July 3—5 p.m.]

255. Department’s 125, July 1, noon;¹ 123, June 27, 3 p.m.;² my 249, June 26, 4 p.m.;³ my 238, June 20, 3 p.m., paragraph 2.

1. Simultaneously with presentation of identic note, reported in my 247, June 24, 6 p.m.,⁴ Chinese Government brought note to senior minister⁵ stating its willingness that negotiations respecting the Shanghai incident take place Peking but setting forth 13 points which the Chinese Government considered should be the basis for such negotiations. Even with the most sympathetic attitude towards the Chinese Government’s desires in the matter these points entirely unacceptable. They include matters not even germane to precise question to be decided, such as arrangements between employer and employee, dismissal of an official against whom there is no charge but that of having an irritating manner, and the like.

2. Through the senior minister the Heads of Legation concerned have informed Foreign Office that the 13 points for reasons above stated could not seriously be considered as affording basis for negotiations.

3. When the senior minister so acquainted the Minister for Foreign Affairs, latter stated that the two notes of June 24th must together form basis for anticipated negotiations. That is, Shanghai negotiations must include question of readjustment of treaty relations between China and the powers. Minister for Foreign Affairs still maintains position despite efforts by Monsieur Cerruti to show scope of our negotiations of necessity could not include the question of readjustment of treaty relations which we had referred to our respective Governments. The Chinese Government have asked Messrs. C. T. Wang, W. W. Yen and Admiral Tsai Ting-kan to constitute committee to negotiate with French and Italian Ministers and myself on behalf of interested diplomatic representatives. Heads of Legation have drafted agenda for negotiations which now being submitted to Chinese Government.

4. C. T. Wang has called upon me informally to ascertain my ideas regarding scope of the anticipated negotiations. He stated that without any doubt the question of readjustment of treaty regulations should be included in the anticipated negotiations, that otherwise neither he nor W. W. Yen would consent to serve. I told Dr. Wang that I could not speak authoritatively for my Government in respect of the question he raised having referred the note of June 24th to it for instructions. However I expressed personal opinion that any foreign government, no matter how sympathetically it might be inclined toward the aspirations of the Chinese in regard to readjustment of treaty relations, would need to feel certain that Chinese Government [was] capable of assuming additional obligations and responsibilities which revision of treaties would place upon it before foreign governments could consent to such revision. I asked Dr. Wang whether in his opinion present Chinese Government could satisfy this condition precedent. He replied emphatically that it could; that the source of all trouble and difficulties were [was] the special privileges and immunities of the treaties and once these were removed peace and order would prevail in China and a stable, effective government would ensue. I fear he is overoptimistic if sincere in these expressions and is putting the cart before the horse.

5. Three Chinese delegates referred to above are apparently jockeying for position vis-à-vis Foreign Office in an effort to escape responsibility for the settling of Shanghai incident. From reliable reports it would seem that the Chinese delegates have either resigned or told Foreign Office they will only negotiate Shanghai incident as part of larger subject including revision of the treaty. This makes it most difficult if not impossible for us to hasten settlement of Shanghai incidents in which apparently Chinese Government has lost interest in view of bigger question of treaty revision which it is now pushing to the fore. Should negotiations for settlement of Shanghai incidents not be begun early next week, through continued dilatory tactics of Chinese Government, I believe Heads of Legation must seriously contemplate informing Chinese Government that either latter shall cooperate immediately to [the] end that negotiation be begun, otherwise Heads of Legation will conclude that Chinese Government is willing to rely upon any settlement which foreign authorities may regard as just. In this connection action taken by Heads of Legation, reported in my number 257, July 2, 1 p.m.,⁶ is pertinent.

I refer as last resort of settlement Shanghai incidents to Permanent Court of International Justice in conjunction with League of Nations, discussed informally at meeting of Heads of Legation. Would Department favor such action? See Department’s 46, March 1, 3 p.m., 1924, second paragraph.⁷

Mayer

1. Post, p. 767.
2. Not printed.
3. Post, p. 765.
4. Post, p. 763.
5. Ante, p. 670.
6. Infra.
7. Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. i, p. 569.