793.00/123a: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Minister of China (MacMurray)
180. The Japanese Ambassador called upon me yesterday and stated with reference to the draft note communicated to you with Department’s 165 July 23, 3 p.m., that his Government understood that this Government was not only ready to appoint its delegates to the Special Conference on Chinese tariff matters, but was furthermore prepared to accept any reasonable proposal for extending the scope of that conference and also to take up, either at the Tariff Conference or at a subsequent time, the subject of a comprehensive revision of the treaties looking toward ultimate tariff autonomy. He stated that the Japanese Government is inclined to believe that in the Powers’ reply to the Chinese note, it would be safer and wiser to mention only those matters, which they are convinced, are possible of realization and not to refer to those pertaining to the extension of the scope of the Tariff Conference, much less to that of tariff autonomy. He said that the Japanese Government believe that to make reference at this juncture in the Powers’ note to China to a matter which cannot be confidently expected to be realized is to give a false hope to the Chinese people and bring about confusion. He said that the Japanese [Page 807] Government was therefore constrained to take exception to the American proposal to make reference in the Powers’ note to China to the questions of extending the scope of the Tariff Conference and also of tariff autonomy.
I explained to the Japanese Ambassador that I was very definitely of the opinion that the reply which should be made to the Chinese Government at this time should be so cast as to show the willingness of the Powers to discuss any matters, even including the question of tariff autonomy, which might be brought up at the time when the conference meets. I stated that in my opinion in the present condition of public sentiment in China and in view of the kind of agitation that was going on that no conference on tariffs simply limited to the exact terms of the Nine-Power Treaty could be expected to meet the situation. I stated that I have felt that there must be a willingness of all the Powers to meet China and to discuss the entire tariff situation. I stated that I was not insisting on the use of the precise words “tariff autonomy” necessarily but said that the wording of the note should be so phrased as to cover tariff autonomy should it be advanced as a question. I read to him that portion of Department’s No. 173 of July 30, 1 p.m. in which you were authorized to substitute for the term “looking toward ultimate tariff autonomy” the words “dealing with the entire subject of the tariff” and stated that I hoped that this phraseology would meet the objections which the Japanese Government had to the use of the other term.
I stated that the phraseology in our proposed draft regarding the broadening of the scope of the conference was based on the language of the British proposition referred to in Department’s 170 of July 28, 2 p.m.
I hope that you will not fail to make it clear to your colleagues that this Government for its part is ready and willing to do just what it says it will do in the draft note communicated to you in Department’s 165, and that it is not willing to join in any identic replies which would not indicate that willingness.