793.00/114: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (MacMurray)
181. Your 306 August 1, 9 P.M. Department’s 180 of August 1, 3 P.M. covers conversation which Japanese Ambassador had with me on July 31, evidently in response to his Government’s instructions mentioned in paragraph 2 of your telegram.
… In any case, the Japanese Government should have been prepared for this Government’s views as Tokyo’s 118 of July 1, 4 P.M.13 indicates that you expressed the opinion that “the present situation in China makes it necessary for the special economic conference to assume a position a little beyond the scope of the conference in order to reestablish Chinese confidence.” As stated to you in Department’s 170, July 28, 2 P.M. the British Embassy here communicated to the Department the text of a proposed declaration which the British Government desired to use as the basis for an identic expression on the part of the Powers of their attitude toward the Chinese proposals, the opening sentences of which I now quote more fully:
“The Washington Customs Treaty provided for the early convocation of a conference at which by the agreement between China and the Nine Powers certain economic measures should be adopted for the benefit of China as a whole. The spirit animating the Powers remains today what it was then. Various subsequent changes in the situation which have delayed the meeting of a conference have not affected the original intentions of the Powers; on the contrary, they have confirmed these intentions whilst the Powers themselves consider that the objects of the Washington Conference are to fulfill an agreement to be reached at the Tariff Conference which will require to be of a more far-reaching and comprehensive nature than was originally contemplated. The Powers further hope that the Tariff Conference will be but the first step in a comprehensive revision of the treaties which they express their willingness to undertake at the earliest opportunity.”
British viewpoint was adopted in preparing Department’s draft of proposed reply as this Government was and is ready to extend the scope of the conference beyond that originally intended by the treaty. You should know that British Government submitted its views also to Japanese Government and that Japanese amendment of British proposal omitted all reference to extension of scope of conference. It would therefore seem that Shidehara, finding British Government and this Government ready to extend the scope of the Conference, is endeavoring as a last resort to bring about a reconsideration [Page 811] of this matter on the part of this Government by referring to your conversation in Tokyo expressing views held by the Department prior to consideration of Chinese proposals of June 24.
I have just received a note from British Embassy14 informing me of instructions which the British Government have communicated to their Chargé in Peking for his guidance in discussing with you American draft. The note states, inter alia, that British Chargé has been “informed that his Majesty’s Government disapprove the statement in the American draft reply that the Extraterritorial Commission will be instructed to make recommendations to enable the Powers to consider what steps may be taken for relinquishing their extraterritorial rights, inasmuch as my Government feel that the commission should be allowed to make such recommendations as may appear to them desirable without any lead from the Powers.” You should point out to British Chargé that language of American draft states that this Government desires to instruct its commissioner to include in his report recommendations based upon the findings of the commission which will enable the Governments concerned to consider “what, if any, steps may be taken” and not “what steps may be taken.” The British note also objects to the use of the term tariff autonomy. This objection will be met, it seems to me, by alternate phraseology mentioned in Department’s 173 of July 30, 1 P.M. British note also objects to the use of phrases such as “constant and sympathetic interest” and “gratification at progress in the improvement of the Chinese judicial system.” I have no objection to the omission from the text of draft reply of the clauses “and has watched the growth of that sentiment with constant and sympathetic interest,” “sympathetically and hopefully [helpfully?]” and “it has been gratified to note the progress that has been made in this connection.”
With reference to paragraph 10 of your telegram you should know that text of Department’s draft reply has been communicated to all of the Powers party to the Washington Conference and to those Powers who have indicated their adherence to Resolution No. 5. They were told that this draft was to be used by you as a basis for discussing the Powers’ reply to Chinese Government’s policies of June 24.