893.512/484

The Consul General at Canton (Jenkins) to the Minister in China (MacMurray)81

No. 566

Sir: I have the honor to refer to this Consulate General’s telegrams of November 11, 1 p.m.82 and November 14, 4 p.m.83 concerning the attitude of the Canton regime with relation to the Diplomatic Body, and am enclosing herewith a confirmation copy of Mr. Chen’s note of November 8, 1926, to the Portuguese Consul General. Reference is also had to this Consulate General’s telegram of November 17, 12, noon, respecting Mr. Chen’s note to me of November 13, 1926, a copy of which is enclosed herewith.

It will be observed that in this connection Mr. Chen invites the attention of this Consulate General to his reply of November 8 to the Portuguese Consul General wherein it is set forth that the status and relations of the Powers (including the United States) vis a vis the Cantonese régime are not regulated on a basis which can properly entitle them to raise questions of treaty violation.

Needless to say, this Consulate General has not made any reply to this audacious communication from Mr. Chen and shall await instructions from the Legation before taking any further action. In the meantime, however, I am discussing the matter with my colleagues and shall probably take the liberty of telegraphing the Legation our views and asking for instructions as to how to proceed.

I have [etc.]

Douglas Jenkins
[Enclosure 1]

The Chinese Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs at Canton (Chen) to the Portuguese Consul General at Canton (Da Horta)

Sir: In order to avoid misunderstanding and to assist to a right perception of the new realities of the national situation resulting from the extension of Nationalist authority over the greater part of China, I have the honour to return the enclosed letter, dated November 584 and transmitted through the post, which purports to be a protest communicated by the “Senior Consul at Canton” by direction of the “Senior Minister of the interested Powers represented at Peking” [Page 901] who declare that they cannot recognize the legality of the internal taxes authorized by “the Canton authorities” on consumption and production of goods within the Liang-Kwang on the ground that the same are “in direct violation of treaties”.

My Government does not recognize the existence of the “Senior Minister of the interested Powers represented at Peking” (who lacks juridical sanction), nor are the status and the relations of the same Powers vis-a-vis my Government regulated on a basis which can properly entitle them to raise the question of a “direct violation of treaties”.

I have the honour to add that my Government is ready to discuss this and other questions as and when all or any of the Powers represented at Peking realise that national power and authority has long since ceased to be exercised in Peking and that the revolutionary and constructive forces of Nationalist China have now transferred this national power and authority to my Government.

I have [etc.]

Chen Yu-jen
[Enclosure 2]

The Chinese Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs at Canton (Chen) to the American Consul General (Jenkins)

Sir: In answer to your dispatch of November 6, 1926,85 wherein you state that the Government of the United States considers the levying of the taxes recently proposed by my Government on products and goods of consumption in violation of the Treaty provisions, and instructs you to bring forth a protest, I have the honour to inform you that on November 5, 1926, the Portuguese Consul General at Canton had already registered at this Ministry a protest of similar nature under the instructions of the diplomatic representatives at Peking, to which a reply was duly given by this Ministry to properly deal with the case.

As it is now necessary for me to deal with yours by holding the same proposition set forth in my reply to the Portuguese Consul, I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of the reply for your information.86

With compliments.

Chen Yu-jen
  1. Copy transmitted to the Department by the consul general as an enclosure to his despatch No. 723, Nov. 17; received Dec. 27.
  2. Not printed.
  3. See telegram No. 556, Nov. 17, from the Minister in China, p. 684.
  4. No copy attached to file.
  5. Not printed; see telegram No. 555, Nov. 16, from the Minister in China (par. 2), p. 897.
  6. Supra.