893.05/91: Telegram
The Minister in China (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 19—9 a.m.]
159. 1. The Department’s 61, February 15, 4 p.m.26 Before instructing Lockhart in the sense indicated in paragraph 5, following from Hankow is transmitted for the Department’s consideration:
“February 16, 6 p.m. My February 10, 3 p.m.27 No communication has been received from Ch’en28 and it is known he has not communicated with the Hsiakow magistrate. Since the magistrate is declining to accept new cases and has stated that he has transferred all pending cases to the Hankow city court, thus arbitrarily depriving Americans of a treaty right, I request telegraphic instructions. This is another example of high-handed methods employed by the Chinese authorities here and perhaps is the first step towards a general abrogation of the rights granted by treaty. American businessmen are greatly concerned and if this action is permitted to stand they will have but little, if any, recourse in obtaining redress in legal proceedings to which they may be a party.”
2. If we are not to protest against repudiation of the rights granted by China to the United States by article 4 of the treaty of 1880,29 I believe that as a matter of method of procedure it would be preferable to inform our consuls that the American Government, with a view to carrying out section 2 of article 4 of the recommendations [Page 468] of the Extraterritorial Commission30 does not, pending a readjustment of our treaty relations, purpose (except in unusual circumstances) to exercise option of sending consular deputy to watch cases brought by American citizens against Chinese defendants. American citizens would, as a rule, continue to demand presence of a consular deputy if they had reason to believe that his presence might be obtained. I therefore urge, as an alternative to yielding under protest, the more direct course suggested with a view to clarifying our attitude and fortifying position of our consular representations. Such a decision would of course not include provisional court at Shanghai where a special agreement has been made for a limited period and possibly not the mixed court at Amoy. It would, however, be necessary formally to acquaint the Chinese authorities with such a purpose as well as representatives of the powers signatory or adhering to the extraterritoriality.
3. Please instruct.
- Ante, p. 382.↩
- See telegram No. 133, Feb. 11, from the Minister in China, supra.↩
- Eugene Ch’en, Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Hankow Government.↩
- Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. i, p. 239, 240.↩
- Department of State, Report of the Commission on Extraterritoriality in China, Peking, September 16, 1926 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1926), p. 108. Recommendations are also quoted in telegram No. 412, Sept. 17, 1926, from the Chargé in China, Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. i, p. 979.↩