711.933/48: Telegram
The Minister in China ( MacMurray ) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 9—1:05 p.m.]
368. Referring to fourth paragraph of my telegram No. 360, May 7, 7 p.m.
- 1.
- The following is the text which the British, Dutch and French
Ministers and myself have elaborated for submission to our
respective Governments as a basis for substantially identical
replies:
“I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note under date of April 27th in which you expressed the hope that the Government of (blank) would take into immediate and sympathetic consideration the desire of the Chinese Government to be enabled to assume jurisdiction over nationals within the domain of China.
Having carefully considered this request, my Government has instructed me to recall to Your Excellency that it was happy to participate in the resolution adopted on December 10, 1921, by the Washington Conference on Limitation of Armament54 under which was established an international commission to inquire into the present practice of extraterritorial jurisdiction in China and into the laws and the judicial system and the method of judicial administration in [Page 564] China. Your Excellency will not fail to recall that that Commission which rendered its report under date of September 16, 1926, laid down a variety of recommendations upon reasonable compliance with which it considered that the several powers would be warranted in relinquishing their respective rights of extraterritoriality. In view of the findings of fact of the Commission and of its recommendations (in which as will be recalled the Chinese member unreservedly concurred) my Government cannot but feel that as a condition precedent to the relinquishment of American extraterritorial rights (in accordance with article 15 of the commercial treaty of October 8, 1903) it is now incumbent upon the Chinese Government to carry the reform of its laws and judicial system and of its administration of justice to the point indicated as necessary by that Commission. My Government feel that it would be less than frank if it were not to acknowledge that its subsequent observation of the workings of the Chinese courts, and particularly of the Provisional Court established in the International Settlement at Shanghai by agreement between the Chinese and foreign authorities, has not tended to inspire its confidence either in their administrative functioning or in the independence of Chinese judicial institutions from outside influences.
My Government further instructs me to assure you that until such time as the relinquishment of extraterritorial rights may become necessary it will continue to observe with attentive and sympathetic interest such further progresses as may be effected in these matters, and such demonstration as may be made by the Chinese Government of its capacity and willingness to do justice in cases affecting foreign persons and interests and that it will continue to hope for opportunities of helpful cooperation with the Chinese authorities with a view to hastening a situation in which it would feel warranted in agreeing to modifications of the present juridical status of American citizens in China.”
- 2.
- My colleagues and I feel it is necessary to include a direct statement as to the lack of confidence felt with respect to the administrative functioning and the judicial independence of the Chinese courts. However unwelcome such statement will be to the Chinese, their raising squarely the whole issue of extraterritoriality seems to compel us to meet that issue squarely by a direct statement of the present inadequacy of their judicial institutions. I am myself strongly impressed with the fact that the somewhat indefinite terms in which the interested foreign powers have hitherto given assurance of their hopes for the eventual abolition of extraterritoriality have produced in the minds of the Chinese an impression of insincerity in avoiding an issue which we dare not meet. A direct statement of the fact that we are not satisfied with what they have to offer therefore leave[s] us in a better position both as to their present request and as to dealing with any future developments of the question.
- Resolution V, Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. i, p. 289.↩