893.05/149: Telegram
The Minister in China (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State
461. Legation’s 399, May 18, 3 p.m. Reply actually sent by Senior Minister, June 7, reads as follows:
“I had the honor together with some of my honorable colleagues to receive Your Excellency’s note of May 8 containing the proposal to open negotiations in all sincerity to arrive at a proper and satisfactory arrangement concerning the question of the former Mixed Court at Shanghai.
As Your Excellency is aware the same [said] former Mixed Court was reconstituted by an agreement signed in 1926 by representatives [Page 684] of the provincial government of Kiangsu and—after approval of the Heads of Legations accredited in China—by the consular representatives at Shanghai of the powers enjoying extraterritorial rights. In consequence of this agreement a new judicial organization was established in Shanghai on January 1, 1927.
The contents of Your Excellency’s note were discussed by all the Heads of the Legations concerned, who concurred [comprised], in view of the above, not only the six to whom the note was addressed (i.e., the diplomatic representatives of America, Brazil, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands and Norway), but also the diplomatic representatives of Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.
As a result of this discussion I am deputed to inform Your Excellency that it is their unanimous opinion that, in view of the obtaining conditions and in order to reach a satisfactory decision in the speediest way possible, the question of the reorganization of the present court should be examined on behalf of the Heads of the Legations concerned by a commission chosen from among their local representatives together with representatives of the Chinese Government and that the conclusion[s] thus arrived at should in due course be submitted to the several Ministers and to the National Government of China. I am, however, desired by my colleagues to add in this connection that the Ministers concerned cannot disguise from themselves the fact that certain unsatisfactory features in the functioning of the court, under the said agreement of 1926, have been due [to] external political and administrative interference with its operation and that they regard it as essential that these external influences should be excluded in future.
My colleagues, whilst submitting to Your Excellency the above proposal for the examination of this question by a joint commission, express the sincere hope that by dealing with the matter in this practical way a final settlement will before long be effected, so that the peace and order of the International Settlement in Shanghai may be safeguarded and justice administered in accordance with existing rights and international good will increased.”
- Telegram in three sections.↩