893.05/155: Telegram
The Minister in China (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State
558. My telegram No. 461, June 11, 8 p.m.
- 1.
- American, Brazilian, British, French, Netherlands, and Norwegian
Legations have received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs notes
dated July 3rd (of which the following is our translation) in reply
to the Senior Minister’s note of June 7th:
“Regarding the negotiation of an arrangement in connection with the judicial organ in the International Settlement at Shanghai, I have the honor to inform you that I have not failed to note the context of the formal note of June 7th from the Netherlands Minister.
[Page 686]I have the honor to observe that this question is primarily not one of a sectional nature and that prior to the joint discussion at Peking in 1926 the Ministers of the several interested powers were already aware of the inappropriateness of relegating this matter to local representatives for deliberation, therefore, at that time the discussions were held directly between the Ministers of the several interested powers and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and no local representatives participated therein.
Since it is now desired to arrive at a final settlement, it is of course proper and fitting to continue the joint discussions in all sincerity between the Central Government and the Ministers of the several interested powers.
This Ministry considers that complications would only be created and that no actual benefit would be derived from the proposal in the note under reply that the question should be examined by a commission chosen from among the Legations’ local representatives together with representatives of my Government, their conclusions to be submitted for consideration and decision to the several Ministers and to the National Government of China, and I regret that I am unable to concur in this proposal.
Aside from addressing the Ministers of the several interested powers, I have the honor, Mr. Minister, to request that you will be good enough to note the foregoing and to express the hope that you will at once open negotiations directly with this Ministry for the sake of satisfaction and despatch.
I have the honor, further, to request a reply.”
- 2.
- At a meeting of the diplomatic body today it was decided that the
representatives of all countries party to the rendition agreement
should submit to their Governments for approval a draft reply to be
made in their behalf by the Senior Minister, of which the
substantial portion is as follows:
“I am desired by my colleagues, the interested Heads of Legation, to point out that the above-mentioned proposal was made with a view to finding in the quickest way possible the most practical solution to the problem of effecting a final settlement of the Shanghai court questions.
In 1925 protracted discussions took place in Peking between representatives of the interested Legations and some Chinese officials delegated for the purpose; but it had to be recognized that these discussions could not lead to any tangible results, and, after the matter had been left in abeyance for some time, it was found that the only way of arriving at a workable solution was by negotiations in Shanghai itself.
It was with the object lesson before them that I was required by my colleagues to propose a similar way of procedure in the present instance, which seemed all the more desirable as circumstances have become more complicated since the former negotiations took place.
My colleagues regret that this very practical proposal does not meet with Your Excellency’s approval, more especially as it seemed to them the only way to obtain speedy results in a question which can hardly brook delay.
[Page 687]I need not remind Your Excellency of the fact that the present agreement between the consular body in Shanghai and the Kiangsu Provincial Government holds good until December 31st and thereafter for a further period of three years unless in the meanwhile revised [by?] mutual consent of the parties to that agreement, or unless replaced by new agreement concluded between the interested heads of mission and the authorities of the Central Government. As Your Excellency is no doubt aware, however, the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs at Shanghai has communicated to the Senior Consul in behalf of the Kiangsu Provincial Government, under date of June 28th, a statement that the provisional agreement for the rendition of the Shanghai Mixed Court, which had been in force since January 1, 1927, is considered inapplicable under present circumstances. This has been construed by the consular body as the required notice preliminary to negotiations for revision at the instance of either of the parties as provided by article 7. In the light of Your Excellency’s letter, however, there would appear to be a question whether the communication of the Kwangsi [Kiangsu] Provincial Government should not rather have been construed as a repudiation by it of further obligations under the agreement. Should that construction be correct and should the interested heads of mission have found it impossible in the meanwhile to bring to a conclusion negotiations with Your Excellency’s Government for a new agreement, there would, of course, be no alternative for them but to accept, however little they desire to do so, the fact of a reversion to the status quo ante and to reestablish the Mixed Court before January 1, 1930, until such time as it might be possible to provide for the rendition of the court upon more satisfactory and workable terms mutually acceptable to the parties.
In view of the above, my colleagues and myself are still of opinion that the most satisfactory way of meeting the Chinese Government’s wishes as expressed in Your Excellency’s note of 8th May last and of obtaining speedy results would be through negotiating in the first instance by means of a joint commission in Shanghai as indicated in my note of June 7th, and I am therefore desired to request Your Excellency to take this proposal once more into consideration. It was made in a spirit of good will and friendship and with a view to settling a question which during the last few years has proved to be unsatisfactory to all parties.”
I beg to request your approval.
- Telegram in six sections.↩