893.05/167: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (MacMurray)
312. Reference your No. 820, September 12, 8 p.m., and No. 829, September 14, 6 p.m.
- (1)
- As to paragraph (5) of No. 829: The Department is now inclined to share this view and, by reference to your 820, notes that the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs appears to be thinking similarly. It seems advisable for an attempt to be made to substitute for the former and the present court something which is entirely new, at least in name, even though, when established, it may resemble in structure and function the institutions which already have existed.
- (2)
- As to paragraph 5 (b) of No. 829: The Department cannot help doubting whether the plan you have outlined would stand much chance of being acceptable to the Chinese authorities, since, though embodying a provision of the Anglo-Siamese treaty of 190989 for the presence and authority of foreign judicial officers, apparently the other feature, granting jurisdiction over extraterritorial defendants to the courts thus organized, is not concurrently embodied. The Department authorizes you, however, to discuss the proposal outlined with your colleagues.
- (3)
- As to paragraph (7) of No. 829: The Department cannot help feeling that, after approaching the interested powers as early as last May (see your 399, May 18, 3 p.m.), the Chinese Government at least has an equitable right for the exercise prior to December 31, 1929, of the right which article VII of the rendition agreement signed August 31, 1926, accorded to it, viz, to “negotiate with the foreign Ministers concerned in Peking for a final settlement”, and that, in case the powers defer longer the negotiations which, it was agreed, should be entered into, the powers would be placed in an awkward tactical position by a failure to reach a settlement prior to December 31.
I have no wish to dictate regarding details of procedure or minutely to prescribe regarding agenda, steps, or the precise conclusion [Page 700] to be arrived at in the course of negotiations. I am, however, of the impression that in its attitude toward the Nanking Government’s overtures and efforts the diplomatic body is unduly meticulous, if not querulous; and, in view especially of Dr. Wang’s note (reported in your No. 820), I believe that the American Government’s wish to be responsive should be demonstrated both to your colleagues and to Dr. Wang in the position you take on behalf of this Government. While I do not desire to instruct you to act independently, I do wish you to make it clear that this Government believes it to be both diplomatically expedient and reasonable to discuss frankly and cordially with the Chinese Government the issues raised by that Government. Regarding the question of the solidarity of policy among the representatives of the affected powers, I hardly need to remind you of the complete disregard of that principle by each of several other powers whenever such disregard has suited their convenience. Referring to your paragraph (7), I share with you the view that the diversity of interest and status created by the differing treaty relationships does render it a matter of great delicacy and difficulty to bring about even the minimum amount of cooperative action required for the maintenance of our position and the fulfillment of our responsibilities. That being a fact, it nevertheless remains possible to choose, without taking a noncooperative position, between advocating an attitude which is responsive to the trend of affairs or accepting the views of governments or persons, which by comparison are reactionary, in order to determine our policy. When and where the principle of solidarity and cooperation among the powers is accomplished by the will to face realities and to deal constructively with them, I believe in it. When adherence to that principle results in either action or inaction along lines which are prescribed by governments or persons appearing to lack that will, I should not hesitate to disregard the principle.
- Treaty and notes (annexes) signed at Bangkok, March 10, 1909; British and Foreign State Papers, vol. cii, pp. 126, 127, 129 (annex 2).↩