893.05/206: Telegram
The Chargé in China (Perkins) to the Secretary of State
1144. Legation’s 1124, December 11, 10 a.m.
- 1.
- At meeting today of interested Heads of Legations (Japanese Chargé d’Affaires present) it was decided to refer to our respective Governments the Chinese proposal that a court with foreign judicial personnel employed by the Chinese Government would be acceptable only in the event that the jurisdiction of the court was extended to include extraterritorial nationals within the Settlement. Heads of Legations informally discussed question whether it might not be advisable to have our delegates inform the Chinese that although extraterritorial matters were not within the scope of the present negotiations nevertheless the foreign Governments concerned would view with sympathy the idea of a later extension of the jurisdiction of the court to include extraterritorial nationals if the new court should function successfully as contemplated under scheme A.
- 2.
- French Minister stated that he was prepared to recommend this course.20 British Minister felt that it was hardly safe to make such a proposal. Netherlands Chargé d’Affaires was opposed. I expressed as my own personal view the opinion that it would not be safe to make such a commitment however indefinite; for experience had shown that the Chinese would unquestionably interpret a contingent commitment of this kind as a specific promise, as they had previously done with respect to contingent commitment concerning tariff in China.21
- 3.
- For the Department’s information. I am furthermore of the opinion that when [the?] position taken by the Chinese delegates, as described in paragraph 1 of the American delegates’ telegram of December 10, 8 p.m.,22 indicated that the Chinese are primarily interested in extending the scope of the present negotiations so as to embrace the whole question of extraterritoriality. Should the interested foreign Governments consent, the result would be (a) to prejudice any future negotiations which the interested Governments may be contemplating through accredited plenipotentiaries and (b) to place the Chinese Government in a position to exploit the situation politically by confusing the issue in the eyes of the Chinese people through making it appear that the interested powers had all unreservedly [Page 726] conceded the Chinese demand for the commencement of negotiations which had as their aim the abolition of extraterritoriality on January 1st.
- 4.
- With respect to the intrinsic merits of the Chinese proposal which means that all foreigners as well as Chinese in Shanghai would be brought within the jurisdiction of the new court, I venture to express my own personal view that, in connection with any plans which the interested Governments may have for the gradual abolition of extraterritoriality, the abandonment of, or any fundamental change in, the present status of foreigners within the International Settlement of Shanghai should be not the first but one of the last stages of any such graduated process. The primacy of Shanghai in the structure of Chinese foreign trade and the complicated nature of its municipal constitution led me to the view that any first experimental steps toward an abolition of extraterritorial rights should not be taken at a place so extremely important to the comity of our China trade.
- 5.
- The Department’s instructions are solicited at the earliest moment possible with regard to attitude to be taken by the American delegates towards the Chinese Government proposal as outlined and discussed in paragraphs 1 and 2.
- 6.
- Foregoing repeated to American delegates for their information.
Perkins
- Telegram in three sections.↩
- In telegram No. 1162, December 18, the Chargé in China reported that the French Government did not approve the recommendation (893.05/211).↩
- For the contingent commitment, see Foreign Relations, 1925, vol. i, pp. 881 ff.↩
- See telegram No. 1124, December 11, from the Chargé in China, p. 724.↩