Office of the Historian

893.05/226: Telegram

The Chargé in China (Perkins) to the Secretary of State

Peking, January 6, 1930—11 a.m.
[Received January 6—6 a.m.39]

21. Legation’s 18, January 4, 5 p.m.

1.
Following from Jacobs and Bucknell:

“January 5, 3 p.m. Following joint telegram to the French Minister, as Senior Minister concerned, from the foreign delegates on the Provisional Court Commission:

‘At meetings with the chairman of the council on December 31st and January 1st, at Shanghai, the foreign delegates discussed the following four points: (a) Procurator; (b) Judicial Police; (c) prisons; (d) clerical staff.

The chairman’s views were as follows:

(a)
No procurator if possible but if unavoidable his powers should be limited to inquests and prosecution of crimes under the first two chapters only of part 2 of the criminal code, provided that in so called extradition cases something equivalent to the, proving of a prima facie case should be required.
(b)
The judicial police and process servers should be organized under a foreign municipal officer having an office in the court through whose hands every process of the court should pass before advising service.
The chairman considers this point to be the most important of all for safeguarding the peace and order of the Settlement. For further details on this point, see telegram number 2 of January 2 from the British Consul General at Shanghai to British Minister.
(c)
Council cannot agree to the appointment of a Chinese superintendent of prisons and would indeed prefer that all Chinese sentenced for violations of the criminal code be incarcerated in Chinese prisons outside of the Settlement, leaving only minor offenders convicted of infractions of the land regulations and bylaws and of police offenses to serve their terms in the Settlement prisons.
(d)
If the concessions under (a), (b) and (c) can be secured, the council would be willing to give up any reference in the agreement to foreign representation on the clerical staff, but otherwise they must insist upon this point.

The chairman considers the employment of a foreigner of the council’s selection to head the judicial police and process servers to be the most important feature, and, to secure the consent of the Chinese thereto, is even prepared to go so far as to sacrifice the observer provided the, agreement recognizes the right of the council to have a legal representative appear and be heard by the court in every case in what the council considers the interest of the Settlement directly involved.

The foreign delegates respectfully request to be, informed at the earliest moment possible as to the views and the suggestions of the foreign Ministers concerned on these points.’

[Page 749]

Repeated to the British Minister by the British Consul General at Nanking.

Personal for Perkins. The elimination of all observers, who at best would have little power, would appear only a part with the question of his functions and position in the court as well as the necessity of classifying offenses which are two very difficult questions. On the whole we are in favor of the council’s views since these and other concessions already authorized afford much greater possibility reaching an agreement.”

2.
Interested Heads of Legation have not yet discussed the proposal. The views of the council appear on the whole to be conciliatory while at the same time calculated to retain the minimum of privileges essential to the maintenance of peace and order. Unless the Department instructs otherwise, I shall advocate giving the foreign delegates full discretion to modify our joint instructions to them of agreement so as to accord with the council’s views.
3.
I consider that in any case [it would] be necessary [to] make some declaration or reservation (either within or apart from the proposed agreement) with regard to our treaty rights in the matter of the attendance at trials of “the properly authorized official of the plaintiff’s nationality.”
Perkins
  1. Telegram in four sections.↩