Office of the Historian

893.51/5299: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (Johnson)

Washington, June 26, 1930—4 p.m.

212. Your 497, June 25, 1 p.m. Referring to the Minister’s reply to the Legation’s telegram June 21, 3 p.m.,74 and to the Legation’s various telegrams regarding recent interference by the Northern leaders with the funds and administration of the Chinese Maritime Customs at Tientsin, the Department offers the following comments:

1.
In the Legation’s telegram 489, June 24, 11 a.m., paragraph 5, the Consul General at Tientsin refers by implication to Article 22 of the American Treaty of 1858, which places on the Consul responsibility in case he grants consular clearance before duties and tonnage dues are paid. Department does not now undertake to define the extent of this responsibility, especially if no customs office is functioning, but, if the Consul, at the request of the American shipping interests, issues consular clearance without Customs authorization, Department believes that it would be advisable that the Consul insist upon adequate guarantee against any possible claim on him for duties or dues and make it clear that neither the Consul nor this Government assumes any responsibility toward or on behalf of the ship or owners of cargo concerned.
2.
Department believes that where a customs office is functioning and, so far as American interests are concerned, administers its duties in conformity with applicable treaties and regulations, such office must be dealt with by American citizens as the de facto customs office. The Department suggests that Article 22 of the American Treaty of 1858, which states that “Duties of import shall be paid on the discharge of the goods, and duties of export on the lading of the same”, be taken as a general criterion in determining the regularity of customs duties. The Department construes Article I of the Treaty of July 25, 1928,75 as annulling treaty provisions which relate to “rates of duty” and of “tonnage dues” but not as altering treaty stipulations regarding mode of payment.
3.
Any attempt, whether made by regional authorities or by the National Government, to collect dues or duties in an irregular manner on the ground that there is not functioning a legally authorized customs office or on any other ground should be protested against by American diplomatic and consular officers.
4.
While the Department would have preferred to await an expression of the Minister’s opinion as requested in the Department’s telegram [Page 257] June 23, 6 p.m., the matter appears urgent, in view of the impending meeting of the diplomatic representatives concerned, and the Department now authorizes the Legation to join with Legations of other interested Powers in filing protests as described in paragraph 2 above.
5.
[Paraphrase.] It is realized fully by the Department that the integrity of the Customs Administration and the financial and political unity of China are threatened if local factions are allowed to obtain control of both the customs officers and the revenue which they collect. The Department does not wish the Legation, either in conjunction with other Legations or alone, to make any representations to authorities in China or any public statement at present respecting this political aspect of the question. It occurs to the Department that, in making the suggestion (which was reported to you in the Department’s 207, June 23, 6 p.m.), the Japanese Government may have been acting with the Chinese Government on some prearrangement. The Department wishes this and other aspects of the matter to be discussed confidentially by the Legation with the British Minister. The disintegration of the Customs Administration would be greatly deplored by the Department, but it wishes, before any further expression is given this attitude, to have the benefit of the study and recommendations of the Legation.
6.
The Department desires to follow, as far as it may seem practicable with a developing situation, the principle of cooperative action in this matter. The views of both the British and the Japanese Governments should be given full consideration. It is deemed advisable by the Department to avoid as far as possible action which may be construed to show favor between the contending Chinese authorities in the domestic struggle, and the Department believes that, with this principle kept in mind, such action as may be taken should have as motive and justification the principle of safeguarding the Chinese Customs Administration’s integrity in conformity with China’s existing treaty provisions and other commitments and with the principle of serving the general interest, that of China as a whole included. Any project based upon consideration of possible ultimate use of force would be viewed by the Department with disfavor. [End paraphrase.]

Stimson
  1. See telegram No. 480, June 21, 7 p.m., p. 242.↩
  2. Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. ii, p. 475.↩