793.003/308
The Department of State to the French Embassy
Memorandum
The Department has read with care the statement addressed to the Acting Secretary of State3 and handed by the First Secretary of the French Embassy to the Assistant Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs on March 8, in which are given certain comments made by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Embassy of France at Washington regarding a note, dated February 6, from the Japanese Embassy in Paris to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs setting forth the position of the Japanese Government on the question of the relinquishment of extraterritoriality in China.
It is noted that the comments of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the French Embassy at Washington include the following: that the French Government is in agreement with the Japanese Government as to the impossibility of proceeding to an immediate, complete and unconditional relinquishment of extraterritoriality and has declared that “it is ready to proceed, through negotiations, to the gradual suppression of these privileges under the indispensable conditions and guarantees which it is determined to demand of the Chinese Government”; that the French Government, like the Japanese Government, declares itself in favor of the gradual method of relinquishment by categories and jurisdiction, but, “does not believe it possible entirely to abandon the gradual method of relinquishment by geographical zones, such as is proposed by other countries”; that the Japanese Government is led to combine the two systems, a combination proposed on November 25, 1929, to the British Government by the French Government; that “for this reason, the Japanese Government considers that, when the time comes, there would be occasion first to accept Chinese jurisdiction for civil causes, and later for criminal causes, it being understood that such reform would not [Page 411] immediately apply to certain territories”. In this respect, the French Government comments that “Leased territories, such as Dalny and Kwangchow-wan (Kouang-Tcheou-Wan) naturally do not come within the geographical categories contemplated above,” and that the situation of such leased territories “might, if occasion arises, be regulated only by special agreements having no connection with the problem of the privileges of jurisdiction”. The French Government states that its anxieties are the same as those of the Japanese Government in respect to “certain restricted territories where its interests are important and its nationals numerous” and that the French Government “would not like to have Chinese jurisdiction applied to the concessions and to railway enterprises until after a reasonable period allowing the modern courts to prove their efficacy and impartiality”.
It is further noted that the French Government, like the Japanese Government, attaches particular importance to the question of the complete opening of China, and that the French Government believes that such opening should be effected in two stages, “one after the relinquishment of extraterritoriality in civil matters which should have as its counterpart permission to foreigners to reside and traffic in the whole country; the other after the relinquishment of extraterritoriality in criminal matters, which should entail, on the basis of reciprocity, the right to real property”.
In response to the request contained in the final paragraph of the French Embassy’s memorandum of March 7, 1930, there are attached hereunder certain papers setting forth views of the American Government and recent developments in connection with the study by the Department of State of possible plans for the relinquishment of extraterritorial jurisdiction in China.4
In reference to the material for study submitted to Dr. Wu on January 23, the suggestion was made to Dr. Wu later, on February 26, that this material be set aside and that attention would be given during the next few weeks to the drafting of a new outline of materials for study which would be submitted at a later date.
The Department has recently been asked by the British Foreign Office for an expression of the Department’s views on the subject of endeavoring, in dealing with the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction, to retain criminal jurisdiction or to provide for the employment by China of foreign co-judges. In reply the Department has expressed the opinion that it would be desirable, if possible, to have [Page 412] provision for both of these features; that as between the two, it regards provision for the employment of foreign co-judges as the more to be desired; but that, at the same time, it believes that the Chinese will resist proposal for co-judges more than proposal that criminal jurisdiction be retained.
It should be understood that the American Government is not yet committed to any particular plan but is considering, by means of discussions between officers of the Department and the Chinese Minister, various plans and possibilities.
- See note of March 7, from the French Ambassador p. 404.↩
- Enclosures were copies of the statement read to the Chinese Minister on December 28, 1929; the statement of January 4, 1930, recording views of the American Government regarding mandate issued by Chinese Government on December 28 and public statement made by Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs on December 30; and memorandum with attached copy of material for study submitted to Chinese Minister on January 23.↩