Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1930, Volume II

793.003/361

The British Counselor of Embassy (Campbell) to the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Hornbeck)

Washington, May 16, 1930.

Dear Dr. Hornbeck: We have now received the observations of the Foreign Office on the revised draft agreement on extraterritoriality, the text of which you were good enough to communicate to me under cover of your letter of April 17th. They have also had in view the comments on Article 5 of the revised draft contained in the memorandum enclosed with your letter to me of May 2nd.³⁴

On the enclosed sheet are set forth certain suggested amendments to the text of the revised draft, based mainly on the agreed comments of the American and British Ministers to China. The Foreign Office would be glad to learn whether these amendments are acceptable to the State Department and also what procedure the latter propose to adopt when the final version of the draft is ready.

The Foreign Office agree generally with the criticism made by Sir M. Lampson that while it may be good tactics to ask for more than we expect to get, the draft as it now stands, reserving important areas round Shanghai, Tientsin, Hankow and Canton, retaining criminal jurisdiction and claiming co-judges and right of evocation etc., may be somewhat too unpalatable to the Chinese. The Foreign Office would therefore be glad to learn what are the views of the State Department on the proposal put forward by Sir M. Lampson to insert in Article 1 a provision for the future transfer by agreement of criminal jurisdiction and his suggestion that the penultimate paragraph of this article dealing with the language of the courts be deleted. The stipulation in the corresponding sentence in the penultimate paragraph of Article 2, that where foreigners are plaintiffs or complainants the files of the proceedings must be in English and Chinese, is more drastic than the practice that obtains under full extraterritoriality and should, it would seem, also be deleted.

While the Foreign Office are inclined also to agree with Sir M. Lampson’s view that the negotiations are unlikely to proceed on satisfactory lines until we reach the basis of offering to give up criminal jurisdiction in return for evocation and co-judges, they are prepared to take, at any rate in the first instance, the same stand as the United States Government in this matter. There would seem, however, to be some danger that if His Majesty’s Government do not believe in retaining criminal jurisdiction, but do so in order to keep in line with the United States Government, while the latter do not believe in demanding co-judges, but do so in order to keep in line with His Majesty’s Government, the Chinese may be quick to see the weakness of our position with the result that we may both lose both criminal jurisdiction and co-judges. The Foreign Office have asked us to draw the attention of the State Department to this aspect of the matter.

Yours sincerely,

Ronald Campbell

[Enclosure]

Suggested Amendments to the Revised Draft Agreement

Preamble.

In 2nd paragraph, after “regulations” insert “not including however Chinese laws of procedure whether civil or criminal.”

Article 1.

First sentence to read: “Except in criminal cases other than minor offenses indicated below and as, etc.” (see also paragraph 3 of covering letter).

Article 2.

Delete “or accused” in two places. For “port” read “place.”

Article 3.

After “taxation only as is” insert “actually paid by all Chinese citizens and is.” Insert a new sub-section:

“(d) that tax agreements entered into with American Merchants, firms, partnerships and companies will be duly respected.”

Present sub-sections (d) and (e) would then become (e) and (f).

Article 5.

In the 1st paragraph, after “in which case” insert “if act is punishable by a fine of more than $10 or by detention or imprisonment.”

(It is understood that the State Department are considering the deletion of all but the first paragraph of this article. The Foreign Office agree that this might be an improvement and that these and similar safeguards in the Peking agreed draft might be reserved for adoption in case it is decided to offer to surrender criminal jurisdiction.)

Article 9.

Add the following sentence:—

“Similar areas in accordance with local conditions at each port will be reserved at Tientsin, Hankow and Canton within which this agreement will not be applicable.”

Article 10.

In paragraph 2 delete “described in this agreement” and insert “in which special chambers have been established in accordance with Article 2 of this agreement.” At the end of the last paragraph add the following sentence: “Nothing in this article shall be interpreted, however, as limiting the present authority of the Chinese maritime customs with regard to American vessels.”

Article 11.

In the second sentence after “firms” insert “partnerships”.

34. Letter of May 2 not printed; the memorandum under reference contained substance of first two paragraphs of a telegram sent to the Minister in China (see telegram No. 113, May 3, 1930, to the Ambassador in Great Britain, p. 439).