793.003/489
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (Castle)
The Chinese Minister came to see me today and brought up with me the question of extraterritoriality. He said that about ten days ago he had delivered to Mr. Hornbeck the counter proposition of the Chinese Government. He said he hoped the Secretary and I would study this proposition very sympathetically, that it went a long way toward satisfying the American desires in the matter. He pointed out that the Extraterritoriality Commission a few years ago83 had spoken enthusiastically of the modern Chinese courts and said that the present proposition of the Chinese Government was to try cases involving foreigners only in these modern courts. He said that our position as to extraterritoriality was really an anomalous one, since for various historical reasons our own nationals were tried in courts of other countries where the system of justice was certainly inferior to that in China. He referred particularly to certain South American countries and to the Balkans. He reminded me that our treaty with China84 expired in 1934 and, therefore, that in three and a half years we should have no more extraterritoriality in any case. This being so the Minister felt that it would be most advantageous for us to come to some agreement with the Chinese now, intimating that we could probably get better terms now than we could get in 1934. He said it was exactly as though he had still three months more to run on a lease and negotiated with the owner for an adjustment of the lease before the final term was up. The Minister added that he hoped he could have an answer to his counter proposal before the first of the year. I told him that the whole question was a very complicated [one], that, as he knew, it needed careful study which the Department was already giving to his proposals and that it seemed to me unlikely that we would be rushed into giving an answer until we had completed consideration. I asked him whether, since he was so eager for an answer before the first of the year, this meant there was any truth whatever in the rumors one heard in the press and elsewhere that China was thinking [Page 497] of making a unilateral denunciation of the treaties at the end of the year. The Minister was distinctly embarrassed at this question. He said that many jurists reasoned that a contract might become invalidated and subject to unilateral denunciation because the conditions under which the original contract was made had entirely changed. I asked him if he agreed with this and he said that he must admit that the question was debatable. I then said that if that question was debatable, it is certainly much more debatable as to whether conditions in any contract had changed to such an extent that denunciation of the contract became possible. I told him that I thought he would find general world disapprobation of any attempt at unilateral denunciation of bilateral treaties. The Minister had no response to make to this, but urged me to take up the matter with the Secretary since China was exceedingly anxious to have our answer. I told him that I would bring the matter to the Secretary’s attention promptly.
- See Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. i, pp. 966 ff.↩
- Signed at Shanghai, October 8, 1903; ibid, 1903, p. 91.↩