893.52/238

The American Minister in China ( Johnson ) to the Senior Minister in China ( De Kauffmann )87

Sir and Dear Colleague: I have the honor to refer to Dean Circular No. 33 (Individual) of April 10, 1930, transmitting a letter dated March 26, 1930, with three enclosures from the Senior Consul at Shanghai88 on the subject of the change which is contemplated by the Chinese authorities in the procedure of issuing title deeds. I note that the Senior Minister stated that, unless he heard to the contrary within four days, he would take it that the views of the Consular Body which were embodied in the enclosed draft copy of a reply from the Senior Consul to the Director of the Land Bureau met with the approval of his colleagues, and would so inform the Senior Consul at Shanghai.

Due to an inadvertence in this Legation, the circular in question got mislaid and did not come to my attention until to-day. For this reason I had not had an opportunity to comment before this time upon the drafted copy of the reply of the Senior Consul. Although it is my understanding that a reply has already gone forward to the Senior Consul indicating the approval of the Diplomatic Body of this draft, I feel that I must not withhold from you certain views which I entertain on several of the points covered by the draft in question. I shall take up these points in the order in which they are numbered in the draft submitted by the Senior Consul:

It is my opinion that Paragraph 2 referring to “designation of area in which land held by foreigners is situated” should be omitted from the draft. I see no good purpose to be served by asking that the terms “International Settlement” or “French Concession” be inserted in the blank space describing the section of the Special Municipality of Shanghai wherein the land may be located. The Senior Consul urges this “in order that the special and distinct status of these areas may not be prejudiced”. It seems to me that no surer way of raising the question of the status of these areas could be found than by singling them out in this way among the various areas within the limits of the Special Municipality at Shanghai where foreigners may lease land.

[Page 571]

It seems to me that the argument that if this change is allowed to go unchallenged “the Chinese authorities may say that the foreign authorities have admitted that the International Settlement and French Concession are an integral part of the Special Municipality of Shanghai” is not sufficient to justify the bringing up of this issue in a communication of this kind which is intended to cover a procedure for the issuance of title deeds. The old title deeds specified that the land was situated within the limits of the port of Shanghai, and apparently no one ever seemed to consider this to be an admission on the part of any one of the non-existence of either the International Settlement or the French Concession.

With reference to point 3 concerning the issuance of new deeds after transfer, I have read as carefully as I can those parts of the Shanghai Land Regulations relating to the registration of title deeds, and I find it difficult to accept either Regulations 4 or 5 as a conclusive argument against the issuance of a new Chinese title deed every time a transfer of land is accomplished. The practice at Shanghai has been to recognize the necessity and the propriety of the issuance of a new title deed every time a transfer is made from a foreigner to a Chinese, or from a foreigner of one nationality to a foreigner of another nationality, in spite of Regulations 4 or 5. It therefore seems to me that there is very little ground for arguing against the issuance of a new title deed when title passes from one foreigner to another of the same nationality. My information is that it has been the practice of the British and American Consulates, in Shanghai at least, to notify to the Chinese officers transfers between foreigners of British or American nationality. After all, the prime source of good title to land in China outside of foreign leaseholds and concessions is the Chinese Land Office, and it seems to me that it is to the interest of every foreigner who desires to acquire title to land under the jurisdiction of China to obtain such title directly from the Chinese. Whatever practice other than this may have been permitted to exist through the sufferance of the Chinese authorities in the past, it seems to me that once the Chinese authorities have questioned the legality of such practice, it behooves the foreign possessor of title to conform to the new requirements.

I regret exceedingly the inadvertence which has delayed these comments of mine reaching you, but feel that I must communicate them to you at any cost.

I avail myself [etc.]

Nelson Trusler Johnson
  1. Copy transmitted to the Department by the Minister in China in his despatch No. 163, April 19, 1930; received May 22.
  2. None printed.