793.003/505: Telegram
The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
[Paraphrase]
Peiping, January 21, 1931—4
p.m.
[Received January 21—1 p.m.]
[Received January 21—1 p.m.]
35. Department’s telegrams, 14, January 13, 3 p.m., 9th paragraph, and 20, January 20, 11 a.m.19
- (1)
- In any settlement of the extraterritoriality question, I feel the
following is what we should be ready to insist upon:
- (a)
- Tax exemption: Should include something akin to article 4 in the counterproposal handed to the British, modeled upon article 3 (a) of the American proposals of October 28, 1930.
- (b)
- “Personal status”: Unless this term is understood clearly in international law, the wording used in article 10 of the American proposals as to personal status should be insisted upon. Whether this can be made reciprocal, I do not know.
- (c)
- Real property titles: Article 8 of the American proposals covering this should stand as much as possible as written.
- (d)
- Shanghai: Exclusion of the International Settlement from the agreement should be insisted upon, and article 9 of the American proposals should be insisted upon as it stands. The article on [Page 722] Shanghai might stipulate that a separate and later arrangement will deal with the future status of foreigners at Shanghai.
- (e)
- Article 10: The entire article of the American proposals as now worded should, I think, be insisted upon. In particular, I think, it should be insisted upon that warrants for search and arrest cite upon their faces titles and section of the law governing the action which is authorized. Freedom of American nationals should also be insisted upon as regards military service, taxation, etc.
- (f)
- Article 11: This article of the American proposals on the status of American business organizations should, I think, be insisted upon as it stands.
- (g)
- Residence and trade: The Chinese counterproposals omit all reference to the individual’s right to freedom of residence and trade in the Chinese interior. This is done by design, since the Chinese do not wish foreigners to be granted such rights. This right is a corollary [sic] to the restriction of foreigners to special areas and should, therefore, be insisted upon with the relinquishment of all extraterritorial rights.
- (2)
- As to co-judges, I do not know where the British now stand on this subject. When the matter was discussed in March between Lampson and me, the British Government was insisting upon the presence at trials of co-judges and rather expected to concede criminal jurisdiction to the Chinese if they would use foreign co-judges in the courts. Some consideration should be given this matter in any new drafts of proposals. Personally, I am doubtful as to the value of having foreign co-judges, because I am of opinion that they will become merely scapegoats upon whom will be heaped the odium which arises from any difficulties in the trial of cases.
Johnson