793.003/5502/10
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (Castle)
The British Ambassador called to tell me of Sir Miles Lampson’s first conference with Mr. C. T. Wang on the subject of extraterritoriality.
Lampson began by asking whether it would be well to discuss the big questions or to take up matters of detail. Mr. Wang said he would rather discuss the big questions.
Lampson then took up the question of evocation, which he said was of great importance. Mr. Wang refused absolutely to consider it and, without completely giving up the point, Lampson passed on to the question of co-judges. This also was refused by Mr. Wang, but led to a discussion of legal advisers. Mr. Wang said that the Chinese Government would refuse absolutely to be bound by any panel which might be suggested by the Hague Court or by anybody else, but that it probably would be willing to make some kind of satisfactory declaration concerning the rights of legal advisers. There was no agreement reached and no possibility of agreement on either the subject of criminal jurisdiction or that of reserved areas. In the discussion of reserved areas, C. T. Wang said that, to agree, would be “to keep the shell and give the oyster.” During the discussion Lampson held strongly to the point that the British, being already in possession “beati possidentes” were in a very strong position to negotiate and this Wang conceded to be the truth. Lampson also, in his talk, said that it was not the desire of the British, in any suggestions they might make, to derogate from the authority of the Chinese courts, but rather to help build up a judicial system which would be free and above suspicion. When it came to the matter of discussing details, it was agreed that this should be taken up between Teichman and H’su. The Ambassador said that Johnson had already informed Lampson that he could count on his moral support.
I asked the Ambassador whether, in using the phrase in his memorandum “international settlement” he had really meant to refer only to that part of Shanghai known technically as the “international settlement.” I told him exactly as I did before that we, in discussing Shanghai, always envisaged it as a port and not as an international settlement and that I did not believe that the American [Page 754] Government any more than his Government want to throw France and Japan, for example, into the discard. He said that if his Government meant only the “international settlement” it was a thought reaching forward into the almost invisible future, that certainly it could be held only as a final resort to save something out of the wreck, that it is certainly not a question which could arise for a very long time. I told him that unfortunately a rumor had somehow got around that the British had this idea in the back of their heads. He said this was extraordinarily unfortunate and that somebody in London must have been talking loosely.