793.003/609: Telegram
The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
[Received 3:30 p.m.]
The Department’s number 25, April 17, 6 p.m. to the American Consul [General] at Nanking.
1. British Minister conferred with Wang yesterday afternoon and as a result thereof has communicated following amendments which he has introduced by agreement with Wang into the previously prepared texts.
2. My March 17, noon, paragraph number 2, legal counselors. Sentence beginning “Similarly the legal counselors shall be authorized” changed to read “Similarly the legal counselors shall be authorized [Page 796] to receive any other observations or complaints, including such as may be caused by domiciliary visits, expropriations, requisitions, or arrests, et cetera, which observations shall be similarly dealt with”. Also my March 28, 10 a.m., paragraph 6, section between “in both the high and district courts” and “will be suspended until the observations” changed to read “and judgment shall be reserved until he has made, within 3 days after the conclusion of the trial, such observations in chambers as he may desire to the judges, and, in the event of the judges’ failing to give them due consideration, the execution of the judgment”.
3. My March 28, 10 a.m., paragraph 13, treatment of companies, changed to read:
“Companies, firms, partnerships and corporations incorporated or organized in accordance with the laws of His Britannic Majesty and operating in China shall, provided they comply with the provisions of Chinese law relating to the registration of companies, be entitled to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by British subjects under this agreement, including the rights enjoyed in Chinese courts, whether as plaintiffs, complainants or defendants. Such companies, firms, partnerships or corporations and their branches, agencies or representatives, shall not be subject to discriminatory treatment, and as regards national, provincial and municipal taxation shall only be taxed in proportion to the amount of capital actually employed respectively in China, in the province or in the municipality, or in respect of the profits and revenues which they have actually earned, respectively, in China, in the province or in the municipality. Reciprocally Chinese companies, firms, partnerships or corporations shall enjoy in the United Kingdom, as regards municipal [taxation?], the right to carry on business and access to the courts, treatment not less favorable than that enjoyed by companies, firms, partnerships or corporations of the most favored foreign country.”
4. My March 28, 10 a.m., paragraph 2, transfer of jurisdiction. Second sentence of second paragraph changed to read “In all legal proceedings and in all matters relating to the administration of justice by the courts British subjects shall enjoy treatment not less favorable than that accorded to Chinese citizens”.
5. My March 28, 10 a.m., paragraph 14, nondiscriminatory treatment changed to read “British subjects shall enjoy in all matters for which this treaty provides all exemptions from Chinese jurisdiction which may be enjoyed by nationals of any other country and shall be subjected to no discriminatory treatment in regard to municipal, judicial or any other matters for which this treaty provides, as compared with the nationals of any other country. Reciprocally Chinese citizens shall enjoy in the United Kingdom in respect of above matters treatment not less favorable than that enjoyed by subjects or citizens of the most favored foreign country.”
[Page 797]6. My March 17, noon, paragraph 10, rights in immovable property and expropriation. First paragraph unaltered. First sentence, second paragraph, unaltered. Second sentence of second paragraph changed and made a separate paragraph. This new paragraph and succeeding paragraph are under consideration by British Foreign Office. Paragraph quoted in paragraph 10 of my March 28, 10 a.m. unaltered. Following new paragraph added:
“Where such cases are brought before the modern courts of justice the provisions of articles (Special Chambers) and (legal counselors) of the present treaty covering the hearings of cases in which British subjects are involved as defendants will apply.”
7. My March 28, 10 a.m., paragraph 9, arbitration. Paragraph (1) changed to read:
“The Chinese courts will recognize, and if necessary secure performance of, agreements wherever entered into by British subjects between one another or with other foreign nationals or with Chinese citizens for the settlement of civil or commercial controversies by arbitration. The arbitrators selected by the parties in accordance with such agreements may be of any nationality.”
Paragraph (2) unchanged. Paragraph (3) first portion changed to read:
“The Chinese courts will not entertain any application or claim the subject matter of which falls within the scope of such an agreement for arbitration.”
Paragraph (4) has been dropped. Letter now reads:
“With reference to article (blank) of the treaty concluded between us today, I have the honor to confirm Your Excellency’s understanding that the Chinese mediation law of January 20, 1930, has no application to arbitration agreements of the kind contemplated in the said article.”