793.003/5578/9
Memorandum by the Minister in China (Johnson)23
British Minister came to see me this morning and I told him of my conversation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs yesterday. I told him that apparently Minister for Foreign Affairs was permitting it to leak out that he was hoping for the signature of treaties within next few days as Chinese correspondent for Chicago Daily Tribune had called upon me this morning to inquire whether I was going to sign within the next few days. British Minister stated that apparently Chinese were working on the theory that we wished to sign before convening of Conference, whereas we were really working on the theory that the Chinese wished to get something before the Conference. He said that yesterday afternoon at three o’clock he had gone to see Dr. Wang and that in the course of a conversation which concerned itself with a number of matters he inquired of Dr. Wang whether he had anything to offer in regard to the main principles under discussion. Dr. Wang replied that he had been waiting to hear what [Page 828] the British Minister might have to offer. Sir Miles pointed out that Dr. Wang was evidently mistaken as Mr. Henderson,24 when he had last seen the Chinese Minister in London had indicated British terms in no uncertain manner and had asked Sze to ask Dr. Wang to put a definite proposition before Sir Miles Lampson in Nanking for reference to his Government. Dr. Wang then stated that he would name his final terms, namely, that the International Settlement at Shanghai could be reserved from the scope of the agreement for a period not greater than three years. Dr. Wang said that he realized that it would take probably six months to ratify and put into effect the new treaty and that inasmuch as the old treaties had but a matter of three years yet to run he was really giving the British the benefit of a year. Sir Miles stated that this of course was not good enough. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was adamant; he said that unless an agreement could be reached the Government would have to take unilateral action and would have to direct forceful action against the concessions. Sir Miles stated that he told Dr. Wang that he did not understand the meaning of his term forceful action; these were not the words customarily used in diplomacy. Dr. Wang said that he was not using them as directed to Sir Miles. Sir Miles stated that he could not take them in any other sense and that he thought China would rue the day when such steps were begun. He wished to remind Dr. Wang that in 1927 the British Government had made a very sincere offer to the Chinese Government in regard to British concessions,25 an offer which the Chinese Government had not deigned to consider and that he thought it strange that at this time the Chinese Government should talk of forceful action. British Minister informed me that Dr. Wang seemed somewhat taken aback and repeated that he was not intending British Concessions, but that his statement had reference to others.
Sir Miles stated that Dr. Wang requested him to obtain an answer in regard to his terms by Wednesday the 29th on which day he was to report to the Political Council.
Sir Miles stated that the conversation having returned to other matters Dr. Wang referred to the various legal terms mentioned in the article concerning personal status, saying that it was going to be very difficult to translate these terms into Chinese. Sir Miles stated that he saw no necessity for a translation as the negotiations had been conducted entirely in English which was thoroughly understood and he thought that no translation was necessary. Dr. Wang demurred to this indicating that Chinese should be the authoritative text. Sir Miles stated that his Government would ask for a third text as authoritative which would doubtless be French and that the translation [Page 829] would be a long and tedious process requiring confirmation in Paris. He said that Dr. Wang seemed somewhat disturbed by this. Dr. Wang asked him if he was prepared to sign and Sir Miles informed him that the best he had contemplated was to initial agreed texts against subsequent confirmation and examination and in any case he must warn Dr. Wang that the whole treaty would have to be referred to the Dominions.
With reference to the question of residence in the interior the British wanted terms similar to the Czech treaty.26 Sir Miles stated that the Chinese objected on the ground that the Czech and Polish terms27 involved nationals of countries with whom China had relations on the basis of complete equality. China could not open the country to the nationals of countries which still retained concessions and reserved areas.
- Copy transmitted to the Department by the Minister without covering despatch; received June 11. Substance reported by the Minister in his telegram of April 28, 1931, 3 p.m., from Nanking; received April 28, 12:25 p.m. (793.003/629)↩
- Arthur Henderson, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.↩
- See point 5 of British offer quoted by the British Ambassador in his note No. 41, January 19, 1927, Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. ii, p. 344.↩
- Treaty of amity and commerce, signed at Nanking, February 12, 1930, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. cx, p. 285.↩
- For treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation, signed at Nanking, September 18, 1929, and additional protocol of July 1, 1930, see ibid., vol. cxx, pp. 331 and 343.↩