793.003/660: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Consul General at Nanking (Peck)

[Paraphrase]

35. For the Minister:

(1) Reference your May 6, noon, paragraphs 1 and 2.46 You should say to C. T. Wang, as from me, that this Government, which has traditionally conducted its relations with the Chinese Government upon a basis of reciprocal good will, marked constantly by the American Government’s consideration for China’s interests, resulting in a continuous and noteworthy American feeling and manifestation of friendliness toward China, to which Dr. Wang has referred frequently, regrets that he should make use of a report, whatever its source, that “the American Government has attempted to persuade the British [Page 846] Government not to go too fast to meet the wishes of the Chinese Government in the matter of extraterritoriality” as occasion and basis to inject a suggestion of potential hostility into a serious negotiation between the Chinese and American Governments.

Dr. Wang intimates that this Government has been working behind the scenes with other governments against China’s interests. The facts are simply that, since negotiations concerning extraterritoriality began in 1929, this Government has frankly indicated to the Chinese Government the policy which, in the belief of the American Government) should be followed for the sake of the future welfare of both countries. This Government has not hesitated to exchange views at the same time with other Governments concerned. The American Government has adhered consistently to the policy and principles to which it has openly and clearly indicated its commitment. This Government has been gratified that the Chinese Government’s simultaneous negotiations with the American and British Governments have proceeded smoothly and with an evident desire, until recently, on the part of all—a desire which on our part remains constant—to reach an honorable agreement to be adequately considerate of the interests of all concerned. The American Government’s confidence in the moderation and justice of its own views has found confirmation in the fact that during the course of the negotiations another Government, possessing such a regard for China’s interests as does the British Government, apparently is of the same view as ourselves respecting not only the provisions which have been tentatively agreed upon but also the solutions which should be adopted in connection with points still outstanding.

The American Government, animated by a desire to deal in a practical manner with a practical question and to reach a solution which will bring about the needed readjustments with the least amount of friction and hardship for all concerned, has pursued and expects to continue pursuing in its relations with China the course of cordial, candid friendliness in dealing with this as well as other problems. It is this Government’s hope that Dr. Wang will not resort again to implied or express suggestions of the Chinese Government contemplating a departure on its own part from the course of wisdom and friendliness.

(2) Reference your May 6, noon, paragraph 3.47

(a)
What C. C. Wu was told by the representative of the Department was that the exclusion of the four areas is regarded here as reasonable and logical and that any further discussion of this point should be held at Nanking instead of here;
(b)
What the representative of the Department said regarding the 10-mile radius was that this Government would be ready to give consideration to any proposal which the Chinese might reasonably make to delimit more logically each of these areas. No statement was made that this Government would accept any limit arranged for these areas by C. T. Wang, Lampson, and you. No question was raised as to where or how a proposal on this subject by the Chinese should originate or be carried on;
(c)
What the representative of the Department said regarding the 10-year term had reference to the treaty’s duration, inclusive of the provisions on the excluded areas. He stated that the Chinese proposal of 3 years we regarded as inadequate; that a proposal of 5 years would be regarded as inadequate; that 10 years we regard as reasonable and in accord with the usual practice in important treaties; and that a proposal for a period of less than 10 years we would prefer not to discuss. He did not state that any number of years between 5 and 10 which might be agreed upon at Nanking would be acceptable to us.

Finally, he said that discussion of any possible further concessions should take place at Nanking.

(3) You are informed that the Department does not regard Dr. Wang’s reiterated assertion that “the last treaty would expire in 1934” as relevant in connection with the question of excluded areas, especially Shanghai. To be sure, the 1903 treaty between China and the United States48 does come up for revision in January of 1934; but, whether this treaty is then terminated or extended, the Department does not consider its provisions to be determinative of the status either of Shanghai or of other treaty ports. In addition, extraterritorial rights in general do not rest upon this treaty’s provisions but upon provisions of other treaties of unlimited duration and earlier date. The American Government has not wished to stand upon such rights, but they do exist. This Government’s desire has been and is to reach with the Chinese Government an equitable and practical agreement to ensure restoration to China, when adequate protection can be afforded to foreign life and property by Chinese courts and other administrative agencies, of complete judicial jurisdiction throughout the territory of China.

With regard especially to Shanghai, the Department has tried to impress upon C. C. Wu that the proposal for exclusion of an area at Shanghai within a radius of 10 miles is not connected directly with the Shanghai extra-Settlement roads or other problems affecting the International Settlement as such. These problems are separate from [Page 848] the jurisdiction of courts question, which is the subject being dealt with in the present negotiations. With a view to devising a solution of these problems in which their peculiar difficulties can be adequately taken into account, the Department has been and continues ready to enter at any time, along with other powers most interested, into negotiations with the Chinese.

Stimson
  1. See footnote 37, p. 839.
  2. See footnote 38, p. 840.
  3. Treaty for the extension of commercial relations, signed at Shanghai, October 8, 1903, Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 91.