793.003/730
Memorandum by Mr. Joseph E. Jacobs of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs of a Conversation With the Third Secretary of the Chinese Legation (Weigh)
Mr. Weigh and Mr. Jacobs met again on the afternoon of June 1, 1931, from 2:30 to 5:30, to continue their re-drafting of the Department’s draft of proposals of April 27, 1931, in regard to extraterritoriality.
They completed their work of re-drafting but each party desires to study the re-drafts and within the next couple of days let the other know of any further desirable changes.
As the re-drafts now stand, there are several unfinished and controversial points as follows:
Article II: Special Chambers.
- Paragraph 1. The period of years during which the Special Chambers shall function still remains “(Blank)”. According to Minister Johnson’s telegram of May 29, 11 a.m., paragraph 5, the Sino-British negotiators have agreed upon “five years”.
- Paragraph 2. The last sentence of this paragraph provides for the hearing in the Special Chambers of cases arising within the jurisdiction of those Chambers involving Americans as plaintiffs or complainants. This provision does not appear in the accords reached by the Sino-British negotiators and Mr. Weigh insists that he is under instructions to have it deleted from our draft. Mr. Jacobs declined to agree to the deletion. Since the British have not secured this provision [Page 871] in their draft it will probably be necessary for us to drop this provision, using it as a trading point in return for some other concession.
Article III: Legal Counselors.
Paragraph 1. The period of years during which the Legal Counselors are to be employed still remains “(Blank)”. According to Minister Johnson’s telegram of May 29, 11 a.m., paragraph 5, the Sino-British negotiators have agreed upon “five years”.
Article XV: Personal Status Matters.
Mr. Weigh insists that we include a reciprocity clause in regard to personal status matters, in spite of the fact that Mr. Jacobs explained to him that, on account of the differences in the laws of our several states, it was impossible for the American Government to grant reciprocity. Mr. Jacobs also pointed out that we were granting reciprocity in regard to forced loans and in regard to the settlement of commercial controversies by arbitration, concerning which matters the British were not prepared to grant reciprocity. These arguments failed, however, to overcome Mr. Weigh’s insistence that we must grant reciprocity in regard to these matters.
Article XVI: Non-Discriminatory Treatment.
Mr. Weigh insists that we must add a clause granting general reciprocal treatment for Chinese in the United States. Mr. Jacobs mentioned the same reasons and argument referred to above in the case of personal status matters, but Mr. Weigh stated that he could not accept the Article without a reciprocity clause for Chinese in the United States.
Article XVIII: Reserved Areas.
As this is the principal obstacle in the way of a successful termination of our negotiations, no effort was made to re-draft this Article.
Article XIX: Provisions of Existing Treaties.
Our draft of this Article reads: “Except as superseded or modified by the provisions of the present Treaty, the provisions of existing treaties shall remain in force.”
Mr. Weigh insists that this Article read as follows: “The provisions of the existing treaties by the High Contracting Parties which are in conflict with the present Treaty are hereby abrogated.”
The latter phraseology is that used by the Sino-British negotiators but is unacceptable to us because we expect to exclude certain areas from the scope of the application of the new Treaty and if conflicting provisions in existing treaties are “abrogated” there may be some confusion about the continuance of the jurisdiction of American courts in the excluded areas.
[Page 872]Article XX: Duration and Ratification.
- Paragraph 1. The place where the exchange of ratifications is to take place still remains “(Blank)”. We shall have to determine whether it will be Washington or Nanking.
- Paragraph 2. The period of the duration of the Treaty still remains “(Blank)”. According to Minister Johnson’s telegram of May 29, 11 a.m., paragraph 5, the Sino-British negotiators have agreed upon “ten years”.
Exchange of Notes:
Mr. Weigh states that the Sino-British negotiators have agreed to include in an Agreed Minute, not for publication, the provision in regard to lawyers not being required to speak the Chinese language and to possess diplomas from Chinese law schools, and in regard to the employment of one British Legal Counselor. We have insisted all along in our draft that there be no “Agreed Minutes”, or “Unpublished Exchange of Notes”: Hence, these provisions in our draft would be published. Mr. Weigh states that according to his instructions the Chinese Government will not agree to this.
Titles of Articles:
Mr. Weigh has suggested that, when the final draft is prepared, all titles to Articles, both in the Treaty and in exchange of notes, be deleted. He pointed out that they did not now appear in the Sino-British draft. There is no objection to the deletion of these titles as they have been used all along for the purpose of reference in our exchanges of telegrams with the Minister and with the British Foreign Office.