793.003/782
The Secretary of State to
the Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes)
Washington, October 27, 1931.
No. 964
Sir: Referring to your despatch No. 2297 of
October 6, 1931, transmitting a memorandum dated October 5, 1931,
prepared by the Foreign Office, commenting upon the Department’s
memorandum of July 14, 1931, and enclosure therewith, in regard to
Article XVI—Reserved Areas—of the proposed new Treaty with China
relating to extraterritorial rights, there is enclosed herewith the
Department’s memorandum in reply.
The Department desires that you communicate the original of this
memorandum to the Foreign Office and, in so doing, you may inform the
Foreign Office that the text thereof has been telegraphed to the
American Minister to China.
Very truly yours,
For the Secretary of State:
James
Grafton Rogers
[Enclosure]
The Department of
State to the British Foreign
Office
Memorandum
The Department of State has received through the American Embassy in
London the Foreign Office’s memorandum of October 5, 1931,
commenting upon the Department’s memorandum of July 14, 1931, and
enclosure therewith, in regard to Article XVI—Reserved Areas—of the
proposed new Treaty with China.
The Department has noted the comment of the Foreign Office. In view,
however, of the present situation in China arising out of the crisis
in Manchuria, it is believed that the future course of the
negotiations in regard to extraterritoriality must await further
developments.
The Department notes that the British Foreign Office views with
“considerable concern” the Department’s proposal to abandon, in the
last resort, the reservation of Tientsin. In this connection, the
Department desires to point out that it has all along contended for
the reservation of four places in China, namely, Shanghai, Tientsin,
[Page 919]
Hankow and Canton;
that it has not at any time in the conduct of its negotiations with
the Chinese Legation in Washington or with the Chinese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs in Nanking intimated that it was prepared to give up
a reservation of any of these four places; that the Department’s
suggestion that Tientsin might be given up was offered as an
alternative to be considered only “in the last resort” and was and
is believed to be in accord with views of the Foreign Office as
communicated to the Department by the British Ambassador in
Washington in a memorandum dated March 7, 1931,8 summarizing the
substance of instructions which had been sent by the Foreign Office
to the British Minister to China, as follows:
“With regard to point (c) in paragraph
five above (excluded areas), His Majesty’s Government
consider that the exclusion of Shanghai is the most
important interest at stake, even if the area excluded is
limited to the International Settlement only. This seems to
them vitally necessary. Canton, Hankow and Tientsin are
regarded as important, but His Majesty’s Government think
they might be abandoned as a last resort.”
However, during the future course of its
negotiations with the Chinese Government, the Department will keep
in mind the views of the Foreign Office on this question.
Washington, October 27,
1931.
