893.156/44: Telegram
The Minister in China (Johnson) to
the Acting Secretary of State
Peiping,
August 11, 1931—6
p.m.[Received 8:19 p.m.
54]
508. Department’s 230, July 15, 3 p.m. With the Department’s approval I
propose to address a formal note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
regarding this matter, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:
- 1.
- “An examination of the regulations issued by the
Municipality of Shanghai and forwarded to me by the American
Consul General at that port indicate that they seriously
impair, if indeed they do not arbitrarily destroy existing
rights in immovable property lawfully acquired and long
enjoyed by American nationals. These rights are evidenced by
title deeds duly stamped by the appropriate Chinese
authorities or by Shengko receipts issued by the Whangpoo
Conservancy Board pursuant to paragraph 5, supplementary
article 12 of the Whangpoo Conservancy agreement of 1912.
The regulations appear to prevent American nationals
acquiring or using foreshore property as provided for in the
Conservancy agreement mentioned,
[Page 1001]
the continued effectiveness of which
was expressly recognized by the Chinese Government in
article 129 of the Treaty of Versailles and article 114 of
the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye. Furthermore, the
regulations appear to make possible the arbitrary
confiscation or expropriation without compensation of
foreshore rights and property thus invalidating and
undermining legitimate property rights.
- 2.
- As Your Excellency is doubtless aware it is the general
practice of nations to make no charge for the use of the
foreshore, it being recognized that such use is a natural
one and inherent in riparian ownership. Riparian property
acquired by American firms or citizens was obviously
acquired for the use of the foreshore for such purposes as
berthing vessels, et cetera. The levy of fees on such
property therefore constitutes a serious interference with
legitimate commercial activities, and is one to which I feel
sure Your Excellency’s Government is fundamentally opposed.
There is the further consideration that under the existing
treaties American firms and nationals are not legally liable
for the payment of such fees. I therefore have the honor to
request that the regulations be canceled or modified so as
to ensure that the right of American owners of riparian
property shall in no wise be impaired and that the owners
may continue freely to use their respective water frontages,
this being a right inherent in riparian ownership and
confirmed by the general practice of nations.”
- 3.
- As regards the point raised in second paragraph of Department’s
July 15, 3 p.m., the organic law of municipalities promulgated by
the Chinese Government on May 20, 1931, provides inter alia that “a municipality shall adhere to the
following matters insofar as they do not conflict with the laws and
orders of the central authorities and those of higher organs: (item
22) waterways, harbor works and the management of matters connected
with navigation.” Furthermore, that a municipality may make
appropriate rules and regulations. There therefore appears to be no
question as to the competency of the Shanghai municipality to issue
regulations governing the use of foreshore property and for this
reason I have not raised this point. The British have also refrained
from raising this question.
- 4.
- British have already forwarded note requesting cancellation of
regulations. Japanese and French apparently waiting to see outcome
of British efforts.
