893.156/55
The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (Johnson)
Sir: Reference is made to the Legation’s despatches No. 1272 of [Page 597] November 18, 1931, and No. 1348 of January 5, 1932,31 and to previous correspondence and exchanges of telegrams, in regard to the question of the applicability to American nationals of certain foreshore regulations promulgated by the Municipality of Shanghai.
The revised foreshore regulations promulgated by the Municipality of Shanghai on July 31, 1931, a translation of which was communicated to the Department with the Legation’s despatch No. 1209 of October 7, 1931,32 do not contain the objectionable features found in the original regulations promulgated in January, 1931, as referred to in the Department’s telegram No. 230, July 15, 3 p.m.33 In this respect the revised foreshore regulations are more acceptable than the original regulations.
As the Department understands the revised regulations, which understanding is substantiated by the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs found in the penultimate paragraph of his note to the Legation dated September 21, 1931,32 (see Legation’s despatch No. 1209, October 7, 1931), the purpose is to regulate matters concerning river and harbor administration on the Whangpoo River. In the Department’s opinion, however, such matters are adequately taken care of by the agencies established in accordance with the various Whangpoo Conservancy agreements, particularly Article 7 of the Agreement dated April 9, 1912,34 which outlines in general those matters which fall under the jurisdiction of the Conservancy Board, of the Harbormaster and of the Maritime Customs. The revised regulations, therefore, establish a new administrative control in harbor and conservancy matters on the Whangpoo River which duplicates the supervision now exercised by other authorities established in accordance with valid existing agreements.
If the Chinese Government considers that existing arrangements for the administration of river and harbor matters on the Whangpoo River, as provided in various conservancy agreements, are inadequate, the proper procedure would be for that Government to approach the powers principally concerned with a view to devising modifications in the existing arrangements rather than to establish unilaterally a new supervising authority charged with duplicating those duties already discharged by other officials of the Chinese Government. As the Chinese Government failed to consult in advance with the Powers principally concerned, the Department is constrained to express its disapproval of this method of undermining the validity of existing [Page 598] commitments of the Chinese Government which, if allowed to go unchallenged, might lead to further impairment of the rights of American citizens in China.
According to the information now before the Department, the attitude of the other interested Powers is as follows: the British Government feels that, if British owners of riparian property are definitely pressed by the Chinese authorities, it would be expedient tacitly to accept the regulations (Legation’s telegram No. 795, October 20, 9 a.m.37); the French Government has not decided upon its attitude (Legation’s telegram No. 869, November 4, 11 a.m.38); and the Japanese Government has definitely decided that it is not in a position to accept the revised regulations (Legation’s telegram No. 895, November 9, 4 p.m.37).
In view of the foregoing and of the present situation in China, the Department is not prepared either to accept the regulations as applicable to American nationals conformably to their rights by virtue of existing agreements, treaties or otherwise or to approve the recommendation to be found in the last paragraph of the Legation’s telegram No. 694, October 3, 8 a.m.,39 namely, that American firms be advised as a compromise arrangement, that there is no objection to their paying the fees required under the revised regulations.
The Department desires that no action be taken unless and until the Chinese authorities at Shanghai again approach the American firms concerned for the purpose of obtaining payment of the fees required thereunder. If and when such request is made for the payment of the fees, the companies from whom payment is requested should be advised not to comply with the request. The Consul General should then inform the Legation, whereupon the Legation, referring to its previous note of August 20, 1931,40 should address a further note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In its note the Legation should point out (1) that, while the revised regulations do not contain the objectionable features found in the original regulations, they do provide for a new measure of control in the administration of harbor and conservancy works on the Whangpoo River for which no provision is made in the existing agreements between China and the foreign powers, and (2) that, while the American Government on its part is prepared to entertain with sympathetic consideration any proposal that the Chinese Government may care to make to the [Page 599] Powers principally concerned on this subject, it cannot accept unilateral modification of existing treaty provisions in regard to the administration of harbor and conservancy matters on the Whangpoo River.
In view of this instruction it would be hardly worth while to enter into any discussion, for the present, with the Chinese authorities in regard to a definition of the term “shore line” (see Legation’s despatches No. 1272 of November 18, 1931, and No. 1348 of January 5, 1932) as used in the revised regulations. However, if and when this entire question actually comes up for discussion, it would seem appropriate to attempt to eliminate any ambiguity in the use of the term “shore line”.
Very truly yours,
- Neither printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. iii, p. 995.↩
- Not printed.↩
- MacMurray, Treaties, etc., vol. ii, p. 954.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. iii, p. 1008.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. iii, p. 1008.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. iii, p. 1006.↩
- See telegram No. 508, August 11, 1931, 6 p.m., from the Minister in China, and Department’s telegram No. 278, August 17, 1 p.m., to the Minister in reply, ibid., pp. 1000 and 1004.↩