893.811/845
The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 9.]
Sir: Referring to Consul General Gauss’ despatches of July 9, 1929, and June 9, 1931, to the Legation, copies of which were forwarded to the Department,28 concerning the Hai Ho Conservancy Commission, I have the honor to enclose a copy, in translation, of Foreign Office Note No. L–413 of February 11, 1932,29 in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs proposes a change in the personnel and powers of the present Commission.
There is likewise transmitted herewith a copy of Consul General Lockhart’s despatch No. 140 of March 8, 1932,29 commenting upon the changes proposed by the Chinese Government. Mr. Lockhart observes that due to many technical engineering questions involved in [Page 670] the scheme to improve the Hai Ho it is difficult for him to express a definite opinion on the proposal made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Legation experiences the same difficulty in formulating recommendations. However, in any proposal for a reorganization of the Hai Ho Conservancy Commission, or for its transfer to Chinese control, provision should be made for the protection of the bond-holders and the foreign banks under the Commission’s loan agreements. Provision should also be made for safe-guarding the contracts of the foreign employees, their retirement allowances, superannuation, home transportation, et cetera.
Consul General Gauss in his despatch of June 9, 1931, states that, inasmuch as there are no American ships plying on the Hai Ho river, and as American freighters visiting the port are trans-oceanic vessels which must anchor outside Taku Bar, he does not consider the continuance of the international status of the Hai Ho Conservancy Commission of any particular advantage to American interests.
The present seems to be a very inopportune time for the Chinese Government to bring up this matter which has been a subject of controversy at Tientsin for many years. Consul General Lockhart intimates that the proposal for a reorganization may be based on the fact that there remains to the credit of the Chinese-controlled Hai Ho Improvement Commission a very small sum, probably not more than Mex. $17,000, whereas the foreign administrated Hai Ho Conservancy Commission is well supplied with funds.
The Legation will refrain from replying to the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon this subject pending instructions from the Department.
Respectfully yours,