893.05/357: Telegram

The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State

119. Department’s 30, January 27, 4 p.m.

1. Following is text of note of foreign representatives to Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs:

“Article 10 of the agreement signed at Nanking on February 17, 1930, between the representatives of the Chinese Government on the one hand and the representatives of the Brazilian, American, British, Norwegian, Netherlands and French Governments on the other hand [Page 618] relating to the Chinese courts in the International Settlement at Shanghai provides as follows:

‘The present agreement and the attached notes shall enter into effect on April 1, 1930, and shall continue in force for a period of three years from that date provided that they may be extended for an additional period upon mutual consent of the parties thereto.’

It is now proposed as arranged between us that the said agreement and attached notes shall be extended for a period of three years from April 1, 1933, and that they shall continue in force thereafter [until they] are denounced by direction [either] of the parties thereto, of which denunciation six months’ prior notice shall be given to the other party. We have the honor to state that our Governments agree to the proposed arrangement set forth above for the extension of the said agreements and attached notes and to request Your Excellency’s confirmation thereof.”

Reply from Minister for Foreign Affairs:

“I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your note of today’s date which reads as follows: (will receive [quote] note in full).

In reply I have the honor to confirm that the Chinese Government agrees to the proposed arrangements as set forth above.”

2. Lampson who has negotiated this exchange of notes with Minister of Foreign Affairs proposes to sign it on the 7th instant. Note conforms to the Department’s instructions and I therefore propose to instruct Peck to sign on my behalf.

3. It appears to me that this is a satisfactory conclusion to this matter.

4. With reference to last sentence of my 83, January 24, 4 p.m., it is [proposed?] to address the following note from the foreign representatives to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, this note to be dated 3 days later than note quoted above:

“With reference to our recent conversation[s], we understand measures are now under contemplation by Chinese authorities for checking undue delay in civil proceedings with special reference to matters of appeal and execution of judgment and that such measures-when adopted will apply also to court[s] functioning in the International Settlement at Shanghai. We are grateful for Your Excellency’s confirmation of the above understanding.”

Reply from Minister for Foreign Affairs “confirms above understanding as correct”. Delay indicated is due to the fact that Minister for Foreign Affairs required to submit this matter to Executive Yuan. I am authorizing Peck to sign this also on my behalf.

5. This latter note really represents more than I had expected to get. We had contemplated merely leaving with the Minister for Foreign Affairs a memorandum setting forth our desire that such reforms take place in order that we might be on record on this point [Page 619] in the future. It is still possible that Minister may be unwilling to exchange formal notes on this subject and I do not consider it would be wise to press him to his embarrassment in view of successful negotiation of major question of prolongation of agreement.