Office of the Historian
  1. Home
  2. Historical Documents
  3. Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1934, The Far East, Volume III
  4. Document 434

611.9331/195: Telegram

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

Peiping , June 14, 1934—2 p.m.
[Received June 14—8:50 a.m.]

248. Your 158, June 2, 3 p.m.

1.
British Minister72 and I have discussed this matter today. He has shown to me his instructions. I have explained to him the developments in Department’s instructions since which time and including [Page 534] Department’s 64, March 13, noon, I have also informed him that it has been my impression that the Chinese Foreign Office all along has been chiefly anxious to put on record its desire for treaty revision under article 17 of the treaty of 1903 and that it is not necessarily anxious or prepared to proceed concretely with that at the present time. Sir Alexander tells me that his advisers in his Legation are of similar opinion.
2.
I have stated to Sir Alexander that acting on this assumption it has seemed to me that it was unnecessary to proceed further than formal acknowledgement authorized by Department’s 95, April 4, 6 p.m. which we communicated to Chinese Foreign Office on April 10th and that we should leave matter alone awaiting further inquiry by Chinese. I have stated my opinion that when Chinese bring the matter up again we should be prepared to state that point reached in negotiations of 1931 represented maximum concessions we were prepared to make under conditions then or now existing and that while prepared to proceed upon that basis we are not prepared to carry the matter to final conclusion until all countries similarly involved have reached similar agreement.
3.
I find my British colleague generally in agreement in regard to this matter. He is however communicating further with his Government. British Minister’s instructions authorized him to reply to the Foreign Office note stating British Government was prepared to negotiate provided the question of extraterritoriality is left in abeyance but after our conversation he is recommending to his Government that they make acknowledgement somewhat similar to ours and await events as I have suggested above.
Johnson
  1. Sir Alexander Cadogan.↩