693.11245/34
The American Minister in China (Johnson) to the Chinese Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Wang Ching-wei)55
Excellency: I have the honor to refer to the correspondence with Your Excellency’s Ministry relative to the Rules of 1868, providing for joint investigation in cases of confiscation and fine by the Customs [Page 582] House authorities, and, particularly, to Your Excellency’s note of December 20, 1933,56 concerning the Lungkow case of the Socony-Vaclium Corporation, in which it is stated:
“With regard to the Rules of 1868, …57 the said Rules have been repeatedly declared null and void, and reasons were given you on November 11th. The Chinese Government certainly has legal basis for what it insists on in this matter, and is positively unable to yield.”
In a conversation had by me on November 11, 1933, with the Political Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs,58 the latter stated that the Chinese Government consider the Rules of 1868 no longer in force as the Sino-American Tariff Treaty of 1928 provides for complete national tariff autonomy in relation to rates of duty, drawbacks, transit dues and tonnage dues and “any related matters”, it being asserted that the expression “any related matters” extends to the Rules of 1868.
In this connection I am impelled to invite Your Excellency’s attention to the fact that the Sino-American Treaty of 1928 removed the limitations established by prior treaties in regard to “rates of duty on imports and exports of merchandise, drawbacks, transit dues and tonnage dues in China”, and recognized the principle of national tariff autonomy subject to the condition that each of the High Contracting Parties shall enjoy in the territories of the other “with respect to the above specified and any related matters” treatment in no way discriminatory as compared with the treatment accorded to any other country.
Applying the generally accepted rules of treaty interpretation, the Treaty of 1928 cannot be interpreted in any way as implying the relinquishment by the United States of its rights under the treaties and related agreements with respect to jurisdiction over the property of American nationals in China nor does the Treaty confer on the Maritime Customs Administration any greater authority over American nationals and their property than was exercised by that Administration before the Treaty became effective.
I am unable, therefore, to accept the interpretation of the 1928 Treaty advanced by Your Excellency’s Ministry and, having been instructed by my Government to insist that cases of confiscation involving the property of American citizens seized by the Custom House authorities shall be adjudicated under the Rules of 1868, as agreed upon and accepted between the competent American and Chinese representatives, I must again protest the refusal of the Chinese Government to respect the Rules of 1868, and must reserve the rights [Page 583] of my Government and of American nationals with respect to all acts by the Customs and other authorities of the Chinese Government in contravention of those Rules.
I avail myself [etc.]
- Copy transmitted to the Department by the Minister in China in his despatch No. 2598, March 19; received April 21.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Omission indicated in the original.↩
- For memorandum of conversation, see Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. iii, p. 626.↩