893.6359 Antimony/15: Telegram
The Counselor of Legation in China (Gauss) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 15—2:30 a.m.]
75. Department’s 24, January 25, 7 p.m. and Legation’s 56, February 1, 7 p.m., concerning Chinese monopolies. The British Legation is impressed by the possible consequences of the Chinese tendency toward monopolies and takes a position substantially the same as the American. It is apparently prepared to protest, if it is feasible where British interests are affected, on the basis of the same treaty provisions, but it appears to be in a quandary as to the action which it might take in reference to British interests which acquired special privileges in defiance of the provisions of the Washington Treaty of 1922.
The Japanese Minister resides at Shanghai. Japanese Legation Office here has little information. Peck reports February 14, 4 p.m., in reply to an inquiry from the Legation, that Suma59 of the Japanese Legation says that three oral protests were made against the proposed antimony monopoly arrangements with a British firm but that when this arrangement was abandoned there was no necessity for a written protest and none was sent. Suma also said that the Japanese protests were not directed against the organization of producers and sellers [Page 773] of antimony. He stated that the one Japanese firm dealing in antimony reports business was satisfactory and it had not occurred to the Japanese Legation to protest against the organization in question. In its oral protests the Japanese Legation did not base its objections on any specific treaty stipulations.
Other than ourselves, the British and the Japanese are the powers which would be principally affected by Chinese monopolies. The Swedish Chargé d’Affaires is interested in a reported match monopoly proposed at Nanking, but told me during a recent visit to Peiping that he is doing nothing more than to make persistent inquiries on the matter. The position of his Government has not been outlined to him. The French Minister has been absent at Nanking and Shanghai for several months. I cannot ascertain the French view with any satisfaction until he returns to Peiping.
The matter has been mentioned in a memorandum sent to Minister Johnson at Shanghai60 with the suggestion that he may wish to take the opportunity to sound out the views of his colleagues there and at Nanking when he sees them. With chiefs of mission residing at Peiping, Shanghai and Nanking and those at Peiping frequently absent in the south it is difficult to get a satisfactory exchange of views.