893.114 Narcotics/1526

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

No. 299

Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Embassy’s despatch No. 272 of February 28, 1936, regarding the restrictions imposed upon the import into China of strychnine and other narcotics by virtue of Customs [Page 571] Notification No. 1480, and to observe that, according to the information supplied by the Consulate General at Shanghai in its despatch No. 22 of February 21 to the Department,58 American interests in China are evidently very little concerned by the application of the new regulations, excepting as regards the monopolistic features of the regulations which might have undesirable effects on prices and quality of the materials purchased. The despatch continues with the observation that “there is a general feeling amongst the American interests concerned that the Chinese should not be hindered in their endeavor to effect control of the narcotics trade, and the tendency of the American interests is to cooperate with the Chinese Government in carrying out the regulations provided they are enforced in an impartial manner and onerous restrictions are not imposed on American persons or firms having a legitimate use for narcotics.” This attitude, the Embassy believes, is in general an accurate counterpart of the Department’s policy regarding the question of control of trade in narcotic drugs in China.

The important point in this connection would seem to be the question of whether American practitioners of medicine and surgery are to be required to register with the Chinese authorities in order to obtain needed supplies of strychnine and other narcotic drugs. The Department has previously indicated, in its instruction No. 129 of June 5, 1930,58a that it considers American practitioners in China to be subject to the jurisdiction of American laws and courts and therefore not required to conform to Chinese regulations which would subject them to control by Chinese authorities. The Department further stated in its telegram No. 198 of June 16, 1931, 4 p.m.,59 however, that, in the absence of American laws and regulations specifically applicable to American practitioners in China, it considered it advisable to cooperate as fully as possible with the Chinese authorities in efforts directed toward the establishment of reasonable regulations on the subject. The sense of that instruction was communicated by the Legation to the Minister for Foreign Affairs by a formal note dated June 27, 1931,58 with the express limitation that the proffered cooperation was “subject to the understanding that jurisdiction over American citizens in China must be retained by the appropriate American officials.”

The Department observed in its aforementioned instruction of June 5, 1930, that the problem was then primarily one of evolving a suitable [Page 572] policy to be followed in the existing circumstances. The question seems to be essentially the same at the present time. In this connection, it is to be noted that, although certain undesirable factors certainly still persist, nevertheless the situation as regards the administration of health services and the practice of medicine has undergone a marked improvement since 1930 (due in no small part, it should be said, to the influence of League experts and other foreign advisers). Questions of the permanence of the existing regime in Nanking quite apart, the inevitable tendency in China, as a whole, is toward the exercise of ever more control by the Chinese authorities over Chinese administrative processes. It would appear to be the better wisdom to shape American policy to fit that tendency, and in this particular matter the Embassy would therefore recommend that American citizens in China should be directed to conform to the regulations laid down in Customs Notification No. 1480. This would require their registration with the Chinese authorities, it will be observed, but this fact would not appear to involve directly the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction by American officials over citizens of the United States.

Respectfully yours,

Nelson Trusler Johnson