793.003/988
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Atcheson)61
| Participants: | Mr. Liu Chieh, Minister-Counselor of the Chinese Embassy |
| Mr. Maxwell M. Hamilton | |
| Mr. George Atcheson, Jr. |
Mr. Liu called on Mr. Hamilton this afternoon by appointment. He stated that the Chinese Ambassador, who was leaving town for a few days, had asked him to call with a view to obtaining clarification of one or two points in regard to the draft treaty which the Secretary had handed to the Ambassador on October 24 in order that the Chinese Embassy would be in position to reply to any inquiries which might be received from the Chinese Government in the matter.
Mr. Hamilton made inquiry as to how the Chinese felt in general in regard to the draft treaty and Mr. Liu replied that the draft was very gratifying. He said that his first inquiry was in regard to the question of taxation; he asked whether American citizens would continue to be considered as exempt from Chinese taxes. Mr. Hamilton explained that by Article I American nationals in Chinese territory would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese Government which meant jurisdiction of Chinese law including laws relating to taxation. He added that this Government expected, of course, that such laws [Page 338] would be applied to Americans in an equitable manner and would constitute only the duly promulgated laws of the Chinese Government. Mr. Hamilton also mentioned that for some time past this Government has advised American nationals in China to pay regular and appropriate municipal taxes such as were properly administered and used for public improvements, et cetera.
Mr. Liu made several inquiries in regard to matters which appeared to fall under the Boxer Protocol: the question of Chinese fortifications at Taku and Woosung; the stationing of foreign troops in China; the international bodies known as the Whangpoo Conservancy and the Hai Ho Conservancy; and the Boxer Indemnity. He was informed in reply that Article II made clear provision that any and all rights accorded to this Government under the Boxer Protocol and under agreements supplementary thereto shall cease and that these particular questions were, of course, included in that provision.
Mr. Liu asked whether the questions of the navigation of inland waterways and coastal trade were covered by the treaty, or were matters which we desired reserved for future negotiation. He was informed in reply that our concept of the brief draft treaty was that it should get at the heart of the matter—consular jurisdiction and such related questions as required immediate attention—and that details and particularization could most appropriately be dealt with in the later subsequent modern treaty of commerce, navigation, establishment and consular rights, but there had been no thought in the Department that any particular subject or subjects as such would be reserved for future negotiation. Mr. Hamilton went on to say that the questions were not expressly mentioned in the draft treaty; that we had not gone into them and he could not make a direct answer; that as regards China the question would seem to have three parts—the question of the navigation of rivers, the question of the entry of foreign vessels at ports open to international trade which would now probably exclude some of the “treaty ports” upriver such as Hankow and Kiukiang, and the question of the use of inland waters by the public vessels of foreign nations; and that if the Chinese Government had any suggestions to make in regard to this particular matter we should be very glad to receive them. Mr. Atcheson added that in regard to any such matters no one here had any thought of seeking to keep or reserve or obtain from China anything which was not normal in modern international relations and the whole concept had been that the brief treaty on broad general lines would lay a basis in doctrine and principle for the negotiation of the contemplated subsequent comprehensive treaty. Mr. Hamilton went on to say that it had also been our concept, and he hoped that it was likewise the Chinese concept, that any questions relating to the treaty or questions arising later should be viewed by [Page 339] each Government in a broad light with confidence in the good faith and fairness and friendship of the other Government. Mr. Liu agreed.
Mr. Liu then made a rather vague inquiry in regard to the landholdings of missionaries in interior places in China. It was explained to him that the provisions in regard to land appearing in Article II were included because Chinese law, other than the existing treaties, did not cover the question of leases in perpetuity and it was accordingly necessary to provide for replacement of such leases by deeds of ownership; and that it was only just and fair that landholdings should receive recognition and protection. Mr. Liu agreed.
Mr. Liu then asked a number of questions in regard to the International Settlement at Shanghai. A particular question was the meaning of the reference in Article III to the transfer of official obligations and liabilities to the Chinese Government. It was explained to him that the thought in mind here was that the International Settlement, was, for example, something like a going business concern with assets and liabilities and it seemed only appropriate that if the Chinese Government should take over the administration and control, including the assets, the Chinese Government should also include the obligations and liabilities. Mr. Liu agreed and inquired what particular liabilities we had in mind. He was informed that we had not gone into details in the matter but it was assumed that there were some municipal obligations, including those arising out of municipal debentures. Mr. Liu stated that as a student of law he understood the situation and that, of course, any organization taking over another organization assumed the liabilities as well as the assets.
Further conversation ensued in regard to the general purport and concept of the draft treaty, during the course of which Mr. Hamilton mentioned that we hoped to move forward in the matter as rapidly as practicable. Mr. Liu replied that this was the Chinese hope also and he made a number of remarks indicating that the draft in general had been well received at the Chinese Embassy and that he understood and concurred in the views of this Government in regard to its purport and purpose.
- Initialed by the Chief of the Division (Hamilton); copy transmitted to the Ambassador in China in Department’s instruction No. 158, November 20.↩