793.003/12–842
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Atcheson)
Mr. Liu called by appointment at three o’clock this afternoon. He handed me the Chinese reply, dated December 7,8 copy attached, to our document of November 27, and requested that I read it and give him my comment. Mr. Liu remarked that he thought that we were now “very close together” in the matter.
I read over the document and said that it seemed to me from this casual reading that we had, as he mentioned, become very close in the matter and that there appeared to remain chiefly only one point of much importance for further discussion—the interrelated questions of inland navigation and coasting trade. I pointed out to Mr. Liu what was apparently an error, possibly resulting from poor telegraphic transmission, in paragraph B (1) (page three) of the document, and Mr. Liu corrected it after telephoning to the Chinese Embassy.
As regards the questions of inland navigation and coasting trade, I said that we had heard from Ambassador Gauss in Chungking to the effect that the Chinese Foreign Minister had had in mind proposing the formula suggested in the last sentence of the quoted portion of paragraph B (3) (page 4) of the Chinese document of December 7. I went on to make comment along the lines of the Department’s telegram to Chungking, no. 1193, of December 6, 2 p.m., including the statements, which I emphasized, (1) that we were sure that the Chinese Government would not wish that there be in the treaty or exchange of notes any appearance of providing for possible discrimination against our commercial interests as compared to the commercial interests of any other countries and (2) that it was only reasonable and fair for us to expect that, if the treaty or proposed exchange of notes covered our relinquishment of existing rights in inland navigation [Page 395] and coasting trade, there should also be adequately covered the question of our rights vis-à-vis rights of third countries.
I carefully explained to Mr. Liu the reasons for our feeling strongly in this regard. I said that the American people, we were sure, were whole-heartedly in favor of the relinquishment of our extraterritorial rights in China. I said that I felt that the American people as a whole would also approve of the relinquishment of special rights not actually related to extraterritoriality such as our special rights of inland navigation and coasting trade; but I was also sure that we would be subject to heavy criticism if the treaty or exchange of notes contained language which prima facie indicated that the way was left open for discrimination against American commercial rights as compared to the rights of third countries. I said that it was a cardinal tenet of our commercial treaty policy to ensure in any treaties or agreements with other governments that the language thereof should give equitable and legitimate protection to American commercial interests as compared to the interests of third countries. I mentioned that, as Mr. Liu was aware, under our system of government it was necessary for treaties to be approved by the Senate and that it was my impression that the Senate was consistently careful in all such matters to see that legitimate American commercial interests were given adequate protection in our treaties with other countries.
Mr. Liu indicated that he understood the situation clearly and was not unsympathetic with the point of view which I had presented to him.
I told Mr. Liu that we would study the Chinese document and furnish a formal reply in due course.
The conversation as usual was extremely friendly and cordial.
- Supra. ↩