793.003/12–1942
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Atcheson)
| Participants: | Mr. Liu Chieh, Minister Counselor of the Chinese Embassy |
| Mr. Stanley K. Hornbeck | |
| Mr. George Atcheson, Jr. |
Mr. Liu called at our request at eleven o’clock to receive our memorandum of December 1825 in reply to the Chinese Embassy’s memorandum of December 7 supplemented by the Chinese suggestion in regard to inland navigation and coasting trade of December 12.
Mr. Liu stated that a telegram had just been received from the Chinese Foreign Office to the effect that the word “later” might be omitted from the second sentence of the paragraph in the exchange of notes in regard to inland navigation and coasting trade (page 2 of the draft of December 1826) and we accordingly marked it out of the draft attached to our memorandum of December 18. (It had been noted that the word “later” had been omitted also, apparently with [Page 409] Chinese assent, from the British draft as indicated in London’s 7195, December 18, 7 p.m.)
Mr. Liu read over our memorandum of December 18 and, with reference to the last two sentences in parenthesis on page 3, stated that we were very generous in saying that adoption of Dr. Soong’s additional suggestion would not be necessary.
Mr. Liu stated that another telegram had been received from the Chinese Foreign Office to the effect that the Chinese Government desired that the treaty be in both the English and the Chinese languages and that both texts be considered authoritative. He mentioned that the proposed British treaty would be executed in the two languages. Some general discussion of this question ensued. Mr. Hornbeck stated that we would not, of course, wish to object to this Chinese suggestion but pointed out a number of practical reasons why it might be advisable for the English text to be the authentic text, including the reason that English is a more precise language than Chinese and the reason that so few Americans and other foreigners have a competent knowledge of the Chinese language as compared with the number of the Chinese officials and others who have a competent knowledge of the English language. Mr. Hornbeck went on to say also that otherwise it might be advisable to have a third text in French and that the use of such third language would have practical value to both the Chinese and to us, especially as the officials of other countries contemplating treaties on extraterritoriality with China are undoubtedly familiar with French and there would accordingly spread throughout the world a clearer understanding of the action we are taking. As regards the question of precision of language, Mr. Liu stated that in recent years Chinese treaty language had become very precise indeed and there was little danger of ambiguity. Mr. Hornbeck remarked that, as the treaty in question was one of relinquishment rather than of establishment, the question of precision was perhaps in this instance not so important. The question whether a third language would be used was left undetermined for the time being.
Mr. Hornbeck left to rejoin a meeting in the Secretary’s office and Mr. Liu and I discussed several aspects of the draft treaty and notes and the question of signing.
I pointed out to Mr. Liu that, in accordance with the Chinese offer of December 7, we had in our draft attached to our memorandum of December 18 retained the clause ending the first sentence of the paragraph in the notes in regard to inland navigation and coasting trade, “and that the Government of the Republic of China is prepared to take over any American properties that may have been engaged for those purposes and to pay adequate compensation therefor”. I mentioned that this clause had been omitted from the Chinese suggestion [Page 410] of December 12 but, as it had been offered in the Chinese memorandum of December 7, we had assumed that the omission in the December 12 suggestion was inadvertent and had therefore included it in our “final” draft. Mr. Liu indicated that there would be no objection to this.
Mr. Liu asked whether we desired that the treaty be signed in Washington and mentioned that Dr. T. V. Soong, the Chinese Foreign Minister, was now in Chungking. I said that it had been our assumption all along that the treaty would be signed here, especially as the negotiations had been conducted in Washington. I added that the matter of the relinquishment of our extraterritorial rights was one in which the Secretary had had personal interest, the treaty exemplified action he had long wished to take and I felt sure that Mr. Hull would naturally wish to sign the treaty. I mentioned that Dr. Soong would sign the British treaty in Chungking and probably some of the other forthcoming treaties on extraterritoriality. Mr. Liu stated that he understood our point of view and much appreciated the Secretary’s interest in the matter.
I explained to Mr. Liu that the engrossing of the treaty would take several days and that one typographical error would require the whole process of engrossing to be repeated. I said that it would accordingly be helpful if we could have the Chinese reply as soon as possible. Mr. Liu stated that he did not think it would take long to get a telegraphic reply from Chungking and that he was sure that the matter would not be delayed. He said that the Chinese Embassy would prepare a Chinese text of the treaty and let us have it within a few days. After the usual exchange of amenities, during which Mr. Liu made repeated expressions of the Chinese appreciation of our efforts, he departed.