The Ambassador in China ( Stuart ) to the Secretary of State
[Received 1:24 p.m.]
1674. ReDeptels 1246, August 30 and 1230, August 25. Foreign Office finally decided submit only question of ratification to Legislative Yuan in line with general policy of avoiding reference Legislative Yuan whenever possible and position exchange of notes within province of Foreign Office as matter of interpretation rather than actual substantive change treaty provisions. Foreign Office refuses predict Legislative Yuan reaction to ratification accepting Senate reservation.
Foreign Office assures no question or problem exists re exchange of notes on GATT, ITO and Trust Territories and suggests that since only question Senate reservation submitted Legislative Yuan the matter is best handled by exchange of notes as originally proposed by Department. Embassy concurs this view.
Hackworth15 defines instrument of ratification and copy complete [Page 766] text treaty in both languages signed by President. Does this mean Embassy has to prepare and/or check Chinese text? If so, will appreciate receiving soonest photostatic copy commercial treaty mentioned in Embassy despatch 279, November 18, 1946.16 Embassy hopes that photostatic copy of treaty was sent to Washington as none can be located here despite fact two copies were made. In this connection Foreign Office feels separate copies text both languages of a treaty need not be exchanged with ratification instrument and that originals in custody US Government and Chinese Government suffice as binding reference. Legislative Yuan will take action on Senate reservation this session which ends December 31. Although Foreign Minister departing for Paris end of this week, officials in Treaty Department state they have authority act on proposals re text exchange of notes and text of protocol of exchange of ratifications (excluding of course changes by unpredictable Legislative Yuan). Suggested amendment protocol following separate telegram.17