proposed note of the dean of the diplomatic corps. More complete information is desired with respect to the considerations which seem to make it advisable to concur in the proposed note. HUGHES 893.053 Sh/24: Telegram The Minister in China (Schurman) to the Secretary of State PEKING, March 22, 1924-11 a. m. 89. Your 56, March 18, 6 p. m. 1. It is true that Chinese Government does not today exercise effective control at Shanghai but its powerlessness does not vitally affect Mixed Court which functions in the International Settlement and through the municipal police. 2. The present proposal is merely to resume negotiations interrupted by the Great War and does not necessarily imply rendition which would depend upon the obtaining of satisfactory guarantees. Such negotiations might also afford the opportunity for consideration of the violation of treaties like the cigarette taxes. 3. Rendition of court and surrender of extraterritoriality are not associated in the public mind and former would not therefore be taken as indicative of latter. 4. Court belongs to Chinese. We foreigners found it a derelict in 1911 and took possession of it. Chinese have never been reconciled to the seizure and the court's decisions are not recognized anywhere in China. If we returned the court the regard shown for China's rights would strengthen not weaken us in the assertion of our own treaty rights. 5. If it were certain that the Extraterritoriality Commission would meet this year I should be willing to renew the observation I made on circular number 69 in April 1923 but the outlook for the meeting seems too dubious. 6. [Paraphrase.] Objections offered by members of the diplomatic corps in 1923 circular 69 appear to indicate greater concern for other interests than for the Mixed Court. This was especially true with respect to the British Minister. I had a conversation with him yesterday in which he admitted that political conditions had not improved, but said that, despite these conditions, longer experience as a Minister had strengthened his feeling of the importance of the rendition of the court. I also gathered that he had come to realize the unquestionable fact that, until this basic cause of Chinese resentment is removed, it will not be possible to secure any public improvement "Not printed. in Shanghai, which is dependent upon Chinese concurrence. [End paraphrase.] 7. The American consul general at Shanghai in despatch just mailed to the Department 48 strongly urges resumption rendition negotiations at earliest practicable moment. Among urgent reasons he advances are desirability of securing effect in other Chinese courts for the Mixed Court decisions and processes and hope that through rendition appeal court may be organized, lack of which is universally regretted and condemned. He also refers to the continual Chinese agitation for return of court especially in the matter of purely Chinese civil cases, which agitation negotiations will serve to appease. 8. [Paraphrase.] It would put the United States in an embarrassing and false position in China should our Government oppose negotiations for rendition of the Mixed Court. A policy of conciliation toward China has been adopted by Japan and, more recently, by Great Britain. As an example, note the way the British Minister has reversed himself in this matter. The Soviet Union also is now courting China and is casting odium upon the Chinese policy of other powers. To put ourselves in the position of leadership in a program with respect to the Mixed Court which would be denounced by many foreigners, as well as by the Chinese, as perpetuating an injustice to China, would be fatal to our policy and interests in this country. I am all the more earnest in urging a policy which I consider wise and just, as, in negotiations with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other officials, as well as in public addresses, I have firmly insisted that China observe all our rights, especially the treaty rights which guarantee to our citizens their lives, liberty, and property. [End paraphrase.] SCHURMAN 893.053 Sh/24: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (Schurman) WASHINGTON, April 5, 1924—3 p. m. 69. Your 89, March 22, 11 a. m. The Department regrets that the proposal to resume negotiations for the rendition of the Mixed Court seems to demand consideration at the present time by the Diplomatic Body and not to permit such further postponement as would enable a thorough survey of the Court's status to be made by the Extraterritoriality Commission, since such a survey would appear to form an important part of the work of that Commission. The Department, "Not printed. 112731-VOL. I-39-41 however, recognizes the force of your argument that this Government could not well take an isolated position in opposing the rendition of the Court even for a temporary period; and, in view of your statement that this matter would not be associated in the public mind with the surrender of extraterritoriality, you are authorized to join with your colleagues in negotiations looking toward rendition as outlined in your 75, March 11, 10 a.m., subject to the understanding that such negotiations are to be strictly limited to the question of the rendition of the Court, and that this Government is not prepared to make rendition conditional upon obtaining from the Chinese Government any benefits or concessions upon extraneous subjects such as the extension of the International Settlement or the development of the Shanghai Harbor even if such subjects appear to have a certain relation to the rendition of the Court in connection with a general adjustment of present Sino-foreign problems at Shanghai. HUGHES 893.053Sh/27: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (Schurman) WASHINGTON, May 23, 1924—3 p. m. 108. Your despatch No. 2207 April 14.49 The Chinese Minister under instructions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has informally inquired concerning the attitude of this Government with respect to making the resumption of negotiations for the return of the Mixed Court conditional upon the discussion of other extraneous questions at Shanghai as inferred from the Dean's note of April 10,“ and has stated that Koo 50 is disposed to consider that the proposal for Settlement extension is in contravention of Article I of the Nine Power Treaty Relating to Principles and Policies concerning China.“ The Minister was informed that, without passing on the merits of this contention, the Department desired to adhere to the position which it had consistently taken that the question of the Mixed Court should be kept free from extraneous matters, and had so instructed the Legation. In order to dispel the misunderstanding which has arisen, it is suggested that you should, in such manner as seems most suitable, inform the Chinese Government of the position of this Government as stated in the Department's 69, March 22, 11 A. M. [April 5, 3 p. m.], at the same time informing your colleagues of your action. HUGHES 49 Not printed. 50 V. K. Wellington Koo, Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs. 61 Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. 1, p. 276. 893.053Sh/29: Telegram The Minister in China (Schurman) to the Secretary of State PEKING, May 30, 1924—1 p. m. 145. Your telegram number 108 of May 23, 3 p.m. On May 7th the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs questioned me regarding the dean's note of April 10th 52 and I assured him in the clearest terms that the note did not make the settlement of any extraneous questions a condition to the rendition of the Mixed Court and that if such had been the intention the draft would not have received unanimous approval. Dr. Koo stated that he had observed that the note was drawn up in this sense. On May 28th I asked Koo why incident to above conversation he had telegraphed the Chinese Minister in the sense you indicate. He replied that his telegram was sent before our conversation and that my assurances had so far allayed his fears that he had materially modified his contemplated reply to the dean sent May 9th. This reply expressed the opinion of the Chinese Government that after the rendition of [sic] the three guarantees enumerated in the dean's note could be agreed to and indicated the Government's willingness to prepare for negotiations on the other subjects with a view to attaining a satisfactory result at an early date, provided such matters will contribute to Chinese and foreign welfare and can be put into practice without difficulty. I placed on May 14 on the circular transmitting this reply a notation again stating that the American Government desired, forthcoming negotiations to be strictly limited to the rendition of the Court 5 and was "not prepared to make rendition conditional upon obtaining from the Chinese Government any benefits or concessions upon extraneous subjects." I also concurred in the dean's opinion that the three guarantees enumerated in the dean's note of April 10 be given before rendition takes place. I explained the matter to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai and am confident that the Chinese Government and public thoroughly understand that the question of rendition will be decided on its own merits solely. SCHURMAN 52 Not printed. 63 'Prolonged negotiations between the diplomatic corps and the Chinese Foreign Office and between the consular representatives at Shanghai and the Kiangsu provincial officials resulted in the signing of an agreement Dec. 31, 1926, for the rendition of the Shanghai Mixed Court. FAILURE OF EFFORTS TO SECURE FROM THE INTERESTED POWERS A GENERAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ARMS EMBARGO RESOLUTION PROPOSED AT THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE" 893.113/745 The Chargé in Portugal (Carroll) to the Secretary of State No. 896 LISBON, September 15, 1924. [Received October 6.] SIR: Referring to my despatch No. 893, of August 27th, last," and to previous correspondence concerning the attitude of the Portuguese Government in regard to the proposal for the modification of the terms of the existing embargo on the shipment of arms and munitions of war to China, I have the honor to transmit herewith copies in the original and in translation of a note from the Portuguese Foreign Office, dated September 12, 1924,55 and received today, stating that the Portuguese Government approves the terms of the embargo and of the interpretative note of the diplomatic body in Peking, and that it has instructed its representative in that capital to make known his readiness to accord the formal assent of his Government upon obtaining unanimity of action by the interested powers. I have [etc.] 893.113/755 J. W. CARROLL The British Ambassador (Howard) to the Secretary of State No. 997 WASHINGTON, October 24, 1924. SIR: I have the honour to inform you that the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the fact that military aircraft and machine guns were recently conveyed to Dairen by the French Mail steamer Chantilly, and are understood to have now been delivered at their destination. According to a report on the subject which appeared in the London Times on October 17th last this vessel, although a mail steamer, was actually diverted from her course for this purpose. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government a grave breach of the whole spirit of the embargo agreement has thus been committed and the repetition of such incidents would exercise a most detrimental effect upon the adoption and enforcement of the Washington-Peking For previous correspondence regarding efforts by British and American Governments to secure acceptance of the arms embargo resolution, see Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. 1, pp. 606 ff. See telegram no. 405, Oct. 4, 1922, from the Minister in China, Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. 1, p. 742. |