793.003/1007: Telegram
The Ambassador in China (Gauss) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 20—2:07 p.m.]
1351. Your 107580 and 107781 November 13. I assume London has informed you of Chinese proposals made here to British Ambassador which so far as they concern matters of mutual interest are substantially the same as those made at Washington.
British Ambassador is of opinion that proposed new article I is intended largely for purposes of “face” with Chinese people. I do not dismiss possible relation of proposal to subject mentioned in your 1077. Australian Minister recalls that Japanese made similar proposal at 1919 Peace Conference.82
[Page 359]I believe we should request explanation of exact purpose of proposed insertion at end of second paragraphs of our articles II and III. To me the proposal represents a technical saving clause which maybe availed of to question “legitimate rights”. For example the franchises now held by Shanghai Power and Telephone Companies, both American, might be attached [attacked?] as not consonant with laws and regulations of China.
In same way I suggest request for explanation of purpose of phrase “or other illegal practices” after word “fraud” in our article IV. Many customs and practices regarding land transfers in China may not have been “legal” under Chinese law but were settled local procedure and customs not “illegal” under foreign law. Insertion of proposed phrase would open opportunity for numerous disputes.
Proposed new paragraph to be inserted in same article IV, besides making provision in derogation of the right of alienation, also carries provisions regarding taxation, national defense and right of eminent domain which it seems to me should be carefully examined and preferably deferred to the later negotiation of comprehensive treaties. Military extortions, occupation of mission property under pretext of national defense, and quartering of troops in mission compounds have always given us much trouble and are certain to become serious problem if not carefully adjusted in advance.
In article V the proposed deletion of the reference to commerce portends that we shall not be granted reciprocity and equality in the treaty of commerce later to be negotiated. I am not surprised.
The proposed change in article VI would seem to offer opportunity for discrimination but I am not informed what modern treaties provide on this subject.
Proposed exchange of notes, of course, seeks to have brief treaty include relinquishment of all special rights. I doubt whether exchange of notes is adequate for this purpose.
Question of coastwise shipping and inland navigation will particularly affect British. China should realize that the proposal would leave her with little or no tonnage to handle coastwise and inland trade after the war until new tonnage is acquired.
Relinquishment of right of foreign pilots would affect us at Shanghai where [there] are few Chinese pilots acquainted with the river and at the same time capable of handling large oceangoing ships. American pilots have substantial financial interest in the pilotage service ships and equipment at Shanghai. China should compensate for their interest in taking over pilotage.
- See footnote 69, p. 345.↩
- See footnote 70, p. 347.↩
- See Foreign Relations, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, vol. iii, pp. 289–291, and ibid., vol. xi, p. 129, first paragraph.↩