Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1929, Volume II

793.003/217

Memorandum by the Counselor of Legation in China (Perkins)¹⁴

undated

Notes on British Memorandum Regarding Gradual Relinquishment of Extraterritoriality

1. It seems that the principal criticism which may be made concerning the British instructions is that they fail to appreciate, from a practical point of view the importance to foreign interests of the “treaty port” as compared with the interior. There are three principal depots of trade, namely, Hongkong, Shanghai and Dairen. In the same category may be placed Tientsin and, to a lesser extent, Hankow. As long as the three places first named continue to remain protected bases for foreign residence and trade, it will be possible to maintain import and export trade with China without substantial loss. As Dairen and Hongkong are not within the scope of this discussion, our chief concern is with the status of Shanghai and, to a lesser extent, of that of Tientsin and Hankow. It therefore seems to me that it will be necessary to treat these places differently from other areas in China which are not comparatively of great importance to foreign interests, and that it will be necessary to do this irrespective of any desire for mere logical consistency in the procedure to be adopted for the gradual relinquishment of extraterritoriality.

2. If extraterritoriality is to be relinquished by a gradual process, I am of the opinion that it would be preferable to proceed by the “geographical” method rather than by that of “categories of jurisdiction”. When foreigners first acquired extraterritoriality rights, they were limited in residence to certain treaty ports. Subsequently, and as a result of missionary pressure, the treaties were modified so as to permit of the residence of missionaries throughout the whole of China. These people carried their extraterritoriality rights with them and thus began a process of infiltration of the alien resident into every province and district of China. It seems very questionable whether this was wise or justifiable. For the legitimate purposes of general international contact, it would seem difficult to maintain that aliens should have the privilege of penetrating the interior, clothed with special rights, in this manner. It has had the effect, throughout the whole of China, of setting the foreigner apart as a person of special privilege and has thus tended to arouse a feeling of jealousy among the Chinese to an extent which would not have been likely, if the foreigner had been content to restrict his special privileges to the principal marts of trade. If we are now gradually to cede these rights, the natural method would appear to be one of retreat along the line by which the advance was originally made. Restricting our special privileges to the principal ports, we could, with much more justification, resist for a longer period the demands of the Chinese; and, such ports being situated in places where measures of defence can be availed of, it would be possible to maintain our position far more effectively than by any other method.

3. With regard to the geographical method, it is suggested that there is also the alternative plan of relinquishment by special areas as a matter of experiment, such areas to be extended in measure as the Chinese may live up to anticipated standards. In the way of a concrete example, it is suggested that extraterritoriality might be relinquished in the Provinces of Chekiang and Fukien. Here the number of foreigners and the extent of foreign interests is comparatively small, and the provinces in question border the seacoast, thus making naval protection more available in emergencies than would be possible in most other parts of China.

4. It would appear very dangerous to yield at the outset the whole civil jurisdiction over foreigners as suggested in the British memorandum. This would enable the Chinese to strike at and undermine the whole structure of foreign financial interests. The Chinese, if so minded, could so use their control of civil jurisdiction as completely to disrupt foreign trade with the specific object of bringing to an end the whole extraterritorial regime at an early date. It is a question if they would not be more likely to do this than they would if we yielded our extraterritorial rights in toto.

5. With regard to the readiness evidenced in the memorandum to place the foreigner under Chinese jurisdiction in petty criminal and police cases, I am of the opinion that this step in actual practice would be more irritating [than], if not actually as dangerous as, to yield jurisdiction in substantive crimes. I do not think the proposer of this measure can appreciate the degree of annoyance and persecution to which Chinese police and other petty officials would go in molesting the every day life of the foreign resident.

M. F. P[erkins]

14. Copy transmitted to the Department by the Minister in China in his despatch No. 2440, November 20; received December 21, 1929. Copies of this memorandum were handed to the British, Japanese, and Netherlands Ministers in China and to the representative of the French Minister in China during the meeting held on November 8, 1929.