711.933/213
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (Johnson)
The Chinese Minister called upon me this morning, by arrangement, pursuant to the conversation which he had with the Secretary [Page 630] on November 21, to discuss the question of extraterritoriality. He brought with him Mr. Liang, a secretary of the Legation, whom he introduced to me and stated that he had brought him along as of possible assistance in answering any questions as Mr. Liang had been in the Provisional Court at Shanghai. …
After some conversation on extraneous subjects the Chinese Minister referred to the question of extraterritoriality and I handed to him, and gave a copy thereof to Mr. Liang, the attached statement. Upon reading it the Chinese Minister commented that it was the final paragraph of our note to the Chinese Government27 in reply to their note asking for the abolishment of extraterritoriality.28 I said that it was and that as it stated, it was the only basis upon which we were prepared to conduct the negotiations and I desired to give it to him and use it myself as the basis from which we would begin any discussion we might have. I pointed out to the Minister that this communication raised two questions which would have to be settled and I wished to propound to him now the first question, and I asked him whether he had any suggestion to offer, for his part, of a method for the gradual relinquishment of extraterritorial rights either as to designated territorial areas or as to particular kinds of jurisdiction, or as to both.
The Chinese Minister said he had no suggestion to make, that as his Government desired the abolishment of extraterritoriality naturally they would have no suggestion to make.
I replied to him that that seemed to put the entire responsibility upon us of devising a means for the gradual abolishment of extraterritoriality and that discussions could only continue in case he would be willing to consider some method that we might propose, inasmuch as we were not prepared to accept the Chinese Government’s only proposal, namely, that of immediate abolishment.
The Chinese Minister stated that he felt that if we could agree on abolishment that then it would be possible for them to discuss how that might be accomplished. I stated that it was obvious that we could not agree on sudden or immediate abolishment. The Minister stated that he felt that the abolishment, whether immediate, sudden or gradual was all the same thing. I stated that might be as it might be. I said that in view of the fact that his Government was placing upon us the entire responsibility for devising a method for the gradual abolishment of extraterritoriality it now remained for me to consider some method. I said that we had been unable as yet to determine on any particular method but were considering several lines of [Page 631] thought. I said that one line we were considering contemplated the possibility of enforcing Chinese law through the instrumentality of American judicial tribunals now existing in China, but that before we could reach any definite conclusions as to the efficacy of such a method, I would need to have from him some information along the lines of the second question laid down in this communication which 1 had handed to him, namely, as to what steps had been taken and what improvements had been achieved by the Chinese Government in the enactment and effective enforcement of laws based on modern concepts of jurisprudence. I asked him if he was prepared to give me any information with regard to that which we could have for study.
The Minister said he thought that he could give us some information. I asked him specifically for copies of laws which had been promulgated and which had been enforced. I pointed out that I already possessed a copy of the first book of the Civil Code of the Republic of China covering the general principles of the code promulgated by the National Government on the 23 of May, 1929. He asked me what I thought of it. I told him that in so far as I had been able to read it, it seemed a very interesting and valuable contribution, but the most important part remained to be seen, namely, the civil code of the laws and I asked him whether he had a copy of that and he told me he had not, that it was not yet finished and that it covered a range of subjects which would probably be the most difficult to codify and that it would probably be the last code that would be completed. I said this code was of profound interest to us in any discussion of this subject that we might have and that I would like to have any and all information that he could give me in regard to it and also in regard to the establishment and maintenance of courts for the enforcement of these laws.
The Chinese Minister promised to gather this information for me. The conversation here ended.