711.933/239
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (Johnson)
I told the Chinese Minister that I had given careful consideration to the proposal which he had left with me on December 17; that I found it unacceptable, first, for the reason that it proposed that American citizens should be placed under the jurisdiction of Chinese courts after January 1, 1930, which did not meet the terms which we laid down in our note of August 10. I handed to him the attached memorandum of comment. He asked me what specific objections I had to his proposal. I said the first specific objection was that which I had already named; that the second was that his proposal for the establishment of special courts at five ports did not amount to any more than saying what had been said in the first paragraph, namely, that American citizens should be placed under Chinese jurisdiction as these courts would be purely Chinese courts. I explained to him that all along I had tried to make clear to him that we could only discuss this matter on the basis of some plan that would provide for the gradual abolishment of extraterritoriality; that we felt very definitely that there should be some period and some method reached whereby Americans could become accustomed to the Chinese laws and courts and to the effect of those laws and courts upon their lives. I said that in order that we might do this thing I had a proposal to make to him which I thought represented a very definite step in the direction towards which I believed we were headed and I handed to him a proposal, copy of which is hereto attached.
The Minister read over this proposal and stated that it seemed to be nothing more than the proposal which had been made by the British some six years ago. I stated that that might be very well to him, but for the moment it was our proposal. We were not making it because the British had made it, and I felt that we must consider it as our proposal and not as theirs. He said it seemed to him that this proposal was a backward step as compared with the outline of the proposal which I had given to him in conversation the other day. I asked him how he felt about it. He said this proposal includes a provision for the establishment of a commission that is to [Page 656] pass upon their laws and to say whether these laws may be applied or may not be applied. The commission will say whether a law is a good law or a bad law. I read the sentence describing the duties of this commission and pointed out that the commission would not do as he suggested, but the commission was for the purpose of examining the laws and to determine whether the laws were being effectively applied in the Chinese Courts. I said that we were interested not so much in the goodness of the law[s], but in the effectiveness with which they were being applied. He stated that he felt that this proposal brought us back to the place where we were before. I said that I did not see how he could feel that away about it as I felt it brought us a long way along the road from our note of August 10 and I could hardly consider that this was not a step forward. He said that he would give consideration to the matter and in due course he would give me a reply.