793.943 Manchuria/5
The Minister in China (Johnson) to
the Secretary of State
No. 3382
Peiping, February 27, 1935.
[Received March
23.]
Sir: I have the honor to enclose a copy of the
Mukden Consul General’s despatch to the Legation No. 51 of February 16,
1935, in regard to the possible relinquishment by Japan of its
extraterritorial rights in “Manchukuo”.
Mr. Ballantine expresses the belief that present developments indicate
that the relinquishment by Japan of extraterritorial rights in
“Manchukuo” will probably not be long delayed, and suggests the possible
desirability under those circumstances of withdrawing American consular
representatives from Manchuria.
The Legation is refraining from issuing instructions to the Consul
General in this matter until it has received any comments the Department
may care to make. In the Legation’s opinion, however, it is difficult to
perceive how the relinquishment by Japan of extraterritorial rights in
“Manchukuo”, even though coupled with an attempt by the “Manchukuo”
authorities to assume jurisdiction over American nationals as
anticipated by Mr. Ballantine, would warrant the withdrawal of American
consular representatives. On the contrary, it would appear to the
Legation that under those circumstances the services
[Page 64]
of American consular representatives would
be even more necessary to the protection of American interests than at
present.
In the somewhat analogous situation arising out of the treaty of
annexation between Korea and Japan in 1910, American consular
representatives appear to have continued to be of considerable service
to American interests, particularly in relation to their property
rights. (Foreign
Relations of the United States 1910, pages 681
et seq., 1911,
pages 320
et seq.)
The British Legation states that this question has not yet been raised by
any of its consular representatives in Manchuria.
Respectfully yours,
For the Minister:
C. E.
Gauss
Counselor of
Legation
[Enclosure]
The Consul General at Mukden (Ballantine) to the Chargé in China (Gauss)
No. 51
Mukden, February 16, 1935.
Sir: I have the honor to enclose a clipping
from the Manchuria Daily News of February 14,
1935,55
containing an announcement by the Japanese Embassy at Hsinking of
the formation of a preparatory committee in Japan for the
consideration of the relinquishment by that country of its
extraterritorial rights in “Manchukuo”, together with a statement
issued by the Foreign Office at Hsinking expressing its
gratification over that action.
There is also enclosed a copy of an article which appeared in the
same journal on February 15, 1935,55 purporting to be a Tokyo despatch to the Dairen
Shimbun stating that the plan now being considered is to engage
Japanese judges for the “Manchukuo” courts, to sit in cases
involving Japanese, so that the abolition of extraterritoriality may
be effected even before the “Manchukuo” judicial system has been
perfected. It is further noted that the proposed budget for the
“Manchukuo” Government for the next fiscal year contains an estimate
for preparatory work for the abolition of extraterritoriality.
Developments are taking place so fast in this direction that the
relinquishment by Japan of her extraterritorial rights will probably
not be long delayed. As it is likely that when this happens
“Manchukuo” may unilaterally declare the extraterritorial status of
other nationals at an end, I venture to suggest that consideration
must be given to the policy which our Government should follow in
such an event.
[Page 65]
I presume that the United States could not acquiesce in any attempt
on the part of the “Manchukuo” Government to assert jurisdiction
over American citizens and their property so long as the “Manchukuo”
Government is not recognized, since such acquiescence might
immediately precipitate difficulties in connection with the
maintenance of our extraterritorial rights in China. In other words,
our attitude on this question would, in my opinion, be governed not
by a consideration of the degree of judicial progress which has been
attained in “Manchukuo”, but by the consideration of how our
interests in China are affected.
In the event that the “Manchukuo” Government does in the future
attempt to assert jurisdiction over American citizens, and protests
by all means at our disposal are ineffectual, it would seem that the
only course open would be to withdraw our consular representatives
from Mukden and Harbin. I do not know how extensive American
interests in Harbin are, but I foresee that, in Mukden at least,
within a few years our interests will become greatly curtailed.
Messrs. Andersen and Meyer, the principal American general importing
firm, has already given up its branch here, the National City Bank
have announced that they are closing theirs on May 31, and when the
Petroleum Monopoly Law goes into effect, as it seems almost certain
to do sooner or later, the Standard Vacuum Oil Company and the Texas
Company will be out of business here.
With these firms eliminated, the remaining American interests, (other
than agencies and minor offices in charge of Chinese or Russians)
and the number of their American personnel, including members of
their families will be as follows:
| Name of American
Interest |
American Personnel |
| Catholic Mission |
31 |
| American Presbyterian
Mission |
2 |
| Seventh Day Adventist
Mission |
27 |
| Assemblies of God Mission |
3 |
| Frazer Federal Inc. U. S.
A. |
2 |
| Singer Sewing Machine Co. |
1 |
| Total |
66 |
There are in addition 20 white Americans connected
with non-American firms and organizations, 8 white Americans in
miscellaneous employment, and 7 American citizens of the Japanese
race, of whom all except one are connected with the “Manchukuo”
Government.
Since effective consular protection could not be extended to the
remaining American interests if extraterritoriality were
unilaterally abolished in “Manchukuo”, there would be some
justification to the view that it might be less detrimental to our
interests to withdraw consular representatives than to have them
remain.
Respectfully yours,
