793.943 Manchuria/9
The Consul General at Harbin (Adams) to the Minister in China (Johnson)70
Sir: I have the honor to supplement my despatch to the Legation, No. 54, March 9, 1935,71 entitled “Extraterritoriality in ‘Manchukuo’,” by giving below the comment and recommendations mentioned in that despatch.
I have had occasion to express the opinion that in China proper the real danger to American interests involved in the abolition of extraterritoriality would not lie mainly in corruption of the courts in civil cases or in miscarriage of justice in the very few criminal cases that would occur, but would very definitely lie in the utter helplessness of the Chinese courts to afford protection against confiscatory levies by irresponsible military leaders. That danger would not, under present circumstances, exist in Manchuria. While the Japanese army is supreme in Manchuria, it has some sense of responsibility and, so far as taxation is concerned, works in an orderly manner through civil agencies. Even so far as the questions of the honesty and efficiency of the “Manchukuo” courts are concerned it appears obvious that the authority which would abolish extraterritoriality has too large a stake in Manchuria to risk exposing that stake to glaring corruption and inefficiency in the courts. When the Japanese abolish extraterritoriality in Manchuria, the “Manchukuo” courts will be so Japanized as to personnel and system that there would not (having in mind only the welfare of the interests involved) be much more risk in exposing the small American interests in Manchuria to their jurisdiction than is [Page 87] at present incurred by American interests in Dairen, Formosa and Japan.
There is also to be considered the question of the effect that the abolition of American extraterritoriality in “Manchukuo” would have in China. By some years of carefully planned agitation directed against “foreign imperialism” and towards the protection of China’s “sovereign rights,” the Kuomintang had in 1931 made such a vital patriotic issue of the question of extraterritoriality that the Powers were on the point of yielding to pressure and relinquishing the extraterritorial rights of their nationals in China.72 Chinese officials and citizens alike had worked themselves into such a frenzy of excitement over the matter that they were unable to view it sanely. They demanded immediate and almost unconditional surrender of extraterritoriality irrespective of the confusion and corruption in their many and uncoordinated military and civil administrations. The sobering shock occasioned by the Japanese seizure of Manchuria brought to an end this frenzy and sharply awoke the Chinese to a realization of the wholesomely restraining influence upon Japan of the occidental rights and interests in China. The pressure for the abolition of extraterritoriality in China was thus eased and the urgency of the issue faded. There is not at present any question of China’s forcing that issue. She is in no position now to make any demands of Japan and if my estimate of the Chinese official attitude is correct China will not, regardless of developments in Manchuria, go to any considerable length in insisting upon the relinquishment of extraterritoriality by American and European Powers in China so long as she knows that there is no chance of influencing Japan upon the question of her extraterritoriality in China. If Japan were, in bargaining for some greater advantage, to agree to the relinquishment of her extraterritoriality in China, then the question of the extraterritoriality of the American and European Powers would very probably again become a vital issue. Or, one or more of these Powers might, for purposes of its own, voluntarily, in the absence of pressure or at the simple request of China, reopen the matter of abolishing extraterritoriality. In other words, I believe that the question of extraterritoriality in China will develop along its own lines without reference to the question of extraterritoriality in “Manchukuo.”
With the foregoing in mind, my thought is that the American Government would, in the event of an attempt by “Manchukuo” to abolish all extraterritoriality in Manchuria, be wise to limit its action to protests as it has thus far done in the more important question, so far as practical immediate interests are concerned, of the proposed [Page 88] oil monopoly. I believe that it would be unwise to withdraw American consular representation in Manchuria as a means of making American protests more emphatic. As already indicated, the proposed action with regard to extraterritoriality is not aimed at American or other occidental interests, and the plans involved are too definite and important to be materially affected by protests and the closing of two consulates general, if American action were limited to that.
Useful sources of information with respect to developments in Manchuria would be cut off by the closing of the offices in Mukden and Harbin, while the continued presence of American consular officers in Manchuria would, I believe, tend to exercise a restraining influence upon action affecting American interests.
It cannot now be foreseen in what form the question of the abolition by “Manchukuo” of American extraterritoriality in Manchuria would arise, but I beg to point out that law suits involving American defendants in Manchuria have in the past been infrequent. While the Japanese attitude in this respect may very possibly have changed in recent years. I may say that when I was stationed in Tsingtao which was then governed by a Japanese military officer, I found the Japanese authorities quite willing to make every effort privately to adjust disputes involving American citizens. The main aim of the Japanese in bringing up the question of the abolition of extraterritoriality is revenue through taxation and it seems probable that the first specific instance of an attempt to apply “Manchukuo” authority to American interests might easily consist of an effort to tax American firms or individuals. American firms and individuals in the Harbin district are already making “voluntary contributions” towards municipal expenses.
Respectfully yours,
- Copy transmitted to the Department by the Consul General at Harbin in his despatch No. 113, March 21; received April 20.↩
- Not printed.↩
- For correspondence on this subject, see Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. iii, pp. 716 ff.↩