At the same time, I have the honour to suggest that in view of approaching tariff conference, it would be desirable that the Governments who will take part in that conference should instruct their representatives at Peking to point out to the Chinese Government that there are difficulties in the way of a conference being held so long as the Chinese Government is not fully recognized. In making this démarche, the Corps Diplomatique might also suggest to the Chinese Government that they would, for this reason, do well to place themselves upon such a constitutional and representative basis as would remove any technical objection to their full recognition by the Powers. In this connection you will recollect that the Corps Diplomatique at Peking recently raised the question whether newly appointed diplomatic representatives should present letters of credence. It seems to His Majesty's Government difficult to understand how a Minister can be accredited to Government at Peking without admitting that that Government is the de jure Government of China, while on the other hand, the Government so recognized would yet remain one with which agreements could not safely be concluded. In the light of the above, His Majesty's Government trust that the United States Government will suspend action as regards the presentation of letters of credence until the question of full recognition of the Chinese Government is settled, and I have the honour to ask the favour of your early observations on the points raised in this note." In an interview with the British Ambassador on May 18 concerning this matter I suggested that the letters be addressed to the "Chief Executive of the Provisional Government of China"; that at the time of the presentation of his letters of credence Mr. MacMurray, in his formal address, would refer to the declaration communicated on December 454 concerning the provisional character of the present Government. I pointed out that this would seem to be recognizing nothing but the provisional government and the formal address by MacMurray would definitely state that it was just such recognition which is made necessary by the admittedly provisional character of the government. I explained to the British Ambassador that we had to accredit the new Minister to some Government and that this plan would clearly prevent any claim by China that we had extended de jure recognition to a provisional government. He agreed with. me that this program would be sufficient to meet the situation but said he would communicate my oral reply to his Government. You may acquaint your colleagues with the above and the French. and Belgian Embassies in Washington will likewise be informed. KELLOGG See telegram No. 472, Dec. 4, 1924, from the Chargé in China, Foreign. Relations, 1924, vol. 1, p. 431. 123 M 221/137b: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chargé in China (Mayer) WASHINGTON, June 23, 1925—4 p. m. 116. The French Embassy yesterday presented the following memorandum: "According to information received by the French Government, the Italian Government is very anxious that Foreign Ministers in Peking should only present their credentials when the claims concerning the payment in gold of the Boxer Indemnity have been given satisfaction. "The French Government would be willing to modify in the above sense their instructions to the French Minister in Peking, M. de Martel, if the United States Government were ready to postpone the presentation of Mr. MacMurray's credentials. The French Embassy would be greatly obliged to the Secretary of State for an expression of his views on this matter." Department replied informally that under present circumstances it did not feel justified in instructing MacMurray to postpone the presentation of his credentials on the basis set forth in the French memorandum. Inform MacMurray on arrival and request him to cable his comment. KELLOGG 123 M 221/142: Telegram The Chargé in China (Mayer) to the Secretary of State PEKING, July 2, 1925-3 p. m. [Received July 2-9:40 a. m.] 258. Your 116, June 23, 4 p. m. Belgian Minister presented credentials on June 30th and French Minister July 1st. In both instances letters were original ones brought to China by the respective representatives and addressed to the President of China. French Minister at presentation referred to joint note of the representatives of the Washington Conference powers of December 30th last 55 and spoke of the present Government as provisional. Not informed regarding remarks of the Belgian Minister although I assume they were similar. Repeated to Shanghai for the information Minister MacMurray. MAYER This apparently refers to the joint declaration of Dec. 9, 1924. 123 M 221/143: Telegram The Chargé in China (Mayer) to the Secretary of State PEKING, July 7, 1925-3 p. m. 266. From MacMurray: Arrived today. Mayer will remain in charge pending consultations with colleagues as to proposed presentation of letters of credence to Tuan as Provisional Chief Executive. MAYER 123 M 221/147: Telegram The Minister in China (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State PEKING, July 15, 1925-noon. 273. I have today presented my letter and have assumed charge. MACMURRAY ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOVIET AMBASSADOR AS DEAN OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS AT PEKING AND ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INFORMAL ORGANIZATION OF HEADS OF LEGATION 707.1161/20: Telegram 56 The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (Schurman) WASHINGTON, February 28, 1925-4 p. m. 30. Your despatch No. 2590, November 8.57 The Department considers that the status of the Soviet representative as Dean of the Diplomatic Body cannot be ignored and that he is therefore entitled to participate in meetings of the Diplomatic Body, the scope of whose deliberations, however, it may be anticipated will henceforth be limited to matters of a purely formal or ceremonial character. You are authorized whenever it may seem expedient to join your colleagues in conveying to the Soviet representative an intimation that you are prepared to cooperate with him in such matters as remain of general concern to the entire Diplomatic Body. In view of the provisions of Articles III and XII of the SinoRussian agreement of May 31, 1924,58 it would not appear necessary or appropriate that he should be admitted to participation in meetings of the foreign ministers dealing with questions of treaty rights 56 For previous correspondence concerning relations with the Soviet Ambassador, see Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. 1, pp. 443 ff. 67 Not printed. 58 Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. 1, p. 495. such as those established by the Boxer protocol 59 or with respect to extraterritoriality. It is considered that the custody of the archives of the Diplomatic Body, with the exception of those which are concerned with the deliberations of the whole Diplomatic Body, as above referred to, should remain with the Senior Minister. HUGHES 707.1161/22 : Telegram The Minister in China (Schurman) to the Secretary of State PEKING, March 11, 1925-3 p. m. [Received March 11-11:20 a. m.] 100. Your 30, February 28, 4 p. m. 1. I called meeting of Legation heads, March 3, to consider admission of Karakhan as member and dean diplomatic body. Excepting Dutch and Belgian representatives, who had not heard from their Governments, all agreed in substance to plan of limiting diplomatic body, as in all other capitals, to ceremonial functions and entrusting care of special and common interests of treaty powers to suitable group or groups of diplomatic representatives. 2. Meeting adjourned after prolonged discussion. Dutch and Belgian representatives having in few days reported to me their instructions, which were favorable, I called another meeting for March 10th. I opened it by advocating, in addition to a ceremonial diplomatic body, one group embracing all ministers now in Peking as unofficial instrument for transaction common treaty business with Chinese Government and consular bodies. Others advocated special committees such as protocol powers, etc. Obvious point was made against plan of having one group with all ministers in it, that some countries had no special treaty rights and Karakhan might equally with their representatives claim seat in such a group. German Minister, who is persona grata to all his colleagues, said that he had no more right to be included than Karakhan. It was pointed out in reply that the proposed body being informal could constitute itself as it liked and Karakhan would have no more right to demand admission than to a social gathering. After long discussion this plan was unanimously adopted. 3. It was suggested we communicate the result orally to Karakhan and the Chinese Government. I expressed the opinion however that in view of the radical change we were making in the character and functions of the Peking diplomatic body we should send written communications. This view prevailed and I appointed Italian Min ister (who is friend of Karakhan) and British Chargé (whose Government had sent very definite instructions and with whom I had conferred in advance) a committee to draft for submission to a later meeting the necessary notes. I trust the whole subject can be disposed of next week. 4. So long as Soviet Russia claims to be a protocol power it will be necessary to find some modus vivendi with Karakhan when the group is handling protocol business. Those who know Karakhan best think this will not be difficult once he is given recognition as dean, the lack of which he has hitherto keenly felt. 5. Recently Karakhan sent the protocol powers a note protesting against the erection of hurdles by the American guard on what he called the "Russian glacis." He was informed by powers in reply with appropriate references to the protocols of 1901 60 and 1904 61 that there was no "Russian glacis"; that the entire glacis was international property; that the American guard in holding the portion of it adjoining the Russian Legation property were merely discharging the duties which had been assigned them by the senior commandant and that equitation was a part of their military training. SCHURMAN 707.1161/22 : Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (Schurman) WASHINGTON, March 14, 1925-5 p. m. 41. Your telegram No. 100, March 11, 3 P. M., paragraph 3. The Department believes that the communications of the Ministers to Karakhan and to the Chinese Government should be as informal as possible, and should avoid any intimation that his status as a member and as Dean of the Diplomatic Body results from the action of the Ministers rather than from the fact of his recognition by the Chinese Government as Soviet Ambassador. KELLOGG 707.1161/24: Telegram The Chargé in China (Mayer) to the Secretary of State PEKING, April 21, 1925—4 p. m. [Received April 21-9:15 a. m.] 161. Legation's 109, March 17, 4 p. m.2 This morning the Heads of Legation requested the Italian Minister communicate the follow Foreign Relations, 1901, appendix (Affairs in China), p. 312. 61 John V. A. MacMurray (ed.), Treaties and Agreements With and Concern ing China, 1894-1919 (New York, Oxford University Press, 1921), vol. I, p. 315. 02 Not printed. |