3. A distinction should be noted between the situation under consideration and that at Shanghai where we take part in and share the responsibility for the administration and protection of the foreign International Settlement. Insofar, however, as concerns Shameen the French and British authorities have insisted on their own sole responsibility. 4. It seems evident that our participation should not be warranted merely for the protection of a French or a British concession. If we could in fact isolate this question from other considerations, no doubt it might be possible that it would be preferable for us to avoid involving ourselves in any sort of dispute to support anything like a territorial claim for any other nation. 5. It appears, however, practically impossible to separate this problem from larger considerations which would be brought into action in any case of this sort if the American forces were either to remain inactive or to retire in the course of an attack possibly directed ostensibly and at first against the British or any other nationality, but, when thoroughly analyzed found to spring from motives in which we and other nations would be implicated to only a lesser degree. Such action would be particularly lacking in courtesy in cases where the lives and property of Americans were in danger of attack. In a case of that sort it would in fact be practically impossible to give adequate protection to American nationals without taking our part in a united plan for defense. 6. Further than the obvious precaution of withholding our naval forces from foreign concessions in which the interests of Americans are not implicated, I acknowledge that no way presents itself by which we can differentiate our own interests from those of other nations, so as to avoid our possible implication as participants in defending any foreign concession where American nationals may have become established. We have considered the possibility of a withdrawal of Americans at any time when an attack threatened, but aside from the regrettable effect that this would have on the feeling of the foreigners and on the possibility of cooperation with other foreign nations whose interests in China are in substance of the same nature as our own, I cannot help thinking that such a withdrawal at a moment of crisis would in itself have a tendency toward encouraging and bringing about separating hostile action on the part of the Chinese, which would finally involve us, beyond doubt, no less than it would the nation first attacked. Though, for the time being, the agitation against the position of foreigners in China is concentrated principally against Japanese and British, it should be remembered that such a distinction is, in great measure, a matter of tactics on the part of the leaders in the agitation; and we should also not forget that to those inspiring the attack its purpose would be perhaps not 75289-40-56 directly but none the less actually in opposition to American interests and will be a benefit to China. It is especially the case in Canton, which is in great measure under Soviet influence at present, that the motivating force is antagonistic to the "imperialistic and capitalistic” powers and opposed to the entire political and economic system of which the United States forms as large a part as does Great Britain. 7. Hence I am unable to avoid the conclusion that in Canton and other treaty ports where a crisis of like nature might occur, it would be preferable for the United States naval forces to remain in order to protect American citizens and their interests and, with that in view, it would be advisable for them to be authorized to unite in such defense measures as the commander in his discretion may deem necessary to accomplish that end after mediation appears no longer possible. 8. The commander of the South China Patrol has presented this same question of policy to the commander in chief and I am sending him a copy of this telegram. 9. I should appreciate an early reply as to the Government's policy in this matter. MACMURRAY 893.00/6507: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (MacMurray) WASHINGTON, August 15, 1925—1 p. m. 202. Your 329 August 14, 4 p. m. The Department approved policy stated in paragraph 7 of your telegram. It should be understood, however, that there should be no unnecessary risk of life in the protection of property and American forces should not participate in defence of Shameen at Canton unless specifically requested so to do by the naval authorities of countries concerned. Ordinarily this government's policy would be to evacuate its citizens to a place of safety and look to Chinese Government for protection of their property, and this policy should guide American naval authorities should British or French request contemplate a different policy in regard to the property of their nationals. See Department's No. 214 of September 8, 1924, 5 p. m.61 Above communicated to Navy. 61 Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. I, p. 371. KELLOGG 393.11/388 The Consul General at Canton (Jenkins) to the Minister in China No. 304 [Extract] CANTON, October 16, 1925. SIR: I have the honor to inform the Legation that a large number of Americans have returned to the Canton consular district during the past two weeks, including many women and children. Most of the American missionary institutions at Canton have reopened and the attendance averages between seventy-five and ninety percent. of normal. The general attitude toward Americans has shown considerable improvement during the past month but conditions are still so unsettled that I have not deemed it proper for me actually to advise American women and children to return. I have let it be understood however that I did not consider the situation unduly dangerous and that if Americans wished to come back to their homes they could do so but at their own risk. I have [etc.] DOUGLAS JENKINS ADHERENCE OF CERTAIN POWERS TO TREATIES CONCERNING CHINA SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, FEBRUARY 6, 1922 500. A 4e/274a: Circular telegram 63 The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Spain (Moore) 03 64 WASHINGTON, August 6, 1925-11 a. m. Please hand following to Minister for Foreign Affairs: "EXCELLENCY. By a note dated May 18, 1922, addressed to His Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain, my predecessor in the office of Secretary of State of the United States of America, in pursuance of Article 8 of the Treaty relating to the revision of the Chinese Customs Tariff and cognate matters, signed at Washington on February 6, 1922,65 extended to the Government of Spain on behalf of the Government of the United States, acting for all the Governments, a cordial invitation to adhere to the said Treaty upon its ratification by all the signatory Governments. The Treaty has now been ratified on all parts and has gone into effect by the deposit with the Government of the United States on Copy received by the Department on December 4. The same, mutatis mutandis, to the American diplomatic representatives in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. "Not printed. Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. 1, p. 282. August 5, 1925, of the ratifications of all the signatory Governments. I have the honor, therefore, on behalf of the Government of the United States, acting for all signatory Governments, to renew through Your Excellency to the Government of Spain the cordial invitation of my predecessor to adhere to the Treaty, and to express the very great pleasure with which the Government of the United States would learn that such adherence had become effective by the receipt of notice thereof as provided in Article 8 of the Treaty. Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration. Frank B. Kellogg, Secretary of State of the United States of America." KELLOGG αι RE [The following powers notified the American Government of their adherence to the treaty relating to the revision of the Chinese customs tariff, signed at Washington February 6, 1922: Denmark, August 27, 1925; Sweden, September 11, 1925; Spain, September 21, 1925; and Norway, September 23, 1925.] 500. A 4d/88a The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Spain (Moore)** [No.] 288 WASHINGTON, October 1, 1925. SIR: I transmit herewith a communication addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain 67 inviting the adherence of the Government of Spain to the Convention between the United States, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Portugal, relating to principles and policies to be followed in matters concerning China, signed at Washington on February ô, 1922.68 You will please hand the communication with its accompanying certified copy of the treaty to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am [etc.] For the Secretary of State: [The following powers notified the American Government of their adherence to the treaty regarding principles and policies to be followed in matters concerning China, signed at Washington February The same, mutatis mutandis, on Oct. 1, 1925, to the American diplomatic representatives in Austria, Bolivia, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Persia, Peru, Sweden, and Switzerland; on Nov. 21, 1925, to the Ambassador in Brazil; and on Apr. 23, 1926, to the Ambassador in Mexico. 67 Not printed. Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. 1, p. 276. Main 6, 1922: Norway, November 16, 1925; Bolivia, November 21, 1925; Sweden, December 5, 1925; Denmark, December 29, 1925; and Mexico, January 14, 1927. Later correspondence with the Government of Mexico disclosed that the adherence of Mexico as of the above date was premature and that the date of effective adherence was September 29, 1927.] REQUEST FROM THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT TO THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE POWERS FOR A READJUSTMENT OF TREATY RELATIONS 793.00/48: Telegram The Chargé in China (Mayer) to the Secretary of State PEKING, June 24, 1925-6 p. m. 247. 1. Representative of Foreign Office has just handed me copy of the following identic note addressed to the representatives of Washington Conference powers. "With the object of further consolidating the friendly relations between China and the foreign powers, I have the honor to address you on a subject which is essential to the promotion of that happy mutual understanding and good will upon which international friendship result [rests]. During recent years there has been a steadily growing feeling shared even by many foreign statesmen that, in justice to China as well as in the interest of all the parties concerned, there should be a readjustment of China's treaty relations with foreign powers to bring them more in line [with] the generally accepted conceptions [of] international justice and equity and more in conformity with existing conditions in China. It may be recalled that many of these treaties were not only concluded [a] long time ago but were negotiated under circumstances which hardly permitted the formulation, by full and free discussion, of the principles which should permanently regulate the normal intercourse between China and the foreign powers. But while designed in the first instance largely to meet the exigencies of a particular time these treaties have been allowed to remain in force to the present time when, the situation having been greatly changed, the further indefinite continuance of the extraordinary political and economic privileges and immunities therein conferred upon the foreigners seems to be hardly warranted by circumstances. Moreover on account of restrictions imposed by these treaties there are mutual inconveniences and disadvantages which affect matters concerning China and the foreign powers. So long as these inequalities and extraordinary privileges continue to exist there would always remain causes of disaffection which are apt to produce friction and disturb the cordial relations and good understanding between China |