Consulate General and Mr. Crow himself will continue to negotiate with the local authorities. The matter of the prosecution of Mr. Crow on a charge of libel has been referred to the United States District Attorney who has not yet replied but it is not believed that any such charge could be proven even if brought against him. I have [etc.] 893.711/50 EDWIN S. CUNNINGHAM The Consul General at Shanghai (Cunningham) to the Chargé in China (Perkins) 89 No. 6324 SHANGHAI, December 23, 1929. SIR: Supplementing this office's despatch No. 6253 of November 16, 1929, regarding the ban of The Shanghai Evening Post from the mails, I have the honor to transmit a copy of a letter dated December 13, 1929, from Mr. Carl Crow, with its enclosure," from which it will be seen that the Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee of Greater Shanghai Municipality, in the matter of the strike of the Shanghai Evening Post printers, has upheld the attitude of The Shanghai Evening Post and justified it in every particular. It may be stated that while the ban continues, The Shanghai Evening Post does not consider that it is suffering materially as a result. Naturally The Post is interested in having the ban lifted but arrangements have been made for the forwarding of the paper in a manner which, though slightly more expensive, enables it to be distributed pretty generally. I have [etc.] EDWIN S. CUNNINGHAM TREATY REGULATING TARIFF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA, SIGNED JULY 25, 1928 o1 611.9331/127: Telegram 91 The Minister in China (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State [Paraphrase] PEKING, January 4, 1929-6 p. m. [Received January 4-11:35 a. m.] 7. My telegram No. 903, December 28, 7 p. m.92 (1) The Netherlands Minister, Oudendijk, informs me that his negotiations have disclosed that the National Government's construction Copy transmitted to the Department without covering despatch; received February 13, 1930. 90 Neither printed. "Continued from Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. 1, pp. 449–492. Not printed. 323423-43-vol. II-58 of the Chinese-American tariff treaty of July 25, 1928," assures the United States of nondiscriminatory treatment only for goods imported into China by American nationals (as article I, paragraph 2 provides) and not for the produce and manufactures of the United States irrespective of the nationality of the importer, and that the Chinese were disposed to construe paragraph 1 of the same article as giving the United States equality of treatment in respect of customs procedure and formalities. In offering to the Netherlands Minister on behalf of the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs, C. T. Wang, a text substantially identical with the American one, it was in fact made plain to him that he must choose between this arrangement giving protection to Dutch importers and some other arrangement to protect importations of Dutch provenance, but that Oudendijk could not expect, any more than could the Americans, to have both. Fortunately he was successful in combating the disingenuous attempt at restriction of the scope of nondiscriminatory treatment which China undertook in the American treaty, and in the first annex to his treaty Oudendijk was able to obtain assent to its supplementary clauses." (2) The British Minister, Sir Miles Lampson, also tells me that, having been warned by the Netherlands Minister's experience, he insisted upon knowing the construction which the National Government placed on the nondiscriminatory provisions in the American treaty. Finding Dr. Wang evasive on this point, Lampson felt constrained to insist on the clarification which is embodied in his treaty's first annex 95 (see my telegram 896, December 27, 8 p. m.). (3) While, as it appears to me, there can be no honest doubt respecting the inclusiveness of the American text regarding nondiscriminatory treatment of American trade in every respect, the Chinese are manifestly seeking to set up a bargaining position, at any rate, as to United States rights in that regard. The Netherlands, British, and other subsequent treaties have settled the particular point at issue regarding the nationalities concerned; but by no means am I confident that the National Government will regard the United States as entitled to claim clarifications annexed to those treaties as applicable to American trade. Therefore, I beg to request authorization for me to address to the National Government a note to request confirmation of the United States Government's understanding that, under the treaty of July 25, 1928, the United States is entitled to claim the treatment established by any subsequent treaties concluded by the National Gov "Treaty and first exchange of notes signed December 19, 1928, at Nanking; League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. cx1, pp. 161, 164. 95 Annex I (an exchange of notes), dated December 20, 1928; ibid., vol. xc, pp. 337, 352. "Not printed. ernment with other foreign powers for goods imported by American nationals into China and for all produce and manufactures of the United States imported into China on a nondiscriminatory basis. In view of the vital importance that American trade be protected against discrimination and that all possible controversy in that regard be obviated, I venture to suggest to the Department that it formulate the terms in which I should address the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs on this subject. MACMURRAY 611.9331/127: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (MacMurray) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, January 7, 1929-6 p. m. 9. Your telegram 7, January 4, 6 p. m. (1) You may thank the British and Netherlands Ministers, on behalf of this Government, for their helpfulness in relating to you their experiences. (2) The Department considers that, with respect to the ChineseAmerican treaty of July 25, 1928, both the spirit and the letter call for reciprocal nondiscriminatory treatment in everything relating to rates of duty, drawbacks, transit dues, tonnage dues, and any related matters, including in relation thereto the benefits of any rights or privileges which are, or which hereafter shall be, extended to or be enjoyed in their respective territories, by their respective nationals, or by the nationals of any other state. (3) In view of article 2 of the British treaty and of the note construing a treaty exactly like the American one, as annexed to the treaties with Sweden "7 and the Netherlands, I do not think China could possibly claim the American treaty does not mean the same thing. The Department feels sure of the all-inclusiveness of the nondiscriminatory clause in the American treaty, but it does not care to have a controversy over it, and I could easily delay the treaty in the Senate and arrange its amendment. The Department prefers for you not to send at this time a note on this subject. It suggests that either you go or send Mahlon F. Perkins" to Nanking in order to ascertain if the Chinese are seriously considering the possibility of denying to American trade the benefits of rights or favors they accorded other countries. The Department believes the Chinese should make this clear in a note, in line with the interpretation which is given in the abovementioned treaties. Treaty, and exchange of notes, signed December 20, 1928, at Nanking; League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. cv, pp. 81, 89. "Counselor of Legation in China. (4) A note to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs may be personally delivered by you or by your representative, to read as follows: 99 "Referring to Article I of the Treaty signed by Mr. T. V. Soong, Minister of Finance, on behalf of the National Government of the Republic of China, and Mr. J. V. A. MacMurray, American Minister to China, on behalf of the United States, at Peking, on July 25, 1928, I have the honor to state that it is the understanding of my Government that it was and is the intention of the High Contracting Parties to agree to the abrogation of certain provisions of existing treaties, namely, provisions relating expressly and specifically to rates of duty on imports and exports of merchandise, drawbacks, transit dues and tonnage dues in China, and to provide that in relation to these matters neither of the High Contracting Parties shall in any way discriminate against the other or its nationals or articles grown, produced or manufactured in its territories or imported or exported by its nationals as compared with treatment accorded to any other country or its nationals, or to articles, the growth, produce or manufacture of any other country, it being the intention of the Contracting Parties that in regard to those matters each shall accord to the other and to its nationals and to its trade as favorable treatment as it accords to any other country or to the nationals and trade thereof. "I have the honor to request an assurance on your part that this is also the National Government's understanding of the purport and intent of this treaty." (5) Pending a receipt from you of a report that an assurance has been given, as indicated above, you are informed, confidentially, that I am holding up the treaty's consideration by the Senate. KELLOGG 611.9331/130: Telegram The Minister in China (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State PEKING, January 22, 1929-7 p. m. [Received January 22-11:30 a. m.] 45. Department's 12 [9], January 8 [7], 6 p. m. Following from Perkins: "On the 17th I delivered to Wang the Legation's note of January 12th regarding the provisions of the tariff treaty relating to mostfavored-nation treatment. He said there would be no difficulty in meeting our wishes in the matter; that the British and Dutch had insisted upon minute specification of certain points, but that there had been no necessity for this as the meaning of the two was quite clear providing for complete most-favored-nation treatment. I said that we naturally desired to have our understanding with the Chinese Government no less explicit than that of any other power, and I requested that he transmit his reply through me in order that I might telegraph the text to the Legation and dispose of any possible question in connection with this matter before my departure. Wang indicated his assent. Since four days have now elapsed without further word from him, I purpose urging the desirability of a prompt rely." MACMURRAY 611.9331/129: Telegram The Minister in China (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State [Paraphrase] PEKING, January 22, 1929-8 p. m. [Received January 22-8:30 a. m.] 46. Reference Legation's 45, January 22, 7 p. m. As to paragraph 5, Department's 9, January 7, 6 p. m. In view of previous experience concerning the unreliability of similar oral assurances, the receipt of a satisfactory written reply to the American request for an assurance regarding the construction to be given to provisions for nondiscriminatory treatment will, I assume, be awaited before further action is taken on the treaty. MACMURRAY 611.9331/130: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (MacMurray) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, January 22, 1929–5 p. m. 28. Referring to your telegrams 45 and 46, January 22, 6 [7] and 8 p. m. Regarding the last paragraph in the note to China. A written reply should quote the text of this American note and should state that such is the understanding of the National Government of the purport and intent of the Soong-MacMurray treaty. Since the assumption you state is correct, the Department hopes for that reason that an exchange of notes can, without further delay, be effected. KELLOGG 611.9331/132: Telegram The Minister in China (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State PEKING, January 23, 1929-9 p. m. [Received January 23-1: 15 p. m.] 50. Department's 28, January 22, 5 p. m. (1) Following has been received from Perkins: "January 22, 3 p. m. My January 21, midnight. I received this morning from the Minister of Foreign Affairs a sealed letter containing |