You are on page 1of 8

1 ( ) 2 ( (Slaughterhouse Cases).) ) 3() () 4 1894 () (( )) 5 ( type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1950v06&entity=FRUS.FRUS1950v06.p0387&q1= struble&q2=chiang) ( type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1944v05&entity=FRUS.FRUS1944v05.p1285&q1= formosa&q2=law&q3=military%20government type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1944v05&entity=FRUS.FRUS1944v05.p1281&q1= formosa&q2=law&q3=military%20government type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1944v05&entity=FRUS.FRUS1944v05.

RUS1944v05.p1280&q1= formosa&q2=law&q3=military%20government)

type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS187475&entity=FRUS.FRUS187475.p0428&q1=for mosa&q2=extraterritorial This Department is at a loss to discover the power or right of the consul to issue a proclamation or notification of this character. Under the provisions of the act of 1860, authority is given to the ministers of the United States in China and Japan " to issue all manner of writs to preven.t the citizens of the United States from enlisting in the military or naVal service of either of the said countries, to make war upon any foreign power with whom the United States are at peace, or in the service of one portion of the people against any other portion of the same people; and he [the minister] may carry out this power by a resort to such force as may at the time be-within his reach belonging to the United States." This is an extraordinary power, conferred upon the minister alone, in a certain emergency, and within fixed limits. It is conferred upon him in consequence of the extraterritorial rights reserved in the countries named in the act to the citizens of the United States. The power is given to the minister alone, and is not shared by the consul. But the notification of Mr. Henderson is his own act, issued by him as a consul of the United States, upon a general complaint made to him by the Chinese government. China herself has employed the services of Americans in her army, and whether against a foreigu enemy or an insurrection seems to make no distinction in principle or in law, saving that our own act of 1860 alike forbids our citizens enlisting in the military or naval service of either of the powers named in the act,.to make war upon any foreign power with whom the United States are at peace, or in the service of one portion of the people against any other portion of the same people. Ward and Burgevine (both Americans) were in the Chinese military service. China did not regard their service as illegal or improper, or in violation either of public law or of treaty obligations.

The act of 1860 appears to have been passed to supply certain apprehended defects in the law of 1818, as applicable to Japan and China,

and to provide remedies which, on account of remoteness, could not be furnished by the President under the then existing statutes. While the Department is not prepared to say that the law of 1818 may not be in force in China and Japan, in its application to citizens of the United States within those countries, it is believed that the law of 1860 will, in most cases, supply a sufficient remedy. No benefit could result from the intervention of the consul; and it is quite apparent that the Chinese government was ready to obtain the countenance and assistance of an officer in the service of the United States in enforcing its general demand that the Japanese should quit Formosa. type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1935v03&entity=FRUS.FRUS1935v03.p0199&q1= formosa&q2=extraterritoriality 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 2For correspondence on this subject, see Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. III, pp. 716 ff. 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, WALTER A. ADAMS type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1906v02&entity=FRUS.FRUS1906v02.p02 25&q1=korea&q2=extraterritoriality type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1911&entity=FRUS.FRUS1911.p0407&q1 =korea&q2=extraterritoriality type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1911&entity=FRUS.FRUS1911.p0409&q1 =korea&q2=extraterritoriality type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1920v01&entity=FRUS.FRUS1920v01.p05 71&q1=korea&q2=extraterritoriality The Foreign Office issued a statement shortly after the mandate explaining that the Russian concessions would merely be taken under trust by the Chinese government and would be returned to a future Russian government when recognized by China and that

the rights of the Russian citizens in China would be safeguarded. type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS195557v18&entity=FRUS.FRUS195557v1 8.p0546&q1=korea&q2=extraterritoriality type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS195557v18.p0547&id=FRUS.FRUS195 557v18&isize=M&q1=korea&q2=extraterritoriality Recommendation: Since the rights involved are, to a large extent, rights in treaties ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate, I recommend that the Department inform the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and possibly also the House Foreign Affairs Committee, through their Chairmen, of our intention to terminate the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction in Morocco. Unless the Committee registers very strong objection, and if the circumstances at that time are appropriate, I recommend that the Department make a public announcement of its intention. I enclose a preliminary suggestion of such a statement, a copy of which we should furnish the French shortly before release, as a matter of courtesy. 3 3 At a meeting on January 10, Dulles informed the President that the Department of State was considering an expression of willingness to surrender capitulations. On the understanding that only civilians would have their status changed, the President concurred. (Eisenhower Library, Dulles Papers, Meetings with the

President) The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Walter F. George, was notified on January 24. Two days later the Department issued a statement declaring that it was U.S. policy to relinquish extraterritorial jurisdiction in Morocco at the appropriate time and that the Department would request Congressional action to that end. For text, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1956, pp. 707-708.

Note: only civilians would have their status changed refers to ressortissants, being protgs, protected persons of the US under the treaties viz 3 FAM Diplomatic Correspondence definitions, type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1950v06&entity=FRUS.FRUS1950v06.p12 98&q1=korea&q2=extraterritoriality type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1947v07&entity=FRUS.FRUS1947v07.p09 58&q1=korea&q2=extraterritoriality ROC request to SCAP that Taiwanese in Japan proper enjoy extraterritoriality from Japanese jurisdiction as if Allied UN nationals: type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1946v08&entity=FRUS.FRUS1946v08.p03 70&q1=korea&q2=extraterritoriality, type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1946v08.p0371&id=FRUS.FRUS1946v

08&isize=M&q1=korea&q2=extraterritoriality type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1943China.p0022&id=FRUS.FRUS194 3China&isize=M&q1=korea&q2=extraterritoriality type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1935v03&entity=FRUS.FRUS1935v03.p01 76&q1=korea&q2=extraterritoriality