693.002 Manchuria/44: Telegram

The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State

Your 129, April 5, 5 p.m.48

1. British Minister has not received memorandum mentioned in your 128, April 2, 6 p.m.49 Upon its receipt we will confer and I shall telegraph further.

2. It is Lampson’s understanding that British Government’s attitude is that if any formal representations are to be made at Tokyo they should relate to independent state of Manchuria rather than to Customs Administration. I infer his Government does not desire to deal with these matters on a piecemeal basis; that British Government and the Minister here hope that pending time when more formal representations might be made Chinese Government would not be averse to permitting Customs Administration through Inspector General Maze and by purely internal and departmental methods reach some modus operandi with the customs’ own people in Manchuria, whereby it might be permitted to function without hindrance.

3. I am informed that collections in Manchuria continue to be put into Government treasury here. I am also informed that British [Page 672] Ambassador at Tokyo has on at least three occasions informally discussed customs question with Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs, who on each occasion expressed himself as opposed to any interference with the integrity of the Customs Administration insofar as Manchuria was concerned, but doubted whether the situation could be helped in view of the fact that Nanking was opposed to permitting Customs Administration by purely departmental means to effect a modus operandi.

Lampson tells me confidentially that he believes Chinese Government is becoming more reconciled to this suggestion and he thinks matter may be worked out. I see no reason, however, why our Embassy at Tokyo should not at least make informal inquiry as to attitude of Japanese Government toward integrity of Chinese Customs Administration.

4. Minister of Finance asked Lampson yesterday whether British Government could not mention Salt Administration at Tokyo in the same light as the customs and as an instance of disruption of an administration responsible for the credit of the Government. Lamp-son replied that this was a matter which might be considered. I believe he had referred question to London and now awaits instructions.

Lampson informed me, however, that British attitude in regard to Salt Gabelle was that T. V. Soong having practically torn up the 1912 agreement,50 they had been disposed to hold him responsible for the fulfillment of China’s financial obligations. British Minister’s reaction to Soong’s request was that he could hardly have the matter both ways. It suited his purpose some time ago to throw the administration which had been organized under the 1912 agreement into the discard. Now with the pinch in Manchuria he was disposed to run to the British to seek protection for that administration.

I shall comment further in regard to all these matters as soon as British Minister receives memorandum in question.

Johnson
  1. Not printed.
  2. Not printed; for memorandum, see telegram No. 126, April 1, 5 p.m., from the Chargé in Great Britain, p. 656.
  3. See draft telegram adopted June 20, 1912, Foreign Relations, 1912, p. 141; also texts printed in J. V. A. MacMurray (ed.), Treaties and Agreements With and Concerning China, 1894–1919 (New York, 1921), vol. ii, pp. 967–73, 1013, 1021 ff.