#
2
(6)
471
far as it is exercised through inspector general under Chinese government a mandate.
We are not aware of any demands from any quarter for for (a) which would mean under existing conditions in China,dissolution of Chinese government's revemics and wholesale repudiation of Chinese national debt. Chiness demands with regard to (b) namely par- ticipation of Chinese banks in custodianship arrangements will probably be reasonably and easily met.
With regard to (c) while it is true that Sun Yat Sen in 1923 objected to earmarking of customs surplus for service of internal loan and that the assumption of these responsibilities by inspector general has been severely criticised by foreign holders of earlier obligations, it is unlikely that present occupant of post, who la convinced that he has thereby secured Chinese support for his administration could be in- duced to resign (? his) trust while Chinese banka would probably not permit Chinese government to divest him of it by mandate, It is, however, improbable that service of new charges to be imposed on surtax on revenue will be entrusted to his sole care (in the same way as theot)old and we ourselves shall do nothing to encourage such a course. As regards the United States' ettitude the American delegation have so far been protagonists of foreign control for debt con- solidation which we for our part have throughout treated as a cecondary consideration to that of likin abolition.
r