2.
560
Government on 1st February, 1931, which in
various points run
counter to your contention cited above. So far as I am aware, however, these Regulations were not at the time questioned by
the Powers, nor have I ever heard of any diplomatic protest hav-
-ing been lodged against them. If such diplomatic protest has been lodged the Chinese authorities have not so far instructed
the Customs to discontinue enforcing these Manifest Regulations.
Another instance of what may fairly be termed tacit
acceptance by the Powers of China's direct dealing wi th previous-
ly accepted Customs procedure is the abolition of the Joint In-
vestigation Rules. As I pointed out to Ingram, these Joint
Investigation Rules were first drawn up by Sir Robert Hart in
1864 and were revised and enlarged in 1868. They have never
formed part of any formal treaty or agreement with a foreign
Power, although in their revised form they received the approval
of the British and the United States Ministers. In August last
year, however, the Kuan-wu Shu, in reply to an enquiry from the
American Legation, advised the Customs that the Joint Investiga-
tion Rules were no longer in force. And I understand that this
ruling has not been officially contested by the parties interest-
ed. In any event, the issue raised is clearly a diplomatic one.
I concur with you that it is impossible to foresee
where a controversy once started may end. Controversy certainly
never tends to encourage good relations either in diplomacy or
in commerce. A conflict of words may be unavoidable, but such a
conflict may lead to exacerbation of feelings, and excited and
embittered feelings to regrettable incidents - boycotts? The
fact that the Chinese are at present at the mercy of Japan has,
if anything, made them more sensitive than ever to what, rightly
or /