135
of 31st October enclosed in Mr. Winant's
letter of 1st November would be acceptable to
H. M. G. The Foreign Office would suggest, however,
that to bring the wording into line with the
comparable provisions in other commercial treaties
the article might be re-worded as in the attached
draft.
The Foreign Office would like to know whether
(1) the U.8. Government would be willing to adopt
a similar wording: (2) whether the U.S.Government
consider close similarity of wording between the
two treaties is important so far as this point is
In any case the Foreign Office would
point out that the words "ports, places and waters
of the other which are or may be open to foreign
commerce” in the additional article proposed by
concerned.
the State Department would appear to be inconsiater
with Article 5 of the American draft which accorda
the right to carry on trade throughout the
Republic of China. It is suggested that the
words "foreign shipping" would be more suitable
in this context than "foreign commerce".
With regard to such matters as ownership of
and compensation for wharves and other shipping
facilities, the loss of the right of British
ships to engage in inland navigation and coastal
trade would not deprive British subjects or
companies of their titles to ownership of real
property which are expressly recognised in Article
5 of the British draft (see article 4 of the
American draft) or of their ownership of movables
such as cranes or other tackle. In case, however:
the