197
SECRET.
1.
A Message From The Department of State
Received October 22nd, 1942.
With reference to (A), Article Three, we are very glad to have the British Government's clarifying statement concerning the additional sentence suggested by the British Government. Upon further consideration it seems to us that it would not be wise to add this sentence. We believe that there is some likelihood that the Chinese Government will raise objection to the second paragraph of the Article as it stands without the additional sentence and that the inclusion of such an addition would substantially increase that likelihood. Morcover we feel
that the assumption of obligation by the Chinese Government itself is sufficient safeguard. For those reasons as well as for the reason previously given that it seems advisable to us to avoid too great particularization and to keep the treaty to broad general torns, we regret that we do not feel that we can adopt the proposed additional sentence.
2.
With regard to (B), Article Four, it is still not clear to us exactly what the British Government has in mind by its proposed addition. This Government has no intention of supporting an American national in any claim regarding real property deriving from any illegal process and therefore regards the British proposed addition in so far as we understand it as not necessary. In so far as this proporal envisages protection of valid British claims against confiscation under the acgis of Japanese occupation we think that the Article as drafted without the addition takes care of such a matter. We doubt whether the Chinese Governmcht would understand the exact meaning of the proposed addition and we therefore anticipate that its inclusion would be likely to result in cxtended discussion and consequent delay. We therefore are not adopting this suggestion although we do not perceive any strong objection to the British Government's including the addition in its draft if it, after consideration of our comment, regards such addition as desirable.
3.
With regard to (C), Article Five, we are glad to note that the British Government is deleting the last sentence of the addition previously proposed by the British Government. As proviously stated we have continued our study of the British Government's suggestion. This study confirms us in the opinion that from our point of view the subject matter of the first sentence suggerted by the British might more appropriately be taken care of in the comprehensive treaty which we envisage negotiating with China at some cubsequent time and might also in the form proposed raise for us difficult questions relating to Federal and State jurisdictions. We therefore are not including
in our draft this proposed British addition.
4. With regard to (D) Article Seven and (E), Article One, there appears to be agreement.
5/