think the Chinese would be on very strong grounds in citing this particular paragraph, in view of the statement made by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs as reported in Chungking telegram
Even if they did, No. 1614 of 30th November 1942. we are advised that our legal position appears unassailable.
5. As regards paragraph 5 of your letter, we have already written to you, pointing out that the Chinese have never admitted that their jurisdictio n We over the "Walled City" had lapsed at any time. would not ourselves attach much importance to the former Minister for Foreign Affairs having admitted assent in 1937 to the proposition that the evictions then in progress were not worth a major dispute. In any event, the point does not, I
1
131
53821142
Pt. I
(212)
think, have much relevance to the jurisdictional is sue.
60 شاه
I have already referred to Nanking telegram No. 276. You will also observe from it that the
11 official Ambassador still favours the plan for an compound" accompanied by a suitably worded statement. There may be something to be said for this if by "official compound" is meant "Consulate compound"
It might and if such a statement can be devised. be worth while asking the Ambassador to let us see a draft of the sort of statement he has in mind.
yours sincerel
A.L. Scot
In the absence of (P.W. Scarlett)