Sessional_Paper_1926 — Page 101

97

No. 10.

THIRD CHINESE COMMUNIQUÉ

(EXTRACTED FROM THE CANTON GAZETTE OF TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY, 1926.)

Canton July 23.-The Conference resumed this morning at 10.30 a.m. when the British delegation read the following statement :—

L

The British delegation do not propose to prepare any written reply to the state- ment read on behalf of the Chinese delegation at the meeting on the 21st July. They refrain from doing so because they feel that it would involve further historical discussion which would at the present stage serve no useful purpose. They prefer to discuss verbally any actual proposals for the settlement of the boycott.

The Chinese delegation also read the following statement, elaborating their pro- posal for a Court or a Commission of Enquiry which was made at the last meeting on July 21:~

"The Chinese and the British delegation have, in their respective statements, de- fined the anti-British boycott issue in terms which now necessitate resort to an impartial Commission of Enquiry for its settlement. The Chinese delegation formally propose that

"(a) such a Commission of Enquiry be constituted,

"(b) the Commission is to be made up of a Chinese and a British member with a Chairman to be agreed upon, whose country is not directly involved in the dispute,

<<

(c) the Commission shall be empowered to determine the question of respon- sibility for the Shameen-Shakee shooting on June 23, 1925 and to make recommendations for the complete and final settlement of the resulting anti-British boycott in the Liang- Kuang,

"(d) the Nationalist Government and the British (including the Hongkong) Govern- ment agree to be bound by the findings of the Commission and to carry out and enforce any and all recommendations made by it,

"(e) the Commission is to be opened at the earliest possible date and

"(f) in order to meet possible difficulties of the British in the case of witnesses who have already made written statements to them on the case and who are dead or cannot be traced or otherwise cannot attend before the Commission, such statements can be sub- mitted at the enquiry."

The British delegation raised the question of including the French in the Enquiry on the ground that it was impossible to exclude them since they took part in the shooting of June 23, 1925. The Chinese delegation replied that the question of French participation in the shooting was a Chinese-French issue which they preferred to keep separate from and not to join it with the question of British responsibility in the matter; but if the British in- sisted, the Chinese delegation had no objection to the inclusion or participation of the French in the Enquiry. In this case the British would have to take the necessary steps to secure the consent of the French to their participation in the proposed Enquiry. The Bri- tish delegation contended that such consent should be secured by the Chinese, but the Chinese delegation declined to accept this responsibility.

Besides raising other points (which the Chinese delegation replied to), the British. delegation inquired whether, pending the holding of the Enquiry, the anti-British boycott was to continue. As the boycott is an organised patriotic movement which no exercise or application of mere force could successfully and finally terminate even if the Nationalist Government were to attempt its forcible suppression in total disregard of all vital nation- alist interests, the Chinese delegation therefore replied that the continuance of the anti- British boycott was inevitable in the circumstances arising from the British delegation's rejection of the Chinese proposal for a sharing of the burden involved in an immediate resumption of normal relations between the British and the Chinese people in the Liang- Kuang,