FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1934, VOLUME III



House authorities, and, particularly, to Your Excellency's note of
December 20, 1933,56 concerning the Lungkow case of the Socony-
Vactium Corporation, in which it is stated:
  "With regard to the Rules of 1868, . . .5 the said Rules have been
repeatedly declared null and void, and reasons were given you on
November 11th. The Chinese Government certainly has legal basis
for what it insists on in this matter, and is positively unable to yield."
  In a conversation had by me on November 11, 1933, with the Politi-
cal Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs,58 the latter stated that the Chinese
Government consider the Rules of 1868 no longer in force as the
Sino-American Tariff Treaty of 1928 provides for complete national
tariff autonomy in relation to rates of duty, drawbacks, transit dues
and tonnage dues and "any related matters", it being asserted that
the expression "any related matters" extends to the Rules of .1868.
  In this connection I am impelled to invite Your Excellency's atten-
tion to the fact that the Sino-American Treaty of 1928 removed
the limitations established by prior treaties in regard to "rates of
duty on imports and exports of merchandise, drawbacks, transit dues
and tonnage dues in China", and recognized the principle of national
tariff autonomy subject to the condition that each of the High Con-
tracting Parties shall enjoy in the territories of the other "with respect
to the above specified and any related matters" treatment in no way
discriminatory as compared with the treatment accorded to any other
country.
  Applying the generally accepted rules of treaty interpretation, the
Treaty of 1928 cannot be interpreted in any way as implying the
relinquishment by the United States of its rights under the treaties
and related agreements with respect to jurisdiction over the property
of American nationals in China nor does the Treaty- confer on the
Maritime Customs Administration any greater authority over Ameri-
can nationals and their property than was exercised by that Adminis-
tration before the Treaty became effective.
  I am unable, therefore, to accept the interpretation of the 1928
Treaty advanced by Your Excellency's Ministry and, having been
instructed by my Government to insist that cases of confiscation in-
volving the property of American citizens seized by the Custom House
authorities shall be adjudicated under the Rules of 1868, as agreed
upon and accepted between the competent American and Chinese
representatives, I must again protest the refusal of the Chinese
Government to respect the Rules of 1868, and must reserve the rights

5Not printed.
7 Omission indicated in the original.
For memorandum of conversation, see Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. iII, p.
626.



582