that, as he understood it, the concluding paragraph of Article I of the resolution was intended to protect the particular commercial, industrial, or financial undertakings which might be prosecuted consistently with the maintenance of the general principle which was stated in paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (b) referred to such undertakings which, by reason of their scope, duration, or geographical extent, were calculated to frustrate the practical application of the principles of equal opportunity.

As he had explained the day before, they were dealing with the open door, an avenue to opportunity, an avenue to legitimate enterprise and not with obstacles to legitimate enterprise; and all that was embraced in the various undertakings which, to the extent of the particular right essential to their prosecution, of course monopolized a special line of endeavor in a concrete or particular case, were amply protected by the last clause of the first article. The purpose was, however, to safeguard the principle, so that under the guise of particular undertakings there should not be any assertion of a general superiority of right or a monopoly or preference which would be in conflict with the principles to which the powers represented on the committee adhered.

Regarding the scope of the Open Door as defined in the Resolution, Sir Auckland Geddes, in the twentieth meeting of the Committee, said that he thought it desirable to have it specifically stated that the activities of such a body as the International Consortium would not be excluded, and, therefore, he asked to have recorded in the minutes the following statement:

Of course it is clearly understood that there is nothing in this Resolution which affects, one way or the other, the existing International Consortium or any other form of voluntary cooperation among private financial or industrial groups of different countries which may join together in a manner not involving monopoly or infringement of the principles recognized by the Conference in order to furnish China with some essential service most efficiently and economically to be provided by united effort.

Secretary Hughes said that this statement was in full accord with the views which the American Delegation entertained: "The Resolution was not in any way intended to interfere with the operation of the Consortium, which in its provisions for cooperative effort would not in any way infringe the principles adopted by the Conference."

Reverting to the provisions of Section IV of the Resolution, Baron Shidehara, at the twentieth meeting of the Committee, raised the point that the Open Door was not a new doctrine; that it had been previously adopted and confirmed in various treaties and arrangements, but, since its original statement by Secretary of State Hay in 1899, it had undergone considerable changes in its application. He continued:

It was then limited in its scope, both as concerning its subject matter and the area of Chinese territory to which it applied; it simply provided, in substance, that none of the powers having spheres of influence or leased territories in China should interfere with treaty ports or with vested rights or exercise any discrimination in the collection of customs duties or railroad or harbor charges. The principles formulated in the draft resolution was (sic) of an entirely different scope from the policy of " the open door " as conceived in 1898-99; the draft resolution gave, in a certain sense, a new definition to that policy. It seemed natural, therefore, that this new definition should not have any retroactive force.

Baron Shidehara therefore suggested that Section IV of the Resolution should be changed so as to read as follows:

IV. The powers, including China, represented at this conference agree that if any provisions of a concession which may hereafter be granted by China appear inconsistent with those of another conces

sion or with the principles of the above agreement or declaration they may be submitted by the parties concerned to the board of reference when established for the purpose of endeavoring to arrive at a satisfactory adjustment on equitable terms.

This led Secretary Hughes to present to the Committee a number of international documents including the Hay correspondence of 1899 and the RootTakahira exchange of notes in 1908, in which the Open Door doctrine had found statement and application.

"In the light of these reiterated statements which could hardly be regarded as ambiguous," Secretary Hughes said that he "could not assume that the statement of principles recorded in the Resolution before the Committee was a new statement. He regarded it as a more definite and precise statement of the principle that had long been admitted, and to which the Powers concerned had given their unqualified adherence for twenty years."

Board of Reference. In the discussion which followed, it appeared that, especially as voiced by M. Sarraut, of the French Delegation, there was objection upon the part of some of the Powers to Section IV which provided that already existing concessions might be referred to the Board of Reference with a view to determining whether they were consistent with other concessions or with the principle of the Open Door as defined in the Resolution.

99

Baron de Cartier expressed the opinion that the reference in Section I to "provincial governments might possibly be taken as a reflection upon the completeness of the authority of the central Government

of China, and the term " local authorities was substituted.

Regarding the Board of Reference provided for by Section III of the draft resolution presented by him to the Committee on January 17, Secretary Hughes said that" it did not constitute a board with authority to decide; it did not establish any instrumentality with anything in the nature of powers, the exercise of which would be in derogation of the sovereignty or the freedom of any State; but it did provide machinery for the examination of facts or, as the resolution said, for investigation and report."

At the twentieth meeting of the Committee, held January 18, Baron Shidehara raised the objection to the Board of Reference that it would be necessary for the Powers to appoint upon it their ablest jurists upon whose judgments the other interested Governments could rely, and that this would mean that these jurists would have to remain continuously and for an indefinite time in China. As a practical proposition, therefore, he queried whether the Governments would be willing to go to this expense, and whether they would be able to spare from their own countries such able and first-rate men.

Responding to this, Sir Auckland Geddes said that what the British Empire Delegation had in mind for the Board was that it would not be necessary for the representatives of all the Powers to attend all the meetings of the Board, but that each Power should nominate a panel of jurists from which two, three, four, or whatever number desired, could be drawn as required, to constitute the Board for the considera

tion of any special case that might be brought before it.

Secretary Hughes pointed out that the Resolution provided that the detailed scheme for the constitution of the Board was to be framed by the Special Conference referred to in Section I of the Resolution, and that, no doubt, that Conference would give due consideration to the points raised by Sir Auckland and Baron Shidehara.

Sir Robert Borden said that he was not of opinion that the Board should be composed of jurists. Rather, he thought, it should be composed of persons having a knowledge of economic conditions, a knowledge of the conditions of China and the trade of China. Sir Robert Borden observed that the principal difficulty in connection with the proposed Resolution had reference to Section IV. He, however, was of opinion that the Powers concerned could act with equal effect if that Section were omitted altogether. "Under that Article," he said, "there could be no effective action except with the consent of the parties concerned. If the fourth article were omitted it would still be open to the Powers, if they saw fit, to give the like consent and to utilize for the determination or investigation of any relevant question the Board of Reference to be established under Article III."

It appearing that several of the other Delegations supported this proposition of Sir Robert Borden, Secretary Hughes said that, in view of this fact, and of the fact that Article III gave full opportunity for dealing with all matters which might appropriately