Moreover, the cemetery of the Rue-aux-Belles was officially closed on January 1, 1793, less than six months after the death of Paul Jones; and on the 3d day of Thermidor, Year IV, it was sold as national property and was deeded to Monsieur Phalipeaux. Some time afterwards a night-soil remover named Sage established himself on the premises, and in order to facilitate the entrance of his carts he raised the level of the garden to the level of the courtyard. Later the estate was divided into two lots as they exist to-day. The first lot (41 and 43 Rue Grange-aux-Belles) covers the area of the garden. It measures 38 meters by 40. The second lot (45 and 47 of the same street, and 1 Rue des Ecluses St. Martin) occupies the area of the former courtyard, and measures 26 meters by 40. The total area of the premises (2,560 meters square) still belongs to the Sage family, but the buildings numbered 41 and 43 are the property of M. Bassigny. Number 41 is composed of two stories; number 43 is composed of a large paved courtyard in which is a shed and a storage for grains and hay, under which is an excavation large enough to hold the boiler that formerly stood there, and of a small garden and dwelling of light construction. Number 45 contains a laundry, the floor of which is cement, and comprises drains for conducting water into the street. This laundry is built without foundations. As to excavations, there is the place for the boiler already mentioned, and a cellar that has the appearance of being very old. At number 47 is found on the side of the Rue Grange-aux-Belles a house of three stories, and adjoining the Rue des Ecluses St. Martin is a cheap construction with no upper stories and in a dilapidated condition. The remainder of the area is represented by a courtyard and several unimportant buildings.

It results from this sale and the almost immediate occupancy of the site, that the naval hero of the war of American independence has never been exhumed. Since the Protestant Cemetery was closed in 1804 there does not exist in Paris any other cemetery whither his remains could have been decently transferred. It has been seen that his remains are not in Pere Lachaise. Neither are they in other cemeteries since created, consequently they must be in the site adjoining the Rue-aux-Belles. Is there a reasonable chance of recovering his bones? If he was buried in a wooden coffin there may be only found some unrecognizable fragments; if the body was encased in a leaden coffin there is no doubt but what his remains can be identified. But was this done? Mr. Gouverneur Morris, the United States minister in Paris at the time of the decease of Paul Jones, mentions in his diary that the funeral was a very modest one. May not the word "modest" refer to the material supplied for the burial, for it is known by the official register that a brilliant assemblage attended the funeral.

In any event, even if his bones can not be identified, it is nevertheless absolutely certain that he is there, and that the acquisition of the site of the former cemetery could be made under advantageous circumstances. A square might be made bearing the the name Commodore Paul Jones, upon which a monument might be appropriately erected to his memory and without prejudice to any excavations that might be hereafter deemed advisable.

All the above information is based upon documents consulted in various archives, or taken from plans. No statement has been made that is not supported by documentary proof that in each case can be produced if needed.

EXTENSION OF FRENCH SETTLEMENT AT SHANGHAI.1

Mr. Cambon to Mr. Hay.

[Translation.]

FRENCH EMBASSY, Washington, March 29, 1899.

MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: As you are aware, the French concession and the international concession, better known under the name of "the foreign settlement," in which the American concession had been merged for some years past, were organized at Shanghai more than forty years ago, in execution of the treaties concluded at the

1See also "Extension of Foreign Settlement at Shanghai (China), p. 143.

time when certain Chinese ports were opened to international commerce. These concessions adjoin each other, and extend in an easterly direction along the Wampoa. Their enlargement, which is rendered necessary by the increase of the European population, which is now crowded within the boundaries originally established, has been since 1896 the object of an agreement between the foreign consuls at Shanghai, and in that year a systematic plan for the enlargement of the French concession and the foreign settlement was decided upon, with a due regard to their common interests and to their particular needs. This plan fixed especially the directions in which the two concessions should be extended.

The representatives of the powers at Pekin, after approving the plan, presented to the Chinese Government a joint request for an enlargement of the two concessions at Shanghai, on the basis thus settled by the consuls. The tsungli yamen replied that the request could not be entertained, but the diplomatic corps persisted, and reserved the right to again insist upon its request whenever circumstances should appear favorable.

Such has been the state of this matter up to the present time.

My Government has just been informed that steps authorized by the diplomatic agents of Great Britain and the United States at Pekin are now being taken by the English and American consuls at Shanghai, near the Chinese authorities of the port, with a view to obtaining an enlargement of the foreign settlement. These agents are said to have asked especially that two quarters on the west and southwest of the French concession on the left bank of the Wampoa, which were designated in the common plan of 1896 as to be eventually joined to our concession, be added to the international concession.

If this portion of the requests of the English and American consuls should be favorably entertained by the Chinese authorities our concession would be inclosed on three sides by the foreign settlement, and would thus be rendered incapable of subsequent enlargement, as its fourth boundary is the Wampoa. The injury which would result to our interests from this breach of the agreement made in 1896 would render it necessary for my Government, against its will and to its deep regret, to oppose China's giving satisfaction on these points to the agents of the United States and Great Britain. If those agents think that by opening separate negotiations with the Chinese authorities. they have a prospect of obtaining an enlargement of the foreign settlement my Government will be pleased with their success, but it desires, and the Federal Government will doubtless admit that it is expedient, that their requests should not include lands or quarters previously designated as to be claimed for the enlargement of the French concession.

I would, therefore, be very much obliged to you, Mr. Secretary of State, if you would have the kindness to instruct the American agents at Pekin and Shanghai not to deviate from the agreement made in 1896, so far as relates to the directions in which the enlargement of the foreign settlement is to be made, and which are designated in the plan adopted in common by the consular corps at Shanghai. It is needless to say that my Government is ready to instruct the minister of the Republic at Pekin to come to an agreement with his colleagues to act again, by means of an identical note, near the tsungli yamen, for the purpose of procuring its consent to the requests for an enlargement of

the international and French concessions, which were presented to it in 1896.

Without dwelling upon the friendly spirit in which the present step is taken, and with the conviction that you will admit that the request of my Government is based upon equitable considerations, which appear to have been lost sight of at Shanghai,

I beg you to accept, etc.,

JULES CAMBON.

No. 200.]

Mr. Hay to Mr. Cambon.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, April 20, 1899.

EXCELLENCY: I have given, with all the urgency permitted by the pressing cares of my office, careful consideration to your note of March 29 in relation to the extension of the French concession and the foreign settlement at Shanghai.

From the correspondence on file in this Department it is found that the understanding reached in 1896, to which you refer, took the form of a request addressed to the yamen by Mr. Denby, as dean of the diplomatic corps for a simultaneous extension of the Anglo-American and French settlement at Shanghai. To this request the yamen repliedunfavorably on the ground that the proposed extensions, as shown by the maps transmitted to the yamen, would cover a very large area of territory. Mr. Denby's reply, as dean, acknowledged the Chinese answer and gave notice that the subject would be again presented by the foreign representatives, either collectively or individually. Thereafter the diplomatic corps appear to have left the whole matter to the consuls at Shanghai for, under date of December 8, 1897, Mr. Denby reported having written a letter to the senior (German) consul at Shanghai informing him that before any diplomatic action could be taken "a very serious effort should be made by the foreign consuls to procure the consent of the local authorities.'

From the foregoing it appears that the several foreign interests at Shanghai in the matter of territorial settlements were deemed to be so far conjoint that extension in the several and general interests of the concessionaries was to be treated as a measure of common interest by concerted action, if possible.

Subsequently, in December last, Mr. Conger reported that a separate application had been made for the extension of the French settlement against which the other powers protested and asked for instructions, he having already remonstrated against any extension "which will bring American-owned property under the jurisdiction of any single foreign power." The Department approved his remonstrance to this

extent.

The justice of this ground of remonstrance appears to have been admitted by the French consul who offered, in writing, to provide that the rights to trial in the American court and of registry of land in the American consulate would be respected should the proposed French extension embrace American property or interests; but it does not appear that he was authorized by his Government to make this offer, and it has not been renewed so far as I am advised.

Under date of January 8 the United States consul-general at Shanghai reported that the Chinese Government offered to grant a settlement open to all nations in common, and that the consuls of Great Britain and Germany were acting in favor of such general extension "for the residence of all foreigners."

So far as appears this Government has not specifically approved the movement made at Shanghai early last winter for an extension of the specific Anglo-American concession. No maps or details showing the proposed extension have been sent hither. So far as this Government is able to understand the question from the limited information it now possesses it would be disposed to favor a general extension for the benefit of all the treaty powers, in which France and the United States would share on equal footing with the rest. It would seem from your note that the pending question of such a general extension had not been brought to your attention. Inasmuch as it implies an abandonment of the movements set on foot last winter for a specific Anglo-American extension, and substitutes a plan in the general interest of all foreigners for an extension of the "foreign settlement" as distinguishable from the French concession, the justice and equity of the latter proposal may well be open to consideration. As it now stands, I infer from the statements of your note that the only application for an extension now pending in behalf of any particular nation is that presented by France. Although the area over which any extension of foreign settlements may be effected is necessarily limited, and notwithstanding that the treaty powers who have heretofore obtained special settlements have consolidated them in one general foreign settlement under a general administration of all the foreign consuls, each of those powers would, as an abstract proposition, be entitled to an equivalent separate extension should any be demanded and granted in favor of France or any other single power. If this were done the geographical conditions of the locality would very soon hem in most of the concessions so that a limit would perforce be set to the extension of one or more national concessions by the accretion of contiguous territory. The alternative solution of the question would seem to involve some such joint agreement as that latterly proposed in the common interest of the treaty powers.

The United States Government, however, as I have already said, has not supported any application for a specific American extension and I may add that it has no desire to do so if the effect would be to prevent an equal privilege of extension in behalf of France or any other treaty

power.

The matter is, however, at present in such shape that I am unable to make a more definite response to your note without further information on the subject. I have accordingly called upon Minister Conger to report the situation fully to me, accompanied by maps and plans distinctly showing exactly what privileges are sought in behalf of France or in behalf of the proposed general foreign settlement, with a statement of what American interests if any are comprised within the territory which is proposed to be added to the French concession or to be the foreign settlement. I have also instructed Mr. Conger that, while reserving all rights of equality of treatment for the United States in whatever solution may be eventually arranged, any steps that he may adopt toward reaching such a solution shall be taken in a spirit of mutual consideration, giving to all ascertained foreign interests in

the premises the same respect as he shall ask for the interests of the United States.

Upon receiving Mr. Conger's report I hope to be in a position to give him definite instructions, the justice and considerateness of which will, I doubt not, fully commend themselves to your Government. Be pleased to accept, etc.,

JOHN HAY.

Mr. Hay to Mr. Cambon.

No. 226.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 12, 1899. EXCELLENCY: Referring to your note of March 29 last, and mine in reply of April 20, in relation to the question of the extension of the French concession and the general foreign settlement at Shanghai, I have the honor to inform you that the Government of the United States withdraws its opposition to the proposed extension of the French concession at Shanghai, upon the condition, however, that the French Government will guarantee to the United States full extraterritorial rights over any American-owned property which may be, at the date of this assent, situated in the territory that is to be added to the French concession, as well as over the American owners of such property.

Accept, etc.,

JOHN HAY.