Office of the Historian

793.94/5127: Telegram

The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Acting Secretary of State

Shanghai, April 27, 1932—1 p.m.
[Received April 27—5:12 a.m.]

Your 153, April 25, 5 p.m., to Shanghai.

1.
I am preparing a letter to my Japanese colleague protesting against obstacles placed in the way of, or damage done to, American business interests located in Chapei and other areas now under temporary control of Japanese military where specific information is available.
2.
With reference to police protection of American property located in Chapei and adjacent Chinese territory, I have discussed matter with Cunningham and we find question one of great delicacy particularly in view of the fact that negotiations now progressing contemplate withdrawal of Japanese military into Settlement area and municipal and extra-Settlement roads adjacent to Hongkew and returning previously occupied area to jurisdiction of Chinese police. We agree that it would be dangerous for us to request the Japanese to afford police [Page 726] protection to American interests in areas mentioned lest such a request be used by the Japanese as justification for continued stationing of Japanese military in those areas.
3.
We believe that question should be limited somewhat along the following lines. I will communicate with Japanese Minister calling attention to the fact that American interests have considerable funds invested in property and business in certain designated areas (without mentioning control there) and stating that these interests have complained to us that the activities of the Japanese military in those areas have prevented functioning of the Chinese police administration hitherto affording protection against bad characters and that we must therefore hold the Japanese Government responsible for any damage that may be done to American property in those areas due to the interference by the Japanese military with the functioning of the Chinese police. This attitude would seem to be consistent with our policy in regard to the whole question and places on record our understanding that appropriate and legitimate authority in those areas are in Chinese hands and that we are holding the Japanese responsible for damage and obstruction due to the fact that they have interrupted that authority.
4.
Referring to the third paragraph of the Department’s 153, April 25, 5 p.m., the Consul General and I are of the opinion that it would be desirable to include the clause suggested in Cunningham’s telegram 100 of February 23, 3 p.m.
5.
I discussed with my British colleague the question of responsibility for damages and he informs me that he has referred the matter to his Government and has asked that the legal department of the Foreign Office advise him as to the general policy which should guide him in determining what claims should be presented and to whom. I think it would be helpful if the Department could give me instructions along similar lines for my guidance in answering questions here.
Johnson