893.0146/520: Telegram
The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
Peiping, October 2, 1936—1
p.m.
[Received October 3—10:40 p.m.]
[Received October 3—10:40 p.m.]
475. Reference Shanghai’s 374, September 11 to the Embassy concerning Shanghai Volunteer Corps, copies of which were mailed direct to the Department.89 Following is a brief summary of my instruction of October 1 to Gauss.
- 1.
- I agree that the Department will hardly wish to reply to the question concerning its attitude toward desire of the rate payers to curtail cost of present volunteer corps, as I feel that this is a matter for the decision of the rate payers themselves.
- 2.
- I am recommending to the Department that it may care to discuss the whole question of the International Settlement and its protection with the British Government with the idea of possible exchange of views with the French and Japanese Governments.
- 3.
- I agree that the Fourth United States Marines should be retained in Shanghai for such time as may be necessary for the protection of American life and property, but within such limits as responsible American naval authority may consider compatible with the military question involved and with a clear understanding on the part of the Settlement authorities that our Marines are in Shanghai for that purpose and not for the defense of the political and territorial integrity of the Settlement against armed attack from any quarter.
- 4.
- I agree as to the falsity of Fessenden’s90 assumption of the purpose [of] the Volunteer Corps and regarding purpose of the foreign powers, certainly the United States, in maintaining landing forces at Shanghai.
- 5.
- I consider that the whole purpose of the Volunteer Corps, which after all consists of the armed residents of the Settlement, is to supplement the efforts of the paid police force in cooperating with the sovereign authority (the Chinese Government) in maintaining peace and order in the Settlement.
- 6.
- With regard to the distinction between limited functional activities of the volunteers and police in comparison with those of a naval [Page 694] force, I feel that the question of the use of the American landing force at Shanghai to protect American citizens in their homes beyond the Settlement borders is a military question which I consider must be left to the senior American naval officer concerned. Fundamentally those Americans beyond the Settlement borders are living under Chinese police protection and, if that protection is withdrawn or fails, such Americans must choose whether they will remain at their own risk or withdraw into the area policed by the Settlement, for it is doubtful whether the allied armed forces would care to substitute themselves for the police power of the sovereign Government, and in case of direct attack it is believed that the military arm would not care to expose its limited force over a large area or by concentration at a point beyond protection of its ships.
Copies of my instruction to Gauss are being taken to Shanghai by courier today and will be mailed by first boat.92
Johnson