393.115/12–2745: Telegram
The Chargé in China (Robertson) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 27—11:21 a.m.]
2226. Taking over by Chinese authorities of Japanese stocks and equipment located on premises of American firms in Tientsin has raised question whether all such property can be legitimately regarded as Chinese war booty or whether American owner of premises where it is located may not be entitled to claim all or part as compensation for losses and damage occasioned by Japanese. Some of the goods in question are similar to those used in ordinary business of American firm and might be considered as replacing stocks taken over by Japanese while others are entirely different. In some cases stocks and equipment are owned by Japanese or puppet Govts and in other cases by private Japanese.
[Page 1422]Embassy “would appreciate Dept’s instructions as to extent it should support claims of American firms to various categories of Japanese goods mentioned above which may be located on their premises. Informal understanding has been reached with Foreign Office providing that Japanese goods located on premises of American firms will be turned over to American owner whenever they are similar to those used in firm’s ordinary business (Embtel 1950, November 9), dissimilar goods being treated as Chinese war booty. In discussions leading to this understanding no distinction was made between Japanese public and private property.