102.22/7–949: Telegram
The Consul General at Shanghai (Cabot) to the Secretary of State
[Received 7:04 p. m.]
2677. Consul McConaughy accompanied by interpreter Ernest Tung called Foreign Affairs Bureau July 8 to discuss siege of Consulate building July 6 [by] ex-Navy employees, maltreatment Vice Consul Olive [in] Wayside police station. He had appointment with Director Chang Han-fu who did not appear. Conversation held with Feng Chih-ho, second in command. Verbatim transcript in Chinese made by Communist steno. When McConaughy refused to accede to Feng request that he change designation on appointment slip from “American Consul” to “ex-American Consul”, mutually agreed to insert “American citizen” instead.
- 1.
- Siege of Consulate building. McConaughy outlined facts ten and Half hour siege Glenline building afternoon and evening July 6, stressing lawlessness and irresponsibility action taken by mob; seven and half hour delay of police in taking action notwithstanding repeated phone appeals to both FAB and police officials from 2 p. m.; denial of freedom movement Consular staff which was confined without benefit of suitable eating or sleeping facilities until after midnight.
Feng objected to use of term “mob”, actively defending ex-Navy employees. McConaughy pointed out that group used physical force and intimidation to prevent staff from opening Consulate gate; trespassed on Consular premises by forcing way over adjoining roof and wall; stationed lookouts at top barbed wire fence to threaten staff members who might endeavor to leave by adjoining British compound; and were raining blows on back door Consulate General in effort to break it down when police finally arrived. This corresponded to general conception of what constituted a mob.
Feng argued Consulate General erred in not admitting entire throng of demonstrators to Consulate General “for negotiation”. He said when we barred our doors against them it amounted to refusal to bargain and put Consulate General entirely in wrong. McConaughy said we had refused and would continue refuse negotiate under duress. [Page 1215] Even though Consulate General was not party to dispute between workers and US Navy and could only act as channel transmission it had never refused discuss issue in orderly way with small group representing workers. Consulate General was still ready talk at any time with appropriate group if no coercive tactics applied. In fact at that moment Mr. Thomas was discussing case in another room this building.
Feng said even though former Consulate General had acted mistakenly police would have come promptly to investigate case in response our appeal had it not been for holiday parades afternoon and evening July 6 which interfered with normal police activity. McConaughy said obligation on authorities to maintain law and order continued on holidays same as working days.
Feng said action of workers did not infringe law or order. McConaughy asked if authorities proposed give workers free hand when disputes not settled to workers’ full satisfaction. Feng dodged this query, saying crux of matter was mere question final wage settlement susceptible of immediate settlement without raising any larger issues of protection rights. McConaughy said in his view issue was extent to which authorities would permit workers use violence satisfy their demands. He insisted on reply, saying that Consulate General was entitled to know whether it was exposed to possible renewal of siege so that plans could be made accordingly. Feng said he could not give any assurances workers would be prevented by authorities from renewing siege if we failed to reach settlement with them. There would be no excuse for failure to reach solution and People’s Government would not assume responsibility for consequences. McConaughy mentioned his belief that such a stand would have serious and far-reaching consequences for American interests in China and inquired if Feng’s position had sanction of principal Communist authorities. Feng replied somewhat obliquely stating Mao Tse-tung never intended first part of his 8 point re protection of law-abiding foreigners to apply to foreigners whose actions were not in harmony with interests of people. Implication seemed to be that since legal codes have been abolished term “law-abiding” is to be construed very loosely and that any person or firm not complying completely with wishes of new regime would be deprived of right to protection.
Throughout interview Feng endeavored to turn discussion to merits of wage dispute while McConaughy persistently brought conversation around to right of Americans to official protection from mob violence and threats of mob violence. McConaughy said he was not there to discuss pros and cons of dispute which were receiving careful and sympathetic attention in Navy Department which would make reasonable offer as soon as payroll records now dispersed could be assembled. He reiterated that regardless of merits of case we took emphatic exception to workers’ action and police indifference thereto. Feng said [Page 1216] workers had a good ease, workers had been terminated very suddenly and were entitled consideration. McConaughy said we were sympathetic to economic plight of workers who are still without employment but he did not suppose Mr. Feng was intimating that US Navy had left too soon or should give them renewed employment.
McConaughy said he thought Communist position was lacking in logic. If Communists acknowledge our official position as they seemed to do by holding us responsible for claims against a US Government agency we were entitled under universally accepted international usage to protection as an agency of US Government; if on other hand Communist maintained we were only “former” Consular officers and were now merely private citizens we could not be held responsible as private citizens for claims against US Government. Furthermore if Mr. Feng persisted in alleging it was the “former US Government” which was involved (a phrase he had used several times) how could he maintain that claims could be enforced against a government not in existence hi Communist view? Although Feng showed considerable mental agility throughout interview he stumbled on this one and said “former US Government still exists”. When this evoked a laugh he covered up by saying while the “former” American Consular officers here were merely private citizens now they could not escape responsibilities which they inherited from period when they were duly recognized by Kmt Government.
McConaughy ended discussion of this subject by asking it be put on record Consulate General would call on authorities to disperse demonstrators if they should again lay siege to Consulate building and would expect effective action to be taken. Present regime would be responsible for any failure to fulfill its minimum protective obligations.
Feng felt he must have last word; cautioned McConaughy he was only private citizen and could not speak for any “former Consulate General” or “any unrecognized government”; furthermore possibility of renewal of siege was purely hypothetical.
Separate telegram re maltreatment Vice Consul Olive follows.7
Department’s discretion pass excerpts Peiping.8
Sent Department 2677; repeated Nanking 1496.