394.1153/7: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland (Harrison) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 10—11:55 p.m.]
4603. American interests—China. Legation’s 2492, June 5th, Department’s 1833, July 23rd. Swiss Consulate General, Shanghai, telegraphs October 6th:
“American Association desires obtain exact instructions regarding type documents and financial statements to be conserved on which American companies can base post-war claims for damages sustained.
To assist Department formulating reply Swiss Consulate General gives following summary action taken by Japanese authorities against enemy property.
- 1.
- Small enterprises and stores: Can continue business freely.
- 2.
- Banks and insurance companies: Japanese authorities ordered forced liquidation, appointed liquidators Japanese nationality.
- 3.
- Other important societies: Japanese administrators placed in charge by Japanese military authorities and report regarding administration to army, navy or police. In general lucrative enterprises continued while others liquidated. Part English and American personnel requested assist liquidation. [In] many cases managers discharged.
- 4.
- Steamship transport companies, warehouses, fuel depots, port equipment, breweries, et cetera: Already confiscated by Japanese military authorities. Owners and persons interested refused rights control and participation carrying on business.
- 5.
- Real estate: Companies recently received instructions from Japanese authorities cancel leases enemy citizens to lease to Japanese civilians. Result increasingly difficult Americans find quarters.
Japanese administrators and liquidators received full authority act. Most cases proprietors or representatives sequestrated companies have access archives, able prepare balance sheets and inventories. Japanese authorities often confiscated property without military value and generally without receipts or receipts without indication quantity value merchandise sequestrated.
Situation other parts occupied China similar or less favorable for enemy companies.
In general military authorities taken possession evacuees’ property left behind.
[Page 1083]On basis instructions (Department’s 1833, July 23) and provisions Fourth Hague Convention 19072 Swiss Consulate General protested to Japanese Consulate General, Shanghai, acts against private enemy property. Japanese Consul General3 replied as Anglo-Saxon powers do not observe provisions Hague Convention Japanese authorities do not consider themselves bound by provisions either. Japanese Consul General stated in particular ‘Trading with the Enemy Act’4 in conflict with Fourth Hague Convention and Japanese private property Hong Kong, Malaya, Philippines and Netherlands India was not respected.
Swiss Consul General5 received assurance measures taken against enemy property carried out with every possible care, but Swiss Consul General has some doubts as organization measures taken against enemy property seems insufficient and various military authorities act independently. According information from Japanese Consulate General, Shanghai, regulations regarding administration enemy property in preparation.”