[Enclosure]
Memorandum of the Consul General at
Tientsin (Heintzleman)
Tientsin, November 6,
1919.
The Japanese Consul General called November 6, 1919. He stated he had
a telegram from the Foreign Office regarding the terms of settlement
of the incident between Japanese and American soldiers at Tientsin
in March last.
(Note. On October 14, 1919, at the conclusion of a conversation
during a call by Mr. Funatsu on the subject of the alleged
activities of the American Methodist Mission and the “I Shih
Pao” in the anti-Japanese movement, I handed him copy of a
letter of October 13, 1919, by Colonel Smart containing a report
by the surgeon of the United States China Expedition on the
physical condition of Corporal Rohner at the time of the
latter’s departure for Manila in June last. Mr. Funatsu was
interested in Dr. Guthrie’s statement that Rohner was gradually
improving and that complete recovery from his wounds was not
impossible. Mr. Funatsu said he would send the report to Tokyo;
he thought that if Corporal Rohner should recover it would
affect the American claim for solatium, a difficult point of
controversy in connection with the adjustment of the
incident.
Mr. Funatsu stated that another unsettled point was the American
request that Mr. C. Kaneko, the Japanese Police Inspector, who
made
[Page 439]
false statements
to me on the night of the trouble, should receive some form of
censure, and that in this connection he could inform me that Mr.
Kaneko had recently been transferred from Tientsin to the
Chientao region on the Korea-Manchuria frontier. Mr. Funatsu
added that he was willing to telegraph his Government
recommending that he be authorized to state that the transfer
was “not unrelated” to the incident of March last. Mr. Funatsu
hoped that these developments might open a way for a full
settlement of the case. Besides telegraphing to the Foreign
Office in the sense above indicated relative to Kaneko’s
transfer, Mr. Funatsu would request his Government not to press
for an admission on our part that American soldiers had entered
the Japanese Concession on the night of March 12th; on the other
hand, if the Japanese side would first yield these two points I
would be willing to recommend to the Department: (1) that, on
the basis of Dr. Guthrie’s statement, the question of a money
payment to Corporal Rohner be waived; and (2) that, on the
Japanese assertion that Kaneko’s transfer grew out of the
trouble, no further mention of his censure be made. I assured
Mr. Funatsu of my willingness to do everything possible to
assist in reaching a mutually satisfactory settlement, and added
that if, after conferring with the Foreign Office, he proposed
terms looking toward adjustment that were such as to lead me to
believe that there was a likelihood of their being acceptable, I
would transmit them to the Department.)
Mr. Funatsu read to me “a free translation” of the telegram received
from the Foreign Office in reply to a message he had sent in line
with his statement to me of October 14th; the telegram as read to me
was in the following sense:
- (1)
- The transfer of Mr. Kaneko, the Police Inspector, to the
Chientao region was merely an act of administrative routine
and has no connection with the incident. However, the
Japanese Government is willing to admit that, though Mr.
Kaneko’s motives were good, he spoke “carelessly” to the
American Consul General and that his transfer was,
therefore, made in a desire to “facilitate a
settlement”.
- (2)
- The Japanese Government would not regard as adequate a
statement by the American authorities “admitting the possibility of American soldiers
having entered the Japanese Concession on the night of March
12th”. The Japanese Government would expect the American
authorities to acknowledge that American soldiers entered
the Japanese Concession on the night in question, and
publicly express regret at the wrongful acts they had
committed there. The entire Japanese case turns on this
point which can not be waived.
- (3)
- If the American authorities waive solatium for Corporal
Rohner, the Japanese authorities will refrain from asking
that their nationals be reimbursed for expenses incurred as
the result of injuries sustained at the hands of American
soldiers in the Japanese Concession.
I said I was sure the Department would not consent to consider these
terms; that they did not offer a solution or in any way advance
[Page 440]
a settlement; moreover, it
would be futile for me to write or telegraph to Washington
concerning these terms.
Mr. Funatsu then mentioned that the Embassy at Washington had
telegraphed recently that the Department was firm in its position in
this case and had again informed the Japanese Chargé d’Affaires that
the American authorities would not admit that American soldiers had
entered the Japanese Concession on the night of March 12th; also,
that the Japanese would be expected to make amends for the arrest
and detention of Corporal de Cordova on the last night of the
trouble.
Mr. Funatsu stated that he had called and explained his Government’s
position in the matter merely for my information; and that he shared
my view that it would probably serve no useful purpose to telegraph.
He added that he intended to let his case rest with his letter to me
of August 4, 1919,46
wherein he submitted evidence to prove conclusively that American
soldiers had entered the Japanese Concession on the night of March
12th and committed the assaults complained of by his nationals.
