Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1925, Volume I

893.5045/118: Telegram

The Chargé in China (Mayer) to the Secretary of State

Peking, July 9, 1925—7 p.m.
[Received July 9—6:48 p.m.]

267. My telegram No. 264, July 6, noon.

1. Meeting of the Heads of Legation yesterday further to discuss the effect of British interposition in action proposed by the Heads of Legation respecting the Municipal Council. In this connection I understand the British Ambassador has communicated to you the desire of his Government. Senior minister informed colleagues that the senior consul had telegraphed that the conclusions of the Heads of Legation had been transmitted to the Municipal Council.

2. French Minister evinced considerable animus toward the British Government characterizing its action as a most regrettable interference with decisions of Heads of Legation and urged that, in view of the British action described in the telegram above mentioned and elaborated in further instructions to the British Chargé d’Affaires here, settlement of the Shanghai incident should be negotiated with the Chinese Government by the British Government alone. Several of the colleagues expressed agreement with the French Minister. Mr. MacMurray⁹ who was present at the meeting along with me expressed opinion that the other powers concerned in the Shanghai International Settlement could not abandon their rights and responsibilities by agreeing to negotiation of solution of matter by British Government alone. British Chargé d’Affaires did not seem quite to understand extreme seriousness of the trend of discussion. He stated believed action of his Government due to insistence of the British consul general at Shanghai backed by British community there and strength of mercantile interest both in China and Great Britain.

3. At this juncture I suggested a compromise which I hoped would be satisfactory to Heads of Legation, British Government and Municipal Council, to the effect that Municipal Council be informed that Heads of Legation would be willing to agree that they would not communicate their conclusions to Chinese Government or to press but would permit Municipal Council to take as on own initiative action envisaged by their conclusions, council to announce publicly that their action [was] taken after discussion with consular body at Shanghai and with approval of the representatives of the powers concerned at Peking. MacMurray developed this suggestion observing that the chairman of Municipal Council had given him to understand when in Shanghai that Municipal Council would find less difficulty in falling in with desires of Heads of Legation if not compelled to act under obvious pressure. MacMurray further observed that from interviews with Chinese at Shanghai he had gained the impression that Chinese generally would be measurably appeased if Municipal Council would admit some responsibility for the events of May 30th.

4. At this stage of discussion Japanese Minister stated he was informed from Shanghai that Municipal Council intended to resist conclusions of Heads of Legation and French Minister insisted upon the necessity of determining fundamental issue—whether Heads of Legation have or have not power to control action of Municipal Council and in the last resort dismiss it and substitute an administration of the Settlement by the consuls. Both MacMurray and I expressed considerable doubt whether Heads of Legation were legally competent to dismiss Municipal Council. French Minister then proposed identic telegrams to our respective Governments asking for instructions, assuring us of the confidence of our Governments in respect to our attitude in Shanghai incident and our right to dissolve Municipal Council and institute other administrative organ in Shanghai. Both MacMurray and I considered such identic telegrams would be unfortunate as it was in a deplorable belligerent spirit and definitely raised hypothetical question which MacMurray felt Department of State would either be loath to answer or would answer in the negative, thereby preventing us from associating ourselves with our colleagues in any action which Heads of Legation might all believe indicated by resistance on the part of Municipal Council.

5. A long discussion then ensued in which MacMurray supported by Danish colleague expressed the hope that all possibilities of amicable solution between Municipal Council and Heads of Legation should be explored before taking any step which would precipitate issue on the question of control over the Settlement. An impasse appeared to be reached and rather delicate situation arrived at by insistence of French Minister that identic telegrams either should be sent or if no unanimity on the subject the various interested diplomatic representatives would be left to individual action thus breaking up the solidarity heretofore existing among Heads of Legation.

6. At this point senior minister proposed that the representatives of powers having nationals on Municipal Council, namely, Great Britain, Japan and the United States, telegraph identically to their respective consul[s] general in Shanghai in the sense of my suggestion aforementioned. This proposal was adopted and, in the afternoon after consultation among British and Japanese Ministers, MacMurray and myself, identic telegrams were sent to Shanghai as authorized by Heads of Legation. I sent further telegram to Cunningham giving him background as herein described and urging him to use his best efforts to bring about a successful and amicable arrangement between Heads of Legation and Municipal Council in the manner suggested in the identic telegram. Continuation to follow.

Mayer

9. Newly appointed American Minister to China, who had not yet assumed charge of the Legation nor presented his credentials to the Chinese Government.