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

893.5045/137: Telegram

The Minister in China (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State

Peking, July 20, 1925—midnight.
[Received July 21—6:44 a.m.]

282. Your telegram number 159, July 18, 4 p.m., concluding paragraph.

1. Shanghai Municipal Council has never actually proposed to the interested Legations to hold judicial inquiry. It has all along been dissatisfied, however, with the sending of the commission of diplomatic secretaries which investigated in behalf of the interested Legations; and in order to discredit the conclusions based thereon, certain members and adherents of the Council have instigated a vigorous agitation in the press to the effect that Council had been unfairly treated in having criticism of its action, based upon administrative rather than judicial inquiry. The suggestion most nearly approximated concrete form in an identic telegram of July 16, 5 p.m., in which American, British, and Japanese consuls advise their Legations (in connection with one of these incidental phases of the situation which I have not thought it worth while to take up with the Department by telegraph) that members of the Council had said they anticipated that Shanghai rate payers might pass resolution calling for judicial inquiry to be held on the understanding that the Council would abide by its findings.

2. It would seem that decision of heads of mission to act on the basis of report of the commission of secretaries was actuated by what at the time appeared to be the prospect that such treatment would most quickly and effectively tend to abate the antiforeign feeling aroused by the incident of May 30th. This expectation was disappointed by opposition on the part of the Council which was abetted by the British consul general and which has now received the support of the British Government in opposition to the recommendations of the British Chargé d’Affaires here. I make this comment on the failure of the method adopted by the heads of mission, not in criticism of their action (for my feeling is that had I been here I should probably have joined in their decisions), but in recognition of the fact that a new state of affairs has now been brought about which will necessitate something in the nature of a judicial inquiry in order alike to satisfy Chinese feeling and to avoid the perpetuation of such antagonism between the Shanghai community and the diplomatic representatives as would seriously handicap any negotiations for the settlement of the case.

3. Such an inquiry is likely to be opposed, however, by the Italian, French and Belgian Governments whose Ministers consider their prestige and amour propre compromised by any suggestion for reconsideration of the course hitherto pursued and who are disposed to disavow any responsibility in connection with the Shanghai situation if unable to get their way in forcing a direct issue with the Municipal Council. Italian Minister in the meeting today went so far as to say that proposed judicial commission would in fact be a mere agency in behalf of the Governments whose nationals participate in the Shanghai Municipal Council and that he had already advised his Government to withdraw its small naval expedition if Shanghai should so be treated as not in fact an international settlement.

4. In the present querulous temper of the diplomatic body, I am doubtful whether any progress towards settlement can be made except by agreement among the American, British and Japanese Governments in the hope that other Governments, from a viewpoint more dispassionate than other [that?] of their representatives here, will be persuaded to associate themselves with the initiative thus taken by the powers actually most interested in the Shanghai International Settlement.

5. For the reasons indicated, I recommend that our Government accede to the British proposal with a qualification that the commission of inquiry should include a Chinese jurist of high standing. The holding of an inquiry without a Chinese member, or at any rate an offer to admit a Chinese to participate would, I feel sure, have an adverse effect upon Chinese opinion but I believe that to hold a judicial investigation in which Chinese had the opportunity to be represented would be a conciliatory gesture which would favorably influence Chinese sentiment and react advantageously upon our relations.

6. If such an inquiry were to be held without delay, I do not see how it would interfere with plans for Special Conference or Commission on Extraterritoriality. If the inquiry were to coincide with these, it might indeed tend to create a situation tactically disadvantageous for the negotiation of tariff and extraterritorial questions in that we would be compelled to deal with these matters of principle while occupying a defensive position in regard to concrete issues arising out of Shanghai incident. This, however, seems to me preferable to having to negotiate in the atmosphere of distrust which would persist if we were to have taken no adequate measures for the purpose of reaching an adjustment of the Shanghai affair.

7. Should it be decided to have a judicial inquiry, it may be questioned whether we ought not to be represented on it by a judicial officer not connected with Shanghai. In common with what I believe is the general opinion, I have the highest possible regard for Judge Purdy’s integrity and personal suitability and would have absolute confidence in his fairness.¹² Chinese opinion, however, is unaccustomed to the conception of judicial impartiality and would almost inevitably assume that no foreign official resident in Shanghai would be able to dissociate himself from the interests and prejudices of the foreign community there. Although I have not consulted Judge Purdy, I have reason to believe that he himself would prefer not to serve on such an inquiry. I would therefore suggest that consideration be given to the possibility of detailing a judge from the Philippines.

MacMurray

12. Milton Dwight Purdy, Judge of the United States Court in China.