893.00 Nanking/82: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (MacMurray)
160. There is communicated to you below a brief summary of the more important part of the American press comment on the identic notes addressed to the Nationalist authorities concerning the Nanking outrages:
New York World, April 13, deplores united front on the Nanking incident and advocates reiteration of our willingness to negotiate new treaties; Philadelphia Public Ledger, 12th, approves absence of time limit in demands and states especially advantageous for United States to avoid definite commitments in China today; Baltimore Sun, 12th, states fortunately note was not ultimatum and questions whether we are not surrendering traditional independence of attitude in China adding it is not American destiny to side with either Russia or Great Britain against China; Washington Post, 12th, asserts American people will not be pleased with joint demands which constituted commitment by the American Government to join action against the Chinese if further violence occurs; St. Paul Pioneer Express [Press], 12th, regrets the United States did not play lone hand but glad present cooperation does not mean joint action later since the United States has kept free hand in matter of sanctions. This journal voices the rather widely held opinion that the Nanking incident was really trivial; Cleveland Plain Dealer, 12th, considers that now joint demands have been presented separate action is advisable for the United States which should do its own thinking (a commonly voiced opinion); Des Moines Register, 12th, warns that Nanking incident must not result in our being drawn into conflict for maintenance of British power in China; Boston Herald, 13th, insists demands not inconsistent with traditional American policy in China and points out our freedom of action preserved; Richmond Times-Dispatch, 13th, condemns demands which link the United States with questions of unity and sanctions; Buffalo Evening News, 12th, comments on fact that demands constitute recognition by the United States of two governments in China; Boston Transcript, 12th, points [Page 195] out that the United States is not necessarily committed to specific intervention because of the fact that this country suffered similarly to other powers and presented similar demands.
General tone of press approves action taken but indicates generally a feeling that in taking action this Government should act alone. It is believed here that any determination at this time to take drastic action against China would call forth from the press hostile criticism of the Government.