893.00 Nanking/86: Telegram
The Consul General at Hankow (Lockhart) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 16—1:40 p.m.]
American Legation, Peking; American consul general, Shanghai; and information commander in chief, Asiatic Fleet.
Number 19 to Legation: 15th, 11 a.m.
1. [Ch’en’s] reply to Japan included the two following paragraphs which are not included in the American reply:
“As it is hardly creditable [credible] that the Japanese Government can, at the outset, desire a settlement of the Nanking incident other than through one of the means known to international law for the amicable settlement of state differences, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has to point out that the Japanese Government has not previously communicated with him on the subject and that, therefore, he must read the note under reply as initiating diplomatic negotiations for the prompt and friendly settlement of whatever grievance[s] and losses may have been sustained by Japanese nationals as a result of disturbance[s] at Nanking on March 24th last.
Relying on Japanese comprehension of [the historical] forces which today are operating in China just as similar forces operated in Japan within the past half century and emancipated her from the services [servitudes] of unequal treaties, the Minister for Foreign Affairs indulges in the hope that the Japanese Government, in their own final [vital] interest[s], will refrain from taking part in any active [action or] measure in the present situation calculated to interfere with the extension of Nationalist authority and power and the early unification of the whole of China under the Nationalist Government.”
2. The following paragraph American note is quoted for [omitted from?] Japanese reply:
“As the laws of nations and the recognized practice of civilized states prohibit the bombardment of a city on the territory of a friendly state, the Nationalist Government propose that the commission of inquiry shall also investigate the circumstances of the bombardment of the unfortified city of Nanking by the naval forces of the United States on March 24th last.”
3. In the reply to France and Italy the two paragraphs quoted above from the Japanese note were omitted, but in the reply to France the following paragraph appears:
“As the laws of nations and the recognized practice of civilized states prohibit the massacre of the citizens of a friendly state, the Nationalist’s Government propose that the said international commission of inquiry shall investigate the circumstances of the outrage of the Shameen on June 23, 192559 when the armed forces of the French Government joined British armed machines in killing and wounding Chinese students and workers.”
4. The reply to the Italian note substantially identical to that of Japanese except the two paragraphs first quoted in this message.
5. A copy of the British note was telegraphed to the British Legation yesterday afternoon.
Ch’en’s note has not been well received by the Chinese community here. It is regarded as evasive and paving the way for prolonged discussion of the gandiwak [sic] and attempted to shift the responsibility. While the tone is more moderate than was generally expected, his attempt to play off the friendly gesture towards Japan is so typical of the present regime that it was not surprising. To sum up, foreigners in general regard the note as unresponsive and unsatisfactory.