Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1927, Volume II

893.00 Nanking/202: Telegram

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

Peking, July 22, 1927—4 p.m.
[Received July 22—9:45 a.m.]

752. My telegram No. 715, July 10, noon.⁸⁰

1. Following is substance of a telegram from Shanghai in behalf of Cunningham and Davis:

“July 13, 5 p.m.

1. Quo Tai-chi called on me yesterday morning, with Davis present, under instructions from C. C. Wu to present for transmission to the American Government the terms on which the Nationalist Government were anxious to settle the Nanking incident. I informed him that, while not authorized to enter into negotiations, I would gladly forward any proposals he desired. He then read the following statement to my stenographer:

‘Basis for the settlement of the Nanking incident:

(1) The Nationalist Government of the Republic of China, after investigation of the Nanking incident, in spite of the fact that it was instigated by the Communists prior to the establishment of the Nationalist Government at Nanking, assumes responsibilities for the incident in accordance with the generally [accepted?] rules of international law.

(2) The Nationalist Government to furnish to the Government of the United States a detailed statement of the measures already taken against those implicated in the incident (the statement to be communicated unofficially in advance and accepted by the Government of the United States).

(3) An expression of profound regret in the note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and an express undertaking on the part of the Nationalist Government to prohibit Government officials from all forms of violence and agitation against American lives and property (copy of prohibition implementing the above declaration to be communicated unofficially in advance and accepted by the Government of the United States.)

(4) Upon the Nationalist Government accepting responsibility according to general rules of international law, a Sino-American joint commission will be instituted for the purpose of verifying the actual injuries and damage done to American lives and property by the Chinese concerned, and of assessing the amount of compensation due in each case.

(5) The note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Nationalist Government will refer to the bombardment of Nanking by American warships and the Nationalist Government expects that the American Government will express regret.

(6) Request of the Nationalist Government for the abrogation of existing treaties and the immediate conclusion of a new treaty on a basis of equality and mutual respect of territorial sovereignty.’

2. Quo made the following explanations: As to subparagraph 2, that the detailed statement referred to had already been prepared in Nanking and could probably soon be handed to me; as to subparagraph 4, that there would be no question of accepting responsibility and that the function of the commission would merely be a pro forma determination of amounts payable; as to subparagraph 5, that the British Minister had already agreed to receive this and that his reply would be to the effect that the British regretted a situation had arisen which made firing necessary.

3. Quo further stated (1) that subparagraphs 4 and 5 were inserted merely to placate Chinese public opinion and intimated that favorable answers were not expected; (2) that the terms offered represented the maximum which his Government could concede; and (3) that his Government was anxious to have the first settlement effected with the United States.

4. It is my opinion, in which Davis concurs, that informal conversations would possibly produce sufficient amendment of the proposals to make them reasonably satisfactory, as the Nanking Government is apparently eager for a settlement, and that it will be highly advisable to have all points clearly decided in detail prior to the acceptance of the proposed terms as I anticipate that once the proposals are accepted there will be much equivocation and evasion.

5. I consider it most important that prior to the acceptance of the proposals detailed and written promises be exacted [so] that when our flag is again raised it will be accorded full honors but without special Chinese guard.

6. I suggest that in case the proposed terms are rejected as inadequate Quo be so informed in order that he may not say, as he has been doing, that the next move is up to the American Government.”

2. I am replying to the following effect:

“[(1)] After a careful examination I feel that the terms upon which Nationalist Government is disposed to settle Nanking incident do not as they stand costitute an adequate basis of amends for the outrages.

(2) It is possible that further negotiations might produce more satisfactory terms in spite of all statements to the contrary especially as I understand confidentially from my British colleague that he has some reason to hope for better terms as a result of his conversation with Wang. I do not under the circumstances feel that there is any occasion for such haste to negotiate as [it] might place us in the position of bidding against other interested powers especially since it seems evident that the Nanking incident constitutes a very heavy liability to the Nationalist Government and one that must be discharged in full before it can hope for that international recognition to which it aspires.

(3) As compared with our studiously moderate demands of April 11th the present proposals substitute an expression of regret by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs for an apology by provide for Sino-American commission to verify and assess damages. I should be disposed to commend these two very cessions to the favorable consideration of the Department only in case the remaining substance of our [demands?] were fully and unequivocally met. The first four paragraphs of the proposals however embody several points that appear to me unsatisfactory or ambiguous as to which I desire your comments.

(4) In the second paragraph regarding punishments it is proposed that a statement be given showing the measures ‘already taken against those implicated in the incident.’ In view of the known fact that up to the present principal authors of the outrages remain unpunished there should be some altogether definite promise as to the action to be taken with a view to the eventual punishment of such persons if and when possible.

(5) The third paragraph does not convey adequate assurance that either the Government or the party or other political organizations may not indulge in ‘all forms of violence and agitation against American lives and property’ nor does it specify action to be taken in restraint of any such hostile activities.

(6) The fourth paragraph instead of plausible but vague and contentious phrase as to ‘accepting responsibility according to general rules of international law’ (which might prove to have the effect of enabling joint assessment commission to reopen the whole question of liability) should quite definitely accept in behalf of Nanking Government ‘responsibility for the making of complete reparations for personal injuries and material damage done’ as specified in the demands of April 11th.

(7) With regard to fifth and sixth paragraphs of the proposed terms I feel that some such formulae (which I take to be merely face-saving devices) might possibly be accepted by our Government if it were entirely satisfied with the basis of amends in the first four paragraphs.

(8) I fully concur with your views as to the necessity of definiteness of understanding on all points in advance of acceptance of proposals (your paragraph 4) including appropriate honors to our flag when again raised (your paragraph 5).

(9) It will doubtless be advisable to inform Quo whenever definite decision has been taken upon our attitude towards proposals but I do not feel greatly concerned by his intimations that we should be [in a?] hurry to deal with proposals as Nanking has been so dilatory in offering (your paragraph 6).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(11) I am repeating to the Department the first paragraphs of your telegram 73 together with this reply.”

MacMurray

80. Not printed.