893.00 Nanking/221: Telegram
The Chargé in China (Mayer) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 26—10:55 a.m.]
954. Reference American consul in charge at Nanking’s despatch of September 2481 regarding “Status of American interests in the Nanking consular district since 6 months after the outrage,” page 39, et seq.:
1. The commander in chief has telegraphed me advising careful consideration of Paxton’s recommendation to negotiate with Nanking faction for settlement of the incident. He states conviction that best protection of American interests throughout China diplomatically and by Navy will be accomplished by the cultivation of cordial relations with all factions. That we cannot cultivate cordial relations with the various factions nor should we have any relations with them until the Nanking incident is adjusted. That C. C. Wu with whom he had had a conference stated that his Government was ready to settle this incident. That in his opinion inadvisable to maintain naval vessel from which Consul Paxton could carry on his consular duties in Nanking district. That Nanking faction should recognize a consular agent in that district before any consul should [Page 230] be sent there to operate afloat or on shore. Further, that such recommendation is one of the points which must be covered in the settlement of the incident. That the negotiations already inaugurated would go by the board if the Wu government should be superseded and the preliminary work would have to be done all over again, quite possibly with a faction not ready to settle the matter. That Admiral Bristol understands that the Minister will not return before about December 1st, so it is his opinion that action in this matter should not be delayed until his arrival but should be taken up at the Department before the Minister leaves the United States.
2. I do not consider present moment opportune for initiating any negotiations with Nanking regime or continuing the informal conversations between Consul General Cunningham and C. C. Wu for the following reasons: (1) Continued existence of Nanking regime even in its present unstable condition is more than ever in the balance owing to the civil war within a civil war recently begun between Nanking and Wu Han. This widening of split by inauguration of active hostilities apparently on a large [scale?] between the two factions which has been foreseen for some time makes it inexpedient from every point of view to negotiate with one of the parties to the conflict. It is uncertain which, if either of them, will survive. (2) The Nanking faction has promoted General Ch’eng Ch’ien to be chairman of Nanking military council and as such, leader in attack on Wu Hankow [Wu Han?]. (3) This combined with the previous attitude of Nanking regime dispels any faith in its sincerity in desiring an equitable adjustment of the Nanking outrages, or hope in practicality of our coming to a satisfactory solution. I have no doubt that Nanking faction would make an effort to appear conciliatory at the moment in order to draw us and if possible through us the other powers concerned into negotiations by which that faction would be able to gain face at this critical moment. (4) I do not believe that we may reasonably anticipate satisfactory solution of outrages until some authority is established along the Yangtze which is sufficiently stable and capable of realizing solid advantages which would accrue to it from such solution. To proceed in disregard of this would only be calculated to weaken our position generally and place us in disrepute. (5) The Nanking outrages I believe to be a source of regret if not humiliation among the best elements of the Chinese which may possibly be a factor in bringing about fair settlement if we are careful not to dissipate this feeling by injudicious, abortive, and undignified attempts to conclude the matter in the present instance.
[Page 231]3. With all this in mind I most respectfully recommend that no action be taken now looking toward a solution of the incident.
4. In this general regard Cunningham telegraphed as follows on October 24th in connection with a reply to my inquiry regarding General Ch’eng Ch’ien’s position:
“On October 21st Quo verbally informed me that he considered next proposal should be made by the United States. He was informed that as previously advised the proposal transmitted in my July 13, 5 p.m.82 was not satisfactory to the Minister, whereupon he undertook to attempt to secure another proposal if I would inform him of defects. I promised to point out to him some of the shortcomings during this week.
I assume I am authorized to point out informally the criticisms contained in the Legation’s July 22, 4 p.m., paragraphs 2 to 7.
Please confirm my assumption and instruct further if additional objections are to be raised in informal conversations.”
5. If the Department approves my recommendation I shall instruct American consul general Shanghai to reply to Quo Tai-chi in conformity therewith.