393.1163/342
The Consul General at Hankow (Lockhart) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 14.]
Sir:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
…I beg now to make further observations on the question of depredations committed by the military on American mission property [Page 467] in this consular district, as well as in the Changsha and Chungking consular districts… I deem it now advisable, in order that there may be a concise and continuous record in the Department of these unlawful acts, to give in this despatch a brief summary of cases of depredation not previously reported to the Department, most of which were committed during the past twelve months.
The various reasons which have prompted the occupation of missionary properties, and the means adopted to curb the evil as much as it was possible to do, have been recounted in the previous despatches herein mentioned, and no attempt will be made now to repeat them here. It is pertinent to remark, however, that public utterances and official assurances given by the National Government authorities at Nanking have been persistently violated by military officials in various parts of the three consular districts administered by this office. There have been periods, however, when there were but few cases of occupation of missionary property in the three districts in question, but these periods have invariably been confined to a time when no major military operation was being undertaken. The instances of occupation of American property have multiplied many fold since the beginning of the campaign by the National Army last March against the Kwangsi Group and later against Feng Yu-hsiang. As the armies of the recognized Government of China moved up the Yangtze Valley and spread to the south, west and north of Kiukiang and Hankow during the months of March and April of the present year the occupation of mission property became more and more prevalent. Not only was missionary property occupied in various places as hereinafter described, but the arrival of the National Army in Hankow on April 4, 1929, was the signal for the occupation of many pieces of foreign business property in the city. While there were no cases involving the occupancy of American business property, properties belonging to other nationals were occupied by officers and men of the newly arrived army. The most persistent representations on the part of the representatives of the Governments whose nationals’ property was being occupied were absolutely ignored except in a few isolated cases. This state of affairs continued even after the arrival of Chiang Kai-shek in Hankow and notwithstanding oral representations made to him by the Consular representatives concerned. It was not until after contingents of troops occupying foreign properties in the city of Hankow were moved to new stations that such properties were vacated, except, as stated above, in a few isolated cases. It is worthy of note that assurances were communicated almost daily to owners of properties and to the consular officers concerned that the occupied properties would be surrendered, but in spite of these promises occupation continued in most cases until the troops moved on to new stations.
[Page 468]Mission properties at Hankow of all nationalities, so far as I have been able to ascertain, were free of occupation, but no sooner had the National Army invaded northern and western Hupeh and Honan than numerous cases of occupation of American mission property were brought to my attention. The Commissioners of Foreign Affairs in Hupeh and Honan were repeatedly reminded by me of the announced policy of the National Government not to permit troops to occupy foreign mission property and all specific cases of occupation were brought to the attention of the authorities. I found but little effort being made by these officials to prevent the occupation of mission property and the efforts put forth in that direction were, until recently, quite perfunctory, as were the efforts to have troops removed from occupied property. The area in which this condition was most flagrant was the province of Honan into which many thousands of Nationalist soldiers had been despatched in connection with the campaign against Feng Yu-hsiang. It is significant that General Tong Sen-chi [Tang Sheng-chi], who was one of the most notorious violators of foreign mission property rights of all the generals who invaded this area from Canton in 1926 and 1927, was the General in command of a large area in Honan from which the reports of unlawful occupations reached this office. “While these depredations were not by any means confined to the troops under the command of Tong-Sen-chi, a close check on the many occupations in Honan would doubtless reveal that not a few cases are directly attributable to his long established policy of occupying foreign mission property whenever and wherever it may be required.
That so many cases of the occupation of foreign mission property should recently have been brought to the attention of this Consulate General when the National Government at Nanking is proclaiming that it is now a unified government whose authority extends throughout the whole of China would be ludicrous if it were not so serious. There is but one conclusion that can be drawn from this situation, and that is that the National Government either does not possess sufficient authority to prevent its own troops from occupying such property or else the National Government, with its full knowledge and consent, encourages its military leaders to use the properties in whatever manner they may choose. For my part, I thoroughly believe that the National Government at Nanking possesses sufficient authority, by invoking measures which might even call for drastic disciplinary steps towards officers guilty of permitting these depredations, to cause every piece of American mission property to be vacated within five days time and to absolutely prevent henceforth the occupation of any piece of mission property by soldiers in the Hankow, Chungking and Changsha consular districts. If the National Government possesses a will [Page 469] to protect foreign property as it now claims that it is in a position to do, there is not the slightest doubt but that complaints of the occupation of mission property would cease in short order if only the authorities at Nanking would apply the same means of punishment to the officers guilty of these depredations that the officers themselves often apply to so-called agitators and petty law breakers. I believe that I am safe in saying that practically every instance of the occupation of a piece of American mission property has been at the instance, or with the consent, of an officer of considerable rank.
I am not informed as to whether it has been the practice of all American Consular officers in China to report every case of the occupation of American mission property since the beginning of the revolutionary period, but I venture to say that the number of such depredations within the last three years far outnumbers any like period in the history of missionary enterprise in China, Certainly that is true of the Hankow, Changsha, and Chungking consular districts. This condition may be due to the fact that more major military campaigns have been conducted in these three districts than in others for the three-year period, but the fact remains that there have been 112 such cases, practically every one of which has been reported to the Legation. This despatch should complete the record in the Department to date.
It is to be regretted that but few missionary societies have presented claims to indemnify them for the losses sustained and for the use of commandeered properties. If all mission societies would adopt a course calling for reimbursement the total amount would be surprisingly large and might impress the Chinese authorities of the magnitude of this evil and the monetary loss suffered by the mission societies. So much of the property has been wantonly destroyed that the Chinese Government should not be kept in ignorance, if indeed it is ignorant, of its complete failure to control even its own forces. It must be remembered that practically every case of occupation and deliberate destruction of property has been by armed forces belonging to organized Chinese armies and in recent months by troops of the Government recognized by the Government of the United States. There could scarcely be better grounds for presenting claims for indemnification than for damages wrought by men in uniform belonging to the army of a recognized Government. I might add also that there is scarcely a country in the world that would not be quick to recognize the justice of a claim of this character. In this general connection the attention of the Department is invited to case No. 40 on page 15 of this despatch reported by Reverend Peter Valder. Particular attention is invited to the following observations made by the Reverend Mr. Valder: [Page 470]
“Enclosed kindly receive a Chinese card with name and rank of the military officer, who forcefully occupied our mission compound for two weeks at Tungpeh, Honan, from June 24th, 1929.
“The officer referred to was very imposing and threatened to beat up our Chinese co-workers, if they did not yield to his demands.
“It is earnestly hoped the Chinese authorities will endeavor ‘to save their face’ and discipline such brutes in uniform in the future.”
There is also quoted, as follows, an excerpt from a letter dated July 28, from Reverend E. T. Sheehan at Poyang, Kiangsi, commenting on this practice of National Government soldiers:
“I would be very thankful to you if you could make the Nationalist Government of China understand that as there is neither reason nor excuse for the soldiers entering our residences at this time, it should either take measures to keep soldiers out or be willing to pay an indemnity. Our properties are private. We will neither rent nor loan to any soldiers.”
The following brief résumé of cases involving the occupancy of mission property in recent months will afford an idea of the extent to which this evil has been permitted to flourish under the National Government:
[Here follows a list of 43 cases, of which there were 12 in Honan, 14 in Hunan, 5 in Hupeh, 5 in Kansu, 4 in Kiangsi, and 3 in Szechwan.]
I have [etc.]