Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1929, Volume II

393.11/1048: Telegram

The Chargé in China (Perkins) to the Secretary of State

Peiping, December 23, 1929—3 p.m.
[Received 6:20 p.m.³⁵]

1181. Department’s 419, December 18, 6 [7] p.m.

1. The Legation’s telegram to the commander in chief December 24 [14], 1 p.m., concurred in the view and supported the request of the Consul General in the terms of his letter to the senior American naval officer. The Department states that it does not disapprove of the Consul General’s suggestion made in the letter and the Legation understands that the observations made in the remaining portion of the Department’s telegram called for to [sic] the Consul General’s comment as contained in the final paragraph of his telegram to the Legation.

2. Although the Consul General’s comment is somewhat ambiguous I did not, in view of his statement that “the protection of the Shanghai Power Company as a public utility concerns the entire community,” construe the context of his remarks as in any sense indicating that there was not a definite international obligation to participate when necessary in the protection of the light and power plant as a public utility. I interpreted his meaning to be that the American Consul General now had a particular responsibility of his own especially when approached by the American owners to see to it that whenever necessary appropriate protective action be taken, exercising his own discretion according to the degree of the emergency in each case as to what protective agencies—municipal, national, or international—should be requested to give assistance. Since the situation described in this case did not apparently present an/or [sic] grave emergency the Legation assumed that in addition to the ordinary police protection the Consul General did not think it necessary at that time to seek other assistance than the precautionary presence of an American naval vessel.

3. The following telegram from commander in chief:

“0016. The Consul General has been informed that I consider it inadvisable to establish a precedent that the United States Navy was primarily responsible for the protection of any public works as such. It seems to me that this matter is broader than the question of protection of American property which would be afforded by such American forces as the senior United States naval officer present at the moment considered necessary and when such protection could not be afforded by the local authorities. I have suggested that the senior member of the consular body write to the senior naval officer present requesting protection for the power plant.

Such action would then be taken by the latter as would set a precedent that public utilities, international in character, were to receive protection from the naval forces at all times without regard to the nationality of the senior naval officer present. The ranking member of the consular body and the senior officer afloat, it now so happens, are both American citizens. 2105.”

4. The Legation agrees with the commander in chief’s opinion that the protection of the light and power plant is a broader question than that of the protection of American property as such. I find it difficult, however, to accept his view that the presence of an American naval vessel as requested in this instance would “establish a precedent that the United States Navy was primarily responsible for the protection of any public works as such.” It seems to me on the other hand that the course suggested by him might possibly create a precedent that American consular officers were to be precluded from directly calling upon the American naval authorities for the protection of American property if by chance that property were a public utility and that they must, in the event of the protection afforded by the local authorities being considered inadequate, apply through international channels for joint international naval protection. There seems to me an element of evasion [danger?] in such a position since the American naval authorities would have a certain correlative obligation to participate in joint action for the protection of [sic] perhaps even in minor cases of non-American foreign-owned properties having the character of public utility with the ever possible risk of our cooperation being exploited for ulterior purposes. While there can be no question of an international obligation to supplement the local authorities in the protection of such public utility when actually necessary, I cannot but feel somewhat apprehensive of a position which emphasizes the international phase of this problem lest we may find ourselves embarrassed at times by requests from a senior naval officer for the proportionate assistance of our naval and marine forces in joint action for the protection of such British corporations as the Shanghai Water Works, Shanghai Gas Company, Shanghai Tramways or other non-American-owned public utilities at that port. It therefore seems to me on the whole that the nature of the action to be taken should depend upon the character of the emergency and that it is hardly advisable to lay down in advance a hard and fast rule in matters of this kind (as the commander in chief seems to me to do in taking the position that the only correct procedure is for the senior consul to approach the senior naval officer present) and that it is preferable to deal with each case as it arises after a consideration of the particular circumstances involved.

5. Shall I repeat to Consul General at Shanghai the Department’s telegram under reference?

Perkins

35. Telegram in three sections.