893.5045/447
The Consul General at Shanghai (Cunningham) to the Minister in China (MacMurray)84
Sir: Referring to this Consulate General’s despatch No. 6227 of October 31, 1929,85 and its telegram No. 178 of November 7, 5 p.m.,86 relative to a strike of the Chinese employees of the Shanghai Evening Post (American), and the subsequent denial of postal privileges to that paper by the Chinese authorities, I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of a letter dated November 2, 1929, in English and Chinese, which has been received from the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs for Kiangsu,85 in which a request is made that the United States District Attorney institute legal proceedings against the editor [Page 772] of this paper. In order that the Legation may have more definite information on this case, there are enclosed herewith copies of the caricatures of Colonel Yuan Liang, Chief of the Bureau of Public Safety of the Municipality of Greater Shanghai, and the newspaper articles which appeared in the Evening Post on October 28, and October 29, 1929.87
The enclosed caricatures and articles appeared in the Evening Post approximately three weeks after the strike of the Chinese employees of the newspaper, which occurred on October 10th. During this period Mr. Carl Crow,88 the editor of the Evening Post, had been carrying on negotiations with the strikers and with the Bureau of Public Safety, and although these negotiations were unsuccessful, Mr. Crow, up to October 28, 1929, refrained from publishing any criticism whatsoever of the authorities. However, as a result of the arrest of his chief stereotyper, Chang Chu-hseng, on October 23rd, and his subsequent detention for four days under somewhat disgraceful circumstances, as outlined in the enclosed clipping from the Evening Post published on October 29, 1929, this incident seems to have infuriated Mr. Crow and prompted him to publish the caricatures and criticisms of the Chinese authorities contained in the two enclosures.
While there is no direct evidence that Mr. Yuan Liang was in any way personally responsible for the ill treatment of Mr. Chang Chuhseng, his statement quoted in the Commissioner’s letter enclosed herewith is a clear admission that his subordinates detained an innocent man for four days. His statement that he had reported the matter to the Shanghai District Court for an investigation to determine whether a charge of false accusation should be brought against Mr. Chang’s accusers would indicate that he also agrees with Mr. Crow that these parties should be punished. It is significant, therefore, that Mr. Yuan Liang has admitted that it is possible for strikers to have an innocent man detained under disgraceful circumstances on a trumped up charge. Mr. Crow has criticized him for a state of affairs which he admits to have existed, and although he may not be directly responsible he is the head of the Bureau of Public Safety and must, therefore, bear to a certain extent responsibility for the actions of his subordinates.
Mr. Crow is not willing to express any apology since he feels that the stand which he has taken was perfectly justified by the action of the Chinese authorities. He desires, therefore, that every effort be made to secure a release of the ban which has been placed upon his use of the Shanghai postal privileges. In addition to any further action which the Legation may be able to take in the premises, this [Page 773] Consulate General and Mr. Crow himself will continue to negotiate with the local authorities.
The matter of the prosecution of Mr. Crow on a charge of libel has been referred to the United States District Attorney who has not yet replied but it is not believed that any such charge could be proven even if brought against him.
I have [etc.]