893.51/5362: Telegram
The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
726. Legation’s 527, July 1, 4 p.m. As indicated in the Senior Minister’s circular 58, July 2, 1930,89 a copy of which was forwarded to the Department without covering despatch, a note of protest respecting the seizure of the Tientsin customs was sent by the Senior Minister to the Nanking Government and to Marshal Yen Shi-shan on July 1. Dr. C. T. Wang refused to accept the note inasmuch as it was transmitted through the Senior Consul at Shanghai. (Senior Minister’s circular 62, July 9th.)89 Senior Minister thereupon forwarded the note by post on July 15th addressed to Dr. Wang personally. In a note of August 8th to Mr. Oudendijk, Dr. Wang states that “for reasons which I have repeatedly made known to the public” he is unable to accept the note in that form. It is understood that Wang’s reasons were that the practice of the senior foreign diplomat speaking on behalf of the entire diplomatic corps should be discontinued.
Mr. Oudendijk proposes to reply in a note to be dated August 25th that he is unable to understand why his note on July 15th should have been returned. His draft concludes substantially as follows:
“The note on July 15th was not written by me in my capacity of Dean of the Diplomatic Body but in that of the senior of those Ministers [Page 272] and Heads of Legation who are directly interested in the questions which the customs authorities in Shanghai raised when they began levying customs duties in violation of certain treaty stipulations.
Where the treaties or the interests of a number of countries are simultaneously involved it is evidently simpler that one of the diplomatic representatives should speak in the name of all than that all of them should sign the same note, although I may state here that either way will be equally agreeable to my honorable colleagues and myself.
In the present instance I refrain from again sending Your Excellency the note on [of?] July 15th as I must assume that Your Excellency has read the same.”
I perceive no objection to the Senior Minister’s proposed note. I wish to inquire, however, whether the Department desires me individually to forward to C. T. Wang a note of protest, in view of the fact that it appears that the first note originally contemplated in which I was authorized to join by the Department’s telegram number 219, June 28, 3 p.m., cannot be delivered.