Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1931, The Far East, Volume III

393.1163/489

The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State

Peiping, April 2, 1931.
[Received April 25.]

No. 914

Sir: With reference to despatch No. 1151, of February 13, 1931, addressed to the Legation by the American Consul General at Hankow,²⁴ and to previous despatches from Mr. Lockhart regarding the occupation by Chinese troops of the premises of the American Catholic Mission in Kiangsi Province, copies of which have been from time to time transmitted to the Department without covering despatch, I have the honor to state that, although to the Department this case of military occupation of American mission property may appear particularly flagrant, it is believed to be typical of many, and its consideration in some detail would seem to be warranted.

The Department will recall that the present occupation of Catholic Mission property in Kiangsi was reported to it in the Legation’s telegrams No. 476, of June 20, 1930, 7 p.m.,²⁵ and No. 743, of August 25, 1 p.m., 1930,²⁶ and that copies of Mr. Lockhart’s despatch to the Legation No. 1046, of September 4, 1930, enclosing copies of an exchange of correspondence with Bishop Sheehan,²⁵ were sent by him directly to the Department. On September 4, 1930, 12 noon, the American Consul General at Hankow telegraphed the Legation that he had received a telegram from Bishop Sheehan, stating that the residence at Poyang (Jaochow) had been forcibly occupied by Government soldiers under Lu Ti-p’ing; Mr. Lockhart stated that he had telegraphed representations to General Lu Ti-p’ing, the Chairman of the Kiangsi Provincial Government, but suggested, in view of the repeated violations by soldiers of the National Government of American property in Kiangsi, that a protest be made by the Legation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Accordingly, on September 6, 1930, 5 p.m., the Legation telegraphed the following to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the American Consulate at Nanking:

“I have the honor to inform Your Excellency that the American Consul General at Hankow reports the forcible occupation of the Catholic Mission’s residence at Poyang, Kiangsi, by Government troops under the control of General Lu Ti-p’ing, and to request that General Lu be instructed by telegraph to order these troops to vacate this American property and to issue strict instructions prohibiting the occupation of the Mission’s premises.”

. . . . . . .

Under date of September 16, 1930, the Division of European and American Affairs of the Foreign Office addressed a reply to the American Consulate at Nanking to the Legation’s telegraphic message of September 6, 5 p.m., quoted above. This reply quoted a report submitted to the Ministry by General Lu, to the effect that he had directed the Magistrate concerned to investigate and cause the property to be vacated. A copy of this communication, in translation, is enclosed herewith.²⁵ Had General Lu actually issued instructions of this nature, intended to meet with compliance, the reply might be considered satisfactory. However, on the same date as that of the note from the Ministry, the American Consul General at Hankow telegraphed the Legation (September 16, 6 p.m.), reporting that Bishop Sheehan had on September 14th and 16th sent urgent telegrams to the Consulate General, stating that the Yükianghsien residence was still occupied. Mr. Lockhart reported that he had again brought the matter to the attention of General Ho Ying-ch’in, and suggested, in view of the fact that the property was at that time still occupied by troops, that the Legation again make telegraphic representations to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Accordingly, under date of September 17, 7 p.m., the Legation telegraphically instructed the American Consul at Nanking to deliver a note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a copy of which is enclosed,²⁷ briefly reviewing the action already taken in connection with military occupation of the Catholic property in Kiangsi, and, in view of the repeated assurances of the Chinese Government of its intention and ability to protect American life and property and in particular to prevent the occupation of American mission property in the interior, earnestly requesting the Minister for Foreign Affairs not only to adopt adequate measures to effect the removal of the troops in occupation of the property in question but also to issue the strongest possible instructions prohibiting the occupation of American mission property in the interior. In response to this telegram, on September 22, 1930, the Division of European and American Affairs of the Ministry made to the Consulate at Nanking a purely pro forma reply, briefly rehearsing its former note. A copy, in translation, of this quite unsatisfactory reply is transmitted for the Department’s information.²⁷ It will be noted that the Ministry misquotes the Legation’s telegram as requesting, in addition to the evacuation of the property, “that adequate protection be afforded.” The attitude thus revealed was particularly unwelcome since the Chinese authorities appear to see nothing inconsistent with “protection” in the occupation and wanton damaging and even destruction of property by troops.

The occupation by Chinese troops of the Mission property at Jaochow was reported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to have been terminated in an unexpected manner:

In a note to the American Consulate at Nanking dated September 30, 1930, copy of which in translation is enclosed herewith,²⁷ the Division of European and American Affairs of the Foreign Office stated that Poyanghsien had been occupied by bandits and the Government troops had withdrawn. According to the Ministry’s report, therefore, the so-called communists readily effected what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was unwilling or unable to accomplish. However, a reperusal of despatch No. 1100 (erroneously numbered 1010) of December 2, 1930, to the Legation from Mr. Lockhart, and of the letter addressed to him by Bishop Sheehan enclosed therewith, is enlightening in this connection.³³ (This despatch was forwarded to the Department by the Legation without covering despatch on December 18, 1930.)

The Department will note from despatch No. 1077, of October 25, 1930, from the American Consul General at Hankow (copies of which were forwarded to the Department by the Legation without cover on November 20, 1930),³³ that the premises of the Catholic Mission in Yükianghsien and its residence at Fouchow were still occupied on October 23, 1930. That despatch enclosed a telegram addressed to Mr. Lockhart by Bishop Sheehan, which the Consul General conservatively entitled “Plain language.” The Department will recall that in his despatch No. 1082, of November 3, 1930, to the Legation, a copy of which was forwarded to the Department without covering despatch,³³ Mr. Lockhart stated that he had been informed by Bishop Sheehan in a letter dated October 24, 1930, that the Mission’s residence at Yükianghsien was still occupied by soldiers, who were taking the stone from the Mission compound wall to use in repairing the walls of the town.

On December 27, 1930, 11 a.m., the American Consul General at Hankow telegraphed the Legation that he had received a telegram from Bishop Sheehan at Anjen, Yükianghsien, Kiangsi, dated December 26th, as follows:

“Government orders to Hsien Government no effect. Tell Nanking instruct army. Occupation continues. To-day more tried to get in here.”

Mr. Lockhart stated that he had again telegraphed General Lu Ti-p’ing requesting that he take effective measures to have the troops removed from the property of the Catholic Mission at Anjen (Yükianghsien). Under date of December 29, 1930, 12 noon, Mr. Lockhart again telegraphed the Legation as follows:

“December 29, 12 noon. A letter from Bishop Sheehan at Yükiang dated December 21 states that properties of the Catholic Mission are now forcibly occupied by soldiers in Fuchow, Kingtehchen, Tsungjen, Kweiki, Loping, Wanlien, Iyang, and Yükiang, all in Kiangsi Province. The Bishop states ‘in no single instance is there the slightest vestige of necessity for occupation’, and that there are other buildings available for quartering troops. The Bishop suggests that the Minister should ‘speak quite plainly to Nanking about these things.’”

Mr. Lockhart’s telegram above quoted was transmitted by the Legation to Minister Johnson at Nanking under date of December 30, 11 a.m. The Legation’s records indicate that on December 30, 1930, Minister Johnson took the matter up orally with Mr. Hsü Mo of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In addition, on December 31, 1930, the Legation addressed a note, No. 219, to His Excellency, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, pointing out that the occupation of the Mission’s premises continued and that the orders of the Magistrate were apparently without effect. It was requested that His Excellency take the necessary steps to cause instructions to be issued to the military at Yükianghsien to evacuate this American property without further delay.

Under date of January 14, 3 p.m., Mr. Lockhart sent the Legation the following telegram:

“Following telegram dated to-day received from Bishop Sheehan:

‘Soldiers under Hsiao Tuan-chang, 5th Division, 13th Lu, 29th Tuan, have occupied Yükiang residence, prevent me from entering. Magistrate Mao sent men to lead them to the residence. Tell Lu Ti-p’ing and Nanking to get them out at once.’

“As this occupancy was apparently directly aided by civil authorities, it is being reported by telegraph.

“I have telegraphed representations of Lu Ti-p’ing, but in light of previous experiences am not expectant of desired results.”

On the basis of this telegram and of despatch No. 1134, of January 23, 1931, from Mr. Lockhart, a copy of which is transmitted herewith,³⁴ on February 5, 1931, the Legation addressed a further note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, pointing out the utter inadequacy of such measures as might have been previously adopted to bring about the evacuation of premises already occupied by Chinese troops, and requesting that there be supplied the Legation proclamations forbidding the occupation of this American Mission property.

From the letter transmitted with Mr. Lockhart’s despatch No. 1134, of January 23, 1931, addressed to him on January 14, 1931, by the Right Reverend Edward T. Sheehan,³⁴ it will be noted that Bishop Sheehan feels that the National Government has never taken any steps to prevent the occupation of residences, nor to force soldiers to evacuate properties occupied, and he states as his belief that the National Government is doing everything possible in the interior, at least in Kiangsi Province, to make life unbearable for foreigners. The Department’s attention is also invited to Mr. Lockhart’s despatches to the Legation No. 1142 and No. 1151, respectively dated February 5 and 13, 1931,³⁸ copies of which were transmitted to the Department without covering despatch.

On February 21, 1931, a note, No. 249, was received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in reply to the Legation’s note of February 5th, stating that the Kiangsi Provincial Government had been telegraphically requested to investigate the matter and take action. There were enclosed with the Ministry’s note ten copies of a proclamation issued by the Ministry of Military Administration. Copies, in translation, of the Ministry’s note and of the proclamations are transmitted herewith.³⁹ However, under date of February 25, 2 p.m., the American Consul General at Hankow telegraphed the Legation quoting the following telegram which he had received from Bishop Sheehan:

“Yükiang residence still occupied by Government soldiers, no examination made of damage done by soldiers of 5th Division. Local Magistrate Mao encourages occupation, does nothing to protect properties.”

It would thus appear that any action taken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at Nanking or the provincial authorities in Kiangsi continued to be quite ineffectual.

The Department will note from a letter addressed to Mr. Lockhart on February 26, 1931, by General Lu Ti-p’ing, enclosed with Hankow’s despatch No. 1161, of March 3, 1931, to the Legation, a copy of which is transmitted herewith³⁹ (despite the fact that in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ note of February 21, 1931, it was stated that a telegram had been sent to Kiangsi Provincial Government requesting investigation and action), General Lu Ti-p’ing, Chairman of the Kiangsi Provincial Government, admitted that troops had “borrowed” the use of the property, but denied that this constituted an occupation, and seemed to feel that the alleged brief duration of the stay of the successive military units invading the Mission constitutes a decided palliation, if not a justification, of the actions complained of.

In his despatch to the Legation, No. 1168, of March 13, 1931, copy of which is transmitted herewith,³⁹ Mr. Lockhart encloses a copy of a letter addressed to him on March 7, 1931, by General Lu Ti-p’ing, quoting a report of the Yükianghsien Magistrate to the effect that on February 13th, Anjen (Yükianghsien) was completely filled with refugees and troops and that the use of the Catholic Mission premises for the quartering of Colonel Hsiao’s regiment of the 5th Division was necessary, and, furthermore, was assented to by the Mission watchmen. The Magistrate is quoted as stating that the discipline of Colonel Hsiao’s regiment was very strict, that they did not occupy the Bishop’s residence, and that the accusation that they damaged furniture is false. The Magistrate alleges that, because of his deep detestation of the stationing of troops in the Mission, Bishop Sheehan has “inevitably” exaggerated in his report.

. . . . . . .

The Legation trusts that a careful review of the correspondence growing out of this case will convince the Department that the Consul General at Hankow and the Legation in their several representations to the local officials of Kiangsi and the officers of the National Government at Nanking, respectively, have left no stone unturned and have spared no effort in their endeavors by diplomatic means to put an end to this example of the flouting of the rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Treaties. The Legation is reluctantly inclined to the opinion, based in part on otherwise unrelated incidents, reports of which are embodied in various despatches from consular officers, that the National Government is deliberately working toward the conscious end of rendering impossible the carrying on in China of all foreign missionary activities, with the possible exception of medical work. In order to have definite and compact data for a searching investigation into this aspect of the matter, on February 27, 1931, the Legation addressed a circular instruction to American consular officers in China, directing that they submit reports covering their respective consular districts, commenting on the extent to which American missionary interests have suffered as the result of illegal occupation of property, uncontrolled banditry, and general anti-religious and anti-foreign sentiments. A comprehensive report will be made to the Department by the Legation later.

In the meantime, it seems to the Legation significant that, in the three Eastern Provinces where the influence of the National Government is merely nominal, the Consulate General at Mukden reports:

“I have the honor to state that this Consular District has been apparently free from most of the above mentioned scourges.…

“As is well known there has been no illegal occupation of mission property in this area.…

“From an examination of the files of this office and from conversations with missionaries, it would not appear that anti-religious and anti-foreign feeling has had any appreciable effect on missionary activity in this Consular District.…”⁴⁰

The Consul at Harbin reports:

“I have the honor … to report that the missions of this Consular District have not suffered from any depredations or losses resulting from illegal occupation of property, uncontrolled banditry, or general anti-religious and anti-foreign sentiment.… The heads of missions have stated that they have never been molested or troubled by any of the causes mentioned above and have never been subjected to any losses, personal or otherwise. They further stated that the Chinese authorities in this district have always been very just and considerate, have never attempted to hinder their work but, on the contrary, have always considered their interests and attempted to help them.…”⁴¹

It must be borne in mind that during the period reported on, that is, from 1926 to the present time, there has been warfare on a large scale in Manchuria and that the numbers of soldiers in the districts where missionary enterprises are being carried on are proportionately greater than in other parts of China under the control or the strong influence of the National Government, where American missionary property has been repeatedly occupied and wantonly damaged and destroyed. In most cases it has been reported to the Legation that Chinese troops have occupied mission property in preference to Chinese property where plenty of the latter was available, and it is not believed that this can be attributed to the desire of the military for superior buildings, since, at the termination of an occupation by Chinese troops, of however brief duration, the property occupied has been damaged to such an extent that it is left in a condition infinitely worse than that of the Chinese-owned property which has happily escaped.

It is possible that representations made by the Department to the Chinese Minister at Washington might cause him to bring before his Government the idea that such cases as the one discussed at length above, which is only one of many, may properly cause a section of the American public to feel some doubt of the ability and desire to protect American property professed by the Government at Nanking. Respectfully yours,

For the Minister:

Mahlon F. Perkins

Counselor of Legation

24. Not printed.
25. Not printed.
26. Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. ii, p. 177.
25. Not printed.
25. Not printed.
27. Not printed.
27. Not printed.
27. Not printed.
33. Not printed.
33. Not printed.
33. Not printed.
34. Not printed.
34. Not printed.
38. Neither printed.
39. Not printed.
39. Not printed.
39. Not printed.
40. Omissions indicated in original dispatch from the Minister.
41. Omissions indicated in original despatch from the Minister.