Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1932, The Far East, Volume IV

493.11 Ekvall, Henry/43: Telegram

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

Peiping, October 29, 1932—9 a.m.
[Received 11:35 a.m.]

1221. Legation’s 1220, October 28, 5 p.m.

1. In reference to Stanton-Soule belief that present is opportune time to present any other claims, the Legation believes that most emphatic demands should be made that before all else the guilty parties be found and punished to the fullest extent of the law and that the body of Ekvall be recovered. The matter of apology, indemnity and assurances of protection as suggested by the Shensi Provincial Government in settlement of the case are of lesser importance and may be given consideration after the guilty have been brought to justice. The Legation further considers that demand should be made for strict disciplinary action by the Shensi Provincial Chairman or the Central Government against Chen Tzu-chien, the chairman’s personal representative and other subordinates who by obstruction, concealment and threats against witnesses made it impossible to determine the guilty parties at the time of Lieutenant Soule’s investigation. Stanton’s telegram indicates that the Shensi authorities are still seeking to protect the guilty. The Legation is convinced that only by the punishment not only of the instigators, perpetrators of the crime but also of the officials who have failed to seek out and punish the guilty, can it be brought home to the Chinese in Shensi and Kansu that American lives are not to be held lightly and that their lives and property are to be protected. In view of the singularly atrocious and deliberate nature of this crime which beyond any reasonable doubt may be laid upon Chinese officers and soldiers, the Legation is of the belief that indemnity for the Ekvall family or exemplary damages in the sum of 25,000 gold dollars should be demanded for the death of Ekvall this to be paid in addition to any claims for property losses.

2. In this regard and in reference to the Department’s 285, August 25, 6 p.m., the Department is informed that the official settlement of the Thorburn case consisted of an expression of regret from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that Thorburn after mortally wounding two Chinese gendarmes on June 2nd was killed allegedly in self-defense by a Chinese colonel who was examining the truculent and contemptuous young prisoner on June 13; similar regret that the colonel had concealed the truth from British and Chinese investigators; the sentencing of the colonel to 14 years imprisonment and a statement that this verdict was being announced by the Chinese Government to all military commanders. British Legation refers me to page 268 et seq. of 1931–32 Chinese [China] Year Book for correct statement of negotiations.

3. British Legation has confidentially informed this Legation that in addition to this official settlement, the British Government at the request of Thorburn’s relatives on January 22, 1932, filed a claim for 1,000 pounds for the expenses to which Thorburn’s parents were put in trying to ascertain the facts regarding the fate of their son and for the mental suffering involved. One month later this sum was paid by the Chinese Government which, however, reserved the right to file with the British Government a counterclaim on behalf of the two gendarmes whose deaths were caused by Thorburn. Thus far such claim has not been filed by the Chinese Government and it is not expected that it ever will be.

4. In regard to the payment of this indemnity and in comparing the Thorburn and Ekvall cases, it is to be noted that Thorburn, a youth who armed himself and left home without parental permission admittedly in search of adventure encountered a patrol of Chinese gendarmes and mortally wounded two of them. Thorburn later was shot in the manner stated in paragraph 3 above. In the Ekvall case however a law-abiding American merchant and party of friends were apparently deliberately awaited for several days by military officers and soldiers, captured and ruthlessly shot, chiefly for purposes of robbery. In view of these circumstances I do not consider that indemnity or exemplary damages in the sum 25,000 gold dollars is excessive in the Ekvall case, this sum to be paid to the family of the murdered man through the Legation. So far as the Legation is aware no claim for indemnity is being addressed to Consul General Adams in the premises. The Department will be further informed.

Johnson