793.94/5297
Memorandum by the Secretary of State
The Chinese Chargé, Dr. Hawkling Yen, brought in Mr. Frank W. Chinglun Lee. Dr. Lee started out by thanking me for the part which I had taken in the Manchurian controversy which, he said, was appreciated [Page 53] and understood throughout China. He said that the Chinese people were getting very restless over the situation and anxious that a further step should be taken by their country; that they would never acquiesce in what Japan had done to Manchuria and would resist it. I asked Mr. Lee what news they had from the Manchurian Commission of the League of Nations. He said that he had been following it closely and he thought that the Commission was finding that the present state in Manchuria was a mere puppet state which could not exist a moment without the military support which Japan was according it and he said that much pressure was being brought in China for further action, probably under the Nine Power Treaty. I told him that, while the outside nations were deeply interested in this controversy by reason of their interest in the various treaties which were affected and in the general cause of peace which was affected, as was always the case in human affairs the chief part in the solution of the problem must be performed by the nation which was primarily affected, namely, China. I said that the success of the defense of these treaties and of Manchuria must rest primarily in China herself and that it was more important for China to take a constructive than a merely destructive or combative position. By that, I meant that she must show the elements of national unity and self-control constructively and evidence an ability to subordinate faction to national unity and self-control; that so long as the outside world received only a picture of various Chinese factions cutting each others throats and tearing each other to pieces, there was great danger that eventually these outer nations might, in despair, adopt the thesis which Japan had put forth, namely, that China was not capable of national unity and that there was, therefore, no basis for the Nine Power Treaty. Dr. Lee replied that there was already a very strong movement in China to subordinate faction and that word was being spread around, even among the Chinese here, to stop their disputes and to support national union. He said that that was the reason for the recent union of Canton and Nanking.
I said that I had admired President Chiang Kai-shek’s restraint throughout the Manchurian controversy and had regarded his refusal to allow his Government to be drawn into war as an evidence of high statesmanship. Dr. Lee said that he agreed, but that great pressure was being brought now by people who thought that some further step was necessary and who were afraid that the League of Nations might let the matter drop. I cautioned him against any such attitude and said that it would be a great misfortune and mistake for China to kick over the support of the Assembly of the League of Nations where the views and interests of such a large group of nations, principally the small nations, ran so parallel to the interests of China. I said [Page 54] that the action taken by the League was of inestimable value, even if merely as a preliminary, to any action under the Nine Power Treaty which Dr. Lee had suggested, and that the action of the Assembly could not be concluded until the report of the Manchurian Commission and action thereon. I therefore begged him to use all his influence with China to be patient and have self-control.