Office of the Historian

793.94/6622: Telegram

The Counselor of Legation in China (Gauss) to the Secretary of State

Peiping, April 27, 1934—1 p.m.
[Received April 27—5:45 a.m.]

195. Department’s 123, April 23, 2 p.m.68 Following is the Minister’s comments:

“April 26, 5 p.m.

1.
Statement should not be permitted to pass unchallenged by governments party to Washington Treaties,69 as it runs directly counter to the spirit and letter of Nine-Power Treaty regarding principles and policies70 which is part of series of treaties which must be considered as whole. Japan has not given notice that she considers treaty no longer binding but powers should inform Japan that abrogation of one of the series of treaties abrogates all.
2.
Policy covered by statement if pursued is intended to control our relations, national as well as commercial, with a nation which we recognize and have dealings with as an independent country. The [Page 144] mere statement of such a policy may be sufficient to prevent purchase of banned articles on our markets as Chinese are well aware that the Japanese are able and willing to use force. In this connection remember the effect of Japan’s opposition to Federal Wireless contract.71
3.
In arriving at a decision as to our action due consideration should be given to attitude which China adopted toward Nine-Power Treaty in 192672 in opposing adherence by non[signatory?] powers. It is not China’s independence that interests us so much as our independence of action in the Pacific both now and in the future.
4.
Consideration also must be given to situation which eventually must result in our retirement from the Philippines. Independence of Philippines, conferred by the United States will continue to be matter of concern to the United States. Neutrality of Philippines will be of questionable value in the face of Japanese attitude toward Washington treaties evidenced by present statement.”

Gauss
  1. Not printed, but see footnote 33, p. 117.↩
  2. For correspondence concerning the Washington Conference held November 12, 1921–February 6, 1922, see Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. i, pp. 1 ff.↩
  3. Ibid., p. 276.↩
  4. See Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. ii, pp. 829 ff., and ibid., 1930, vol. ii, pp. 626–627.↩
  5. See ibid., 1926, vol. i, pp. 1001 ff.↩