493.11/1836
The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (Johnson)
Sir: Reference is made to the Legation’s despatch No. 2239 of August 10, 1933,94 in regard to the prosecution of claims for losses resulting from the looting of goods which are in the hands of Chinese agents but which are claimed to belong to American nationals.
In cases of looting of property the American ownership of which is clear beyond question, the Department is of the opinion that its telegraphic instruction No. 124, April 19, 1933, 5 p.m.95 may be regarded as sufficient for the guidance of the Legation and consular officers in China and that, therefore, no further instruction in regard to cases of this kind would seem to be required at the present time. If, therefore, the Legation and the Consul concerned are satisfied in a given case that the American ownership of the property involved is beyond question and that the case falls within one of the categories described in the Department’s telegram just referred to, the Legation and the Consul concerned should present the claim to the local authorities regardless of the fact that the Chinese Government persistently denies responsibility for indemnification of losses arising out [Page 544] of looting. Furthermore, failing local settlement, claims of these classes are to be regarded as entitled to such other support on the part of diplomatic and consular officers and of the Department as the circumstances of the individual case may warrant.
In cases which involve property in the hands of Chinese who act as sales agents of American nationals, the question of ownership arises. The Chinese Government appears to have generally contended that, in such cases, ownership vests in the Chinese concerned and that claims for losses of such property should be treated as Chinese claims, while American claimants have contended that ownership vests in them and that the claims should be presented to the Chinese authorities as American claims.
The Department has been studying the question of ownership of the property in the hands of native agents as affecting the status of claims which have arisen as the result of loss of such goods, and still has the matter under consideration. Sometime ago the Department invited the Standard Oil Company to furnish it with a brief setting forth arguments in support of the company’s contention that the Chinese Government should be held liable for losses in cases which arise out of the loss of goods in the hands of native agents, but that company has not as yet submitted such a brief. The Department is now affording to the Socony-Vacuum Corporation opportunity to submit a brief on this point, but intends, within a reasonable time, whether such brief is received or not, to draw up instructions in regard to this phase of the question, which will in due course be communicated to the Legation and consular officers in China for their information and guidance. In the interval the Legation and consular officers may continue, where they have been so doing in the past, to lend their support to claims of the class under discussion which fall within any of the categories set forth in the Department’s telegram No. 124 of April 19, 1933, 5 p.m.
The Department takes this opportunity to commend Consul Stevens96 for the careful study which he has given to the questions involved in the cases under reference.
Very truly yours,
- Not printed.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. iii, p. 635.↩
- Harry E. Stevens, Consul at Tsinan.↩