893.01B 11 Manchuria/15a

The Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs ( Hornbeck ) to the Ambassador in Japan ( Grew )

Dear Mr. Grew: I feel that it may be well for us to let you know something of our thought with regard to Mr. George Bronson Rea.

For your orientation, I may say that most of the officers of FE49 have known Rea personally over a period of years. I myself have known him for approximately twenty-five years, have read his paper, have received him as a caller; and have managed to avoid, in relations with him, anything in the nature of “hostilities”. During these years, Rea has called on me many times, in China, in Paris and here. When he arrived here, last, in the employ of “Manchukuo”, he called on me and explained his “mission” and tried to leave with me some papers (copies of his documentation from the “Manchukuo” government) which I declined to receive, and said that he did not wish to do anything which would be “embarrassing to the American Government” or in any way “improper”. I intimated to him that he had better live a pretty quiet life.

Rea is, as you know, an American citizen. He is employed nominally by the “Manchukuo” authorities as a “counselor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs”. Since he took up his residence here he has in fact been engaged in a mixture of “Manchukuo” propaganda and criticism of policies and action of the American Government in relation [Page 673] to the Far East. At one moment he represents himself as speaking the voice of “Manchukuo”, at another moment as expressing the views of an American citizen. Rumor runs, and we have some pretty clear evidence, that he has close contact with the Japanese Embassy. He himself states that he purchases his liquors (which he dispenses liberally) through the Embassy; and we have some pretty clear evidence that he prepares confidential memoranda for the Japanese Ambassador. Much of his time and effort he devotes to discussing with newspaper men of various nationalities, and with Army and Navy officers and other people who go to his cocktail parties, problems not only of “Manchukuo” but of Japanese-American relations.

We of course assume that the Japanese Government is his real employer.

It is in our opinion, an anomaly, not befitting the dignity of any regime, political or of other character, that “Manchukuo” places in our capital a hired “counselor” claiming “official” connection with the Foreign Office of that régime, a man who enters the United States by virtue of his American citizenship, one who probably would have been denied admittance to this country had he claimed status as a “Manchukuoan” and as an official “representative” of “Manchukuo”, and who, under cloak of his American citizenship, engages in active political propaganda on behalf of a foreign political entity.

It is not, so we believe, by taking advantage of peculiar technicalities such as prevail in this case that worthy ends in international relations may best be served.

It is our opinion that no useful purpose can be served by agitation at this time of the question of the attitude of the United States toward or with respect to “Manchukuo” and that effort by paid propagandists in the United States to agitate this question—and in so doing constantly to criticize the American Government—operates as an irritant rather than as something beneficial in American-Japanese relations. We were inclined at the outset to look upon Rea’s presence here with tolerance and to take toward his activities an attitude of indifference, but as they have developed, with increasing boldness and manifest impropriety, we began to think them definitely prejudicial to the cause of improving relations between Japan and the United States. We suspect (and we have some circumstantial evidence) that Ilea was active in launching the newspaper stories in February last that the American Government was seriously considering recognizing “Manchukuo”. That little campaign defeated its own ends, but it was a “nuisance”. All of this sort of thing runs contrary to our principle of trying to “let sleeping dogs lie”. During later months, Rea has been fairly quiet; but he is constantly sowing, among Americans [Page 674] with whom he comes in contact, seeds of misapprehension and skepticism (to say the least) with regard to the policies and acts of the American Government. We do not take his work very seriously, but we think that the best interests of all concerned would be better served if he were not here and engaged in it.

We do not feel it advisable to take this matter up with the Japanese Ambassador here. I gave him, sometime ago, a couple of hints with regard to the matter. But, as I have indicated to you elsewhere, he has his own ideas about propaganda and I imagine that he finds Rea very useful to him as a purveyor of information and maker of memoranda. We also do not wish to make the matter the subject for an instruction to you. Hence, all that I am saying in this letter is by way of information and suggestion.

We of course are not responsible for this situation. Action which we might take toward bringing it to an end would in all probability occasion publicity of a mischievous type. We do not wish to impute to the Japanese Government responsibility in connection with it nor to intimate that action by the Japanese Government would be possible or appropriate with regard to it. We nevertheless feel that the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs might like to have the facts and to know that in our view this situation is unhealthy and objectionable.

We feel that you might find it possible and convenient at some time to take this matter up with Mr. Hirota. You might perhaps say something to him along this line: That, appreciating and reciprocating the desire of the Foreign Minister that the traditionally peaceful and friendly relations between Japan and the United States be promoted by all practicable means, recalling his statement to you to the effect that his principal preoccupation while in office would be the development of better relations with the United States (see your telegram 144, September 18, 4 p.m.50), and confident that he would desire that we bring frankly to his attention any situation which in our mind impairs or impedes the much desired development of these friendly relations which we both wish to promote, you wish to lay before him information in regard to a situation which causes you and us some concern (and then give him the facts, as above).

With a view to enabling you, before talking with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to inform yourself more in detail in regard to the activities of Rea, there are enclosed51 a copy of a paper entitled “The Independence of Manchukuo”, read by Rea on November 23, 1933, before the members of a legal fraternity of the George Washington Law School. Mr. Rea has openly stated that this paper is “Manchukuo [Page 675] propaganda”. There is enclosed also a copy of an address delivered by Rea on March 7, 1934, at Georgetown University, which you will note was distributed under cover of a circular from the Regent of the School of Foreign Service of that University. It is believed that, after perusal of the enclosures, you will share our view as indicated above that the results of Rea’s activities cannot but be adverse rather than favorable to the development of more cordial relations between Japan and the United States.

As indicative of an attitude that is developing in Washington in regard to the efforts of paid political propagandists and lobbyists, there is enclosed also a copy of an article from the Washington Herald of April 6 attributing to Senator James Hamilton Lewis certain statements on this subject. I think that some day, perhaps soon, there is going to be quite a stirring up of such matters.

Yours sincerely,

S. K. Hornbeck
  1. The Division of Far Eastern Affairs.
  2. Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. iii, p. 710.
  3. Enclosures not reprinted.