Office of the Historian

125.643/101: Telegram

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

Peiping, June 13, 1935—9 a.m.
[Received 10:27 a.m.]

267. Department’s 145, May 29, 8 p.m. Atcheson’s views on the matter, which have my full concurrence, are as follows:

1.
Proposal is practicable; no undue hardships would be caused the service or American firms and residents; protection work could be handled as efficaciously as before; Chinese would view the change as evidence of increasing interest by the American Government in its Legation representation at Nanking; while the proposed abolition of the Consulate General might make it possible to reduce personnel that question cannot be well determined until it becomes apparent whether the present heavy telegraphic traffic continues or whether the Legation work will continue to increase; other than possible savings in personnel the material immediate savings would be in postage, stationery, printing and binding and local transportation.
2.
The number of Americans in Nanking to be served by a Vice Consul detailed to the Legation office is less than half the number served by the consular officer in Peiping; many of the Americans in the interior are nearer Shanghai by mail; the greater part of the work is handled by mail and Shanghai is but 6 hours from Nanking by train and one hour and a half by air. In the past 6 months there have not been more than five occasions on which oral representations to municipal authorities were necessary; the Shanghai officer to be detailed to Nanking could make such representations. Only two American firms have branch offices in Nanking with American personnel.
3.
The varied duties if distributed through a large office should not burden Shanghai particularly with a consular officer in Nanking. Because Nanking is commercially united to Shanghai trade inquiries have for some time been referred to Shanghai. As in Peiping the officer in Nanking should not have any jurisdiction in visa work but could undertake investigations for Shanghai.
4.
Shipment to Shanghai of the consular archives and records for the years 1927 to 1931 would cost about 60 United States dollars. Legation correspondence has been bound with consular correspondence from 1931 to the end of 1934 and it should remain in Nanking for reference purposes, Shanghai to rely upon its officer in Nanking to continue the files.
5.
Under present staff conditions the administration of the combined offices has been extremely difficult. There is too much Legation work requiring personal action or supervision by the officer in charge [Page 522] to permit him without an excessive amount of overtime to give proper attention to the Consulate General and various office details. The emphasis which the change would place upon the Legation representation in Nanking would be advantageous; the Foreign Office has considered the Legation office as an appendage of the Consulate General and our representation in Nanking suffers in comparison with that of other countries.

Consul General Cunningham15 reports that the proposal is practicable from the point of view of his office. He feels that the additional work involved could be handled by the staff of his office without additions other than those requested in his estimate for clerk hire submitted on January 15, 1935. He assumes, of course, that one of the officers at Nanking will be assigned concurrently to Shanghai as a consular officer to perform his duties in Nanking. He believes that the consular archives at Nanking should be transferred insofar as possible to Shanghai for reference purposes.

Johnson
  1. Edwin S. Cunningham, Consul General at Shanghai.↩