893.001 (M) Pu Yi/9
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 4.]
Sir: I have the honor to submit the following report on the present visit of “Emperor Kangte” of “Manchukuo” to Japan.
On the morning of April 2, 1935, Kangte left Hsinking by rail, in all formality, commencing a visit to the Emperor of Japan, anticipated in the press for several months as for the purpose of expressing the gratitude of “Manchukuo” for the cooperation and assistance accorded by Japan. He was accompanied by a retinue of 150 members. At Dairen the same day he went aboard the Hiei, a training cruiser of the Japanese navy, and departed thereon for Japan under escort of destroyers. Off the coast of Japan on April 4 the Hiei was met by the combined fleet of the Japanese navy with full honors. On the morning of April 6 the Hiei reached Yokohama. Prince Chichibu, brother of the Emperor of Japan, came aboard and greeted Kangte, after which the party proceeded by special train to Tokyo. On the Tokyo station platform the Japanese Emperor was awaiting the visitor when the train pulled up, and it was there that occurred their first meeting, introduced by Prince Chichibu. They shook hands. After conversing a few moments through an interpreter, the Japanese Emperor presented to “Emperor Kangte” the princes of the blood who were drawn up in attendance. Next Prince Chichibu escorted the guest to the imperial Akasaka detached palace which was given to him as his residence while in Tokyo.
With these formalities began a stay which has been given great publicity in Manchuria and Japan and has been managed with marked dignity and respect. News connected with it has been the leading [Page 118] feature of the Japanese press for several weeks, and both the treatment of the visitor and the tenor of the newspaper accounts have been unexceptionally deferential. Observance of the forms of respect due a visiting sovereign has been meticulous. The program at Tokyo included several functions at the Emperor’s palace; personal decoration of the visitor by the Emperor; a joint review of troops, entertainment of Kangte at a banquet given by the Japanese government at the premier’s residence; visits by Kangte to the Meiji shrine, the Yasukuni shrine (commemorating Japan’s war dead), and the Tama tomb (of Emperor Taisho); entertainment at the Akasaka detached palace by the visitor in honor of Prince and Princess Chichibu and Prince and Princess Takamatsu, and again in honor of high officials; and an official reception for the visitor by the municipality of Tokyo. On April 15, after a sojourn of nine days, “Emperor Kangte” departed by special train for Kyoto, and will visit historic places in central Japan before re-embarking for Manchuria about April 25.
Expense has not been spared to impress the public with the importance of the guest as a visiting sovereign. The cities along the route have been conspicuously decorated for the occasion. Street traffic in Tokyo was several times completely dislocated, and train schedules had to be modified drastically. The money outlay of the two governments on account of the visit amounts to approximately Yen 1,300,000, which is in addition to expenditures made by municipalities. Extensive special precautions taken by the police must have added further to the aggregate cost.
Editorial comment on the visit has uniformly regarded “Manchukuo” as a distinct and sovereign state, though with interests common to the interests of Japan. One simile stated that the relations of the two countries are as interdependent as the wheels of a carriage. Two newspapers mentioned suggestively Kangte’s rightful claim to the throne of China. No comment which has come to the Embassy’s attention has intimated any relation of subservience to Japan on the part of the present regime in Manchuria. As for the popular attitude, it has been one of respect without great enthusiasm.
In evaluating the significance of the hospitality accorded to “Emperor Kangte” it would be an error to presume that the official desire to present to the public the national guest in the role of an independent sovereign is for foreign consumption only. The authorities no doubt realize the great difficulty of carrying conviction on that score abroad. The matter of interest is that, in a display for home consumption, the attitude of deference to an independent sovereign has been so consistent. This is food for reflection. If annexation is contemplated, public opinion built up by the conduct of the present visit will prove an obstacle rather than an aid. The manner in which “Emperor [Page 119] Kangte” has been received is confirmation by the present government of Japan for the decision of an earlier cabinet that the existence of a separate state in Manchuria satisfactorily meets the exigencies of the situation. The Department will recall that the idea of a separate state in Manchuria was masterfully defined by Count Uchida20 in a memorandum supplied to Lord Lytton’s commission at Dairen in May 193221 (page 8, enclosure 4, strictly confidential despatch No. 60, July 16, 193222): “Japan wishes to see the Manchukuo Government in a position where it will be able to maintain peace and order and where it will develop industrial and commercial resources in such a manner that not only the inhabitants themselves but other nations involved will derive benefit. It is, of course, greatly to be desired that the Manchuria Government should be able to defend itself, with its own resources, against aggression from outside forces …23 recognition of the Manchukuo Government furnishes the only practical solution which provides the feature of permanently removing Manchuria as a constant source of danger to the peace of the Far East and the world generally.” Whatever the necessities of assistance to the regime in its infancy, the reception accorded Kangte would tend to indicate that the far-reaching plan laid down in the prophetic words of Count Uchida, who seems to be one of the important minds back of the changes that have come about, remains in official favor.
Respectfully yours,
- Then president of the South Manchurian Railway Co.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Despatch printed in Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. iv, p. 149.↩
- Omission indicated in the original.↩