693.94244/88
The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 29.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to Nanking’s telegram No. 53 of March 14, 9 a.m., in regard to the difficulties experienced by the Chinese authorities in efforts to stop smuggling operations because of the refusal on the part of the Japanese military to permit armed customs cruisers to proceed against smugglers along the coast of the demilitarized zone in northern Hopei Province on the ground that such action would violate the Tangku Truce, and to previous despatches and telegrams in regard to the Tangku Truce, and in that connection to enclose an article from the Peiping Chronicle (a Chinese-owned daily newspaper published in English) of May 20, 1936,14 on this subject. It is stated therein that a spokesman of the Foreign Office declared on May 18, 1936, that there was nothing in the Sino-Japanese Truce Agreement signed on May 31, 1933, at Tangku which would justify the interference by the Japanese with the Customs Preventive Service (ships and launches) in Eastern Hopei. It is stated that following this declaration the spokesman distributed to the pressmen assembled copies of a [Page 190] translation of the text of the agreement. The terms of the truce as set forth in the translation thus distributed, allowing for language differences resulting from translation, are, with one exception, the same as those included in the translation of the text supplied to me by the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Liu Ch’eng-chieh, on June 2, 1933, which was forwarded to the Department under cover of my despatch No. 2153 of June 14, 1933.14a The one exception is that in paragraph 4 of the text forwarded by me there was no provision that the police force “shall not be constituted by armed units hostile to Japanese feelings” as provided in section 4 of the text furnished by the spokesman of the Foreign Office. If these texts are authentic and complete, it is apparent that the statement of the Foreign Office spokesman is correct, and there would appear to be nothing in this agreement as published which would justify the Japanese in interfering with the normal functioning of the Chinese Customs authorities south of the Great Wall. There is reason to believe, however, that agreements on various matters were entered into at the time of the signing of the Tangku Truce which have not yet been published and the scope of those agreements is not yet known accurately. The Chinese argument is in part supported by the fact that, according to information available, the attitude of the Japanese authorities did not result in the disarming of the customs preventive officers until the spring of 1935 and the fact that the Japanese military authorities did not insist on the ceasing of operation of customs armed vessels along the coast of the demilitarized zone until September, 1935, two years after the conclusion of the Tangku Truce.
Respectfully yours,