393.11/1837

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

No. 467

Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Department’s telegraphic instruction No. 60 of March 19, 12 noon,70 relative to the question of [Page 517] United States naval protection for American citizens at Foochow, and to enclose for the information and files of the Department copies of the following correspondence on the matter:

[Here follows list of enclosures; none printed.]

The discussion of this matter between Consul Burke71 and various United States naval officers appears to have grown out of a feeling on the part of Mr. Burke that current instructions governing the actions of the United States Navy in rendering protection to American citizens and their property in foreign lands are in some way at variance with Paragraph 113 of Section 11 of the Consular Regulations which governs the action of consular officers in determining when the presence of a naval force is necessary for the protection of American citizens and their property.

The Embassy informed Consul Burke in its instruction of May 20, 1936,72 that it does not perceive any contradiction between the instructions issued to the two independent services. Paragraph 113 of the Consular Regulations specifically requires that the Consul, having determined when the public exigencies absolutely require the presence of a naval force at his port, will then give the officers in command of the naval forces the reasons in full why the request is made and then “leave with them the responsibility for action”. The responsibility for the safety of the lives and property of American citizens at the port, and of the officers and men under the command of the naval officer called to the port in question, rests entirely with the naval officer in command. It is his duty to lay down the conditions under which protection can be given, and it is the Consul’s duty to assist the naval officer in obtaining the cooperation of the American citizens in making the protection effective. The commanding officer concerned naturally must not be bound by too limiting a plan, for conditions and circumstances change, and his responsibility under the circumstances is very great.

The Department will note from Mr. Burke’s despatch No. 445 of April 27, 1936,72 that the matter has now been satisfactorily settled through the receipt by Mr. Burke of a letter, dated March 11, 1936, from the Commander-in-Chief, United States Asiatic Fleet, and of a letter, dated March 28, 1936, from Commander Hall of the U. S. S. Asheville, with which Commander Hall enclosed a copy of the “Evacuation and Defense Plan for Foochow, China, dated February 1, 1936”, duly approved by the Commander of the South China Patrol. Mr. Burke was informed in the Embassy’s instruction of May 20 that, in the present instance, it appeared to the Embassy that the plan above-mentioned adequately meets the requirements of the port of [Page 518] Foochow considering its distance from deep water, and that the situation will be definitely met when he has worked out with American nationals resident at Foochow the concentration plans required by Paragraph 3 of that defense plan.74

Respectfully yours,

Nelson Trusler Johnson
  1. Not printed.
  2. Gordon L. Burke, Consul at Foochow.
  3. Not printed.
  4. Not printed.
  5. Paragraph 3 provided inter alia that the concentration plans should be prepared and circulated by the Consulate, a copy of such Consulate concentration plan to be furnished the Commander of the South China Patrol.