Office of the Historian

893.73/130: Telegram

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

Hankow, January 15, 1938—11 a.m.
[Received 4:04 p.m.]

34. Department’s 18, January 13, 7 p.m. I still adhere to the opinion expressed in my telegram No. 13 of December 3, 3 p.m.15 It is my understanding that the Commercial Pacific Cable Company is connected with its office in the International Settlement by a Chinese-owned line which runs from the point where the cable lands at Woo-sung into the Settlement through Chinese territory. The cable company is therefore unable to control the end of the cable, as the Chinese National authorities have been compelled to leave Shanghai by force majeure. Under the circumstances and in the interest of maintaining cable communications between Shanghai and the United States, it seems to me that it is necessary for the company to struggle under protest if necessary, and if arrangements can be made for depositing that share of the cable tolls which by right should be paid to the Chinese Government in a suspense account to be held until the question of control over Shanghai has been settled as between Japan and China. [Page 236] it is the best arrangement we can expect. The company’s defense would be force majeure.

Repeated to Shanghai and Peiping. Shanghai please repeat to Tokyo.

Johnson

  1. Not printed; in this telegram the Ambassador expressed approval of suggestions on the subject made by the Consul General at Shanghai in his telegram No. 1059, December 1, 1937, midnight (893.73/112). These suggestions were as follows: “I believe it to be the opinion which I share that a local arrangement to; carry on without prior reference to the Chinese Government must be accepted; that censorship cannot be avoided; and that in the impounding of the Chinese portion of revenues deposits should if possible be made in accounts in banks of the companies’ individual selection although it is not likely this can be arranged.

    I take the view that the decision must in each case be made by the company on its own responsibility, although in the light of the existing situation we might express an opinion having in mind the importance to both public and private interests of continuance of cable and radio communication.”

    ↩