793.94/13227: Telegram
The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 15—10:45 a.m.]
292. Department’s 177, June 14 [13], 10 [11] p.m. Your paragraph 1. Department has a complete history of this matter in Shanghai’s 812, June 11, noon,62 813, June 11, 1 p.m.,63 and my 286, June 12, 1 p.m.,64 which repeated Yarnell’s comments to me. On June 12, 1 p.m., I instructed Consul General at Shanghai to make reply to Mr. Tani’s letter quoting Admiral Yarnell’s comment to me. Please note that all of unimportant messages were in plain and that Admiral Yarnell’s telegram was addressed to me and carried no indication whatever that he had made any communication to Japanese authorities or to press. [Page 355] The local English language paper Central China Post dated June 13 carried a Central United Press item dated Shanghai June 12, stating that Admiral Yarnell had rejected Japanese request “in his reply to the Japanese today through the American Consulate General”. There followed a summarization of Admiral Yarnell’s comments addressed to me phrased in such a way as to indicate that Admiral Yarnell had communicated this to the Japanese. I had a call on June 13 from the local Associated Press correspondent who had received an inquiry in regard to this matter from his New York office and had [been] instructed to obtain my comments. I refused to make any comments stating that I knew of no reply which Admiral Yarnell had made to Japanese authorities. On June 14 Associated Press correspondent again called, stated he had received a request from his New York office instructing him to obtain text of Admiral Yarnell’s statement. I telegraphed Admiral Yarnell and, informing him of appearance of item in local paper, stated that I had refused to make any comment and that I had referred Associated Press to Shanghai. Admiral Yarnell informed me on June 14 that he had given no information to the press in Shanghai and that he had been unable to trace the source of the United Press report.
Department will therefore see that neither Admiral Yarnell nor I have had anything whatever to do with publicity which United Press based upon this story. I suspect that United Press was able to intercept the message which Yarnell sent to me through naval wireless circuit and used it in its story. Story is misleading and incomplete and evidently—from excerpts quoted by the Department—was intended to mislead press at home as to actual attitude of the Navy here. We here are anxious to run no risks in these present times, and every reasonable precaution has been exercised by the Navy and by the Embassy and the Consulates. Warnings have been issued from time to time to Americans to evacuate places of danger, and Consulates and Embassy have done everything in their power with the cooperation of the Navy to facilitate such evacuation when possible. The Embassy is not aware of any act on the part of the Navy or on the part of the Consulates or itself which has not been in conformity with concepts of policy and its execution outlined in the Department’s instructions. Obviously we here cannot foresee or prevent speculative comments by the press intended apparently to be tendencious and to cause embarrassment.
Your paragraph 2. Department has requested me to comment as to advisability of visit which Admiral Yarnell has planned to make to me and to Wuhu. This plan has been in mind for some time, and I personally see no reason why the Admiral should not make the visit contemplated. Visit is not in area of immediate hostilities and is in [Page 356] the ordinary course of naval inspection and will I believe be productive of good rather than harm. Certainly it should not be accompanied by any more danger or embarrassment than visits to Tsingtao, Chefoo or Chinwangtao.
This telegram is being repeated to Shanghai for communication to the Admiral.