Office of the Historian

693.002/900: Telegram

The Consul General at Shanghai (Gauss) to the Secretary of State

Shanghai, August 3, 1939—noon.
[Received 7:45 p.m.]

684. Reference Department’s No. 274, August 1, 6 p.m.91 This matter was reported by my mail despatch No. 2366 of July 2192 now en route. As it is not expected that a new central government will be set up for several months, the Inspector General himself suggested a mail report. He stated that he would not accept any appointment under a locally established “government” unrecognized by the Powers and in conflict with the Chinese Government and that he has let this be known informally to the Japanese authorities but at the same time he has intimated that some other means might conceivably be devised in connection with the direction of customs routine matters, meaning, as he explained to me orally, some sort of “working contact” with the authorities of the occupied areas as is done at present. He understands, however, that the new “government” would demand formal acceptance. He expresses the hope that “the interested powers will endeavor so far as may be feasible to strengthen the position of the [Page 852] Inspectorate by deprecating any movement calculated to upset the existing system by the introduction of regional control or other form of interference contravening treaty rights and established practice”.

It seems to me that there is nothing to be done until the establishment of the new central government when the matter may be considered in the light of the general situation then existing.93 The Counselor of the Japanese Embassy told me a few days ago that he expects the new government to be established in the autumn.

The second ranking officer of the Chinese customs is a Japanese named Kishimoto who has served for some years in the post of Chief Secretary.

Repeated to Chungking and Peiping.

Gauss
  1. This telegram reported the British aide-mémoire of July 31, supra.↩
  2. Not printed.↩
  3. The Department, in replying to the British Embassy on August 9 said it was “inclined to concur in the Consul General’s view.” (693.002/900) A similar oral reply was given in response to an inquiry of the French Embassy (693.002/918).↩