393.1163/877
The Consul General at Shanghai (Gauss) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 29.]
Subject: Interference by Japanese Armed Forces, with Property of the Seventh-Day Baptist Mission at Liuho, Kiangsu Province.
Sir: I have the honor to invite the Department’s attention to my despatch no. 1944, January 24, 1939,7 on the above subject. The Department [Page 292] will recall that in the despatch under reference, it was reported that members of the Japanese armed forces had interfered with the property of the Seventh-Day Baptist Mission at Liuho and removed articles from the property according to a report that representatives of the Mission made to this office.
With the despatch referred to above, there was enclosed a copy of a memorandum on this case that I left with the Japanese Consul General on January 16, 1939,10 requesting the Japanese authorities to take the necessary steps to see that there was no further interference of any kind with this American property. As I did not receive a reply to that memorandum or to other representations in connection with this case, I mentioned it again to the Japanese Consul General during a call on February 1, 1939. As the details of this case were reported in the despatch referred to above and its enclosures, they will not be repeated here. However, there is enclosed a communication, dated February 16, 1939, that I received from the Japanese Consul General10 concerning this matter.
In the majority of protection cases I have not received any replies to the communications I have addressed to the Japanese Consul General. When replies are received, they usually are very unsatisfactory. The one enclosed with this despatch is an example. It will be noted that the Japanese Consul General states that “there remain scarcely any floorboards to be removed”. If this is a fact, it is not improbable that it is due to members of the Japanese armed forces having removed the floorboards. The statement that the wardrobe was taken into the possession of the Japanese garrison to protect it from theft is open to considerable doubt in view of other actions of members of the Japanese armed forces in China since the outbreak of hostilities.
It will also be noted that the Japanese Consul General’s communication stated, “Moreover, the troops are taking care of the destroyed houses and there is no justification in alleging the infringement of American rights on the part of the Japanese troops.”
It would have been a simple matter for the Japanese authorities to inquire in advance, either directly or through this office, whether the Seventh-Day Baptist Mission wished Japanese troops to “protect” its property at Liuho which is near Shanghai. Furthermore, a representative of the Seventh-Day Baptist Mission insists that a Chinese watchman has been on or near the property of the Mission at Liuho during recent months. The occupation of the property without the consent of its American owners is obviously an infringement of American rights.
[Page 293]I have not replied to the Japanese Consul General’s letter because, in the light of similar cases, a discussion of the points raised in his letter, in my opinion, would serve no useful purpose and also because the Mission has informed me that interference with the property has not recurred recently.
Respectfully yours,