893.52/503
The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 15.]
Sir: With reference to my telegram no. 319, July 5, 12 noon12 and the Department’s telegram no. 116, July 9, 4 p.m. in relation to the matter of the archives of the Land Bureau of the Shanghai Municipal Government, I have the honor to transmit herewith, as a matter of record, a copy of the Embassy’s note of July 11, 1940 to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.12
[Page 758]There is also enclosed a copy in translation of a note dated July 24, 1940,13 received by the Embassy from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that the action of the Shanghai Municipal Council is unlawful and contrary to the principle of a delegated custodianship. The note embodies a vigorous protest, sets forth that the transfer of the land archives has no legal validity, and contains a reservation of all rights by the Chinese Government.
The last-mentioned note was, of course, transmitted after the Shanghai Municipal Council had delivered over the land archives, and the Embassy is of the opinion that it was sent chiefly for purposes of record. The Embassy does not propose to reply to this note unless instructed to do so by the Department.
On July 18 the Counselor of the British Embassy informed the Counselor of the American Embassy that the former had received telegraphic instructions from his Ambassador to send a reply to the Foreign Office note of July 4 similar to the American reply. He asked whether he might have a copy of the latter. A copy of the British reply, dated July 22, is enclosed.13
On July 30, during a conversation with the Counselor of the Embassy, Vice Minister Hsu Mo reiterated that the Chinese Government regarded the handing over of the land records with the greatest regret and misgiving as to their possible use. He observed that it would be quite possible for the “puppet” regime to falsify the records and otherwise misuse them and that the Government had even meditated declaring all the records in the possession of the regime invalid, but had discarded the idea as too drastic.
Respectfully yours,