124.933/7–844: Telegram
The Ambassador in China (Gauss) to the Secretary of State
[Received 2:05 p.m.]
1182. If Ambassador is to continue to be responsible for effective utilization of Foreign Service personnel in China, I request that Second Secretary Davies be instructed by Department in reply to his 485 from Delhi that all requests for assignment of Foreign Service officers in China to special duty with Army should be made directly by the Army to Ambassador with a proper showing of the need and services expected to be performed and that Ambassador will not tolerate further interference by Davies in his functions.
All Army requests will be given full consideration in light of needs of both Foreign Service and Army, availability of personnel, and Embassy’s knowledge of capabilities of officers available. I am not informed that personnel of the military group to be sent to northern areas, including Communist areas, has yet been selected. It would be desirable that Service accompany the group. He is an outstanding [Page 119] and well balanced officer. But as understanding reached with Chinese Government was that this group should be a military group for purpose of obtaining military intelligence, care must be exercised in attaching Foreign Service officers to it. So far as Chinese Government is concerned they should appear as language officers and not as diplomatic or political officers. I question capability of Ludden as political officer but since he is detailed to Army and was several months ago sent to Chengtu without consultation with Embassy and undoubtedly at Davies’ instance, I have no authority to object to his going with the group if Army selects him. Emmerson likewise appears to be under Army authority with which of course I have no desire to interfere.
As to replacement of Service at Chungking, it is of interest that the Deputy Chief of Staff urgently requests such replacement. At same time it is significant that he applies therefor to Davies and not to Ambassador. Service spent long months at Army headquarters with no status and little work but he has gradually made a place for himself there and has been extremely useful to Army and Embassy. There is no good reason why Army should not ask Embassy for the advice and guidance for which it now turns to Service and difficulty in replacing Service may demonstrate to them that they should keep in closer touch with Embassy. However, presence of Service on the spot at headquarters has in a number of instances permitted his intervention to block some of the ill-advised and inept move[s] proposed there and if a suitable officer were available I would be glad to assign him to replace Service temporarily.
Penfield was sent to Chengtu to endeavor to establish better relations between our air force (which is not under local Hqrs) and provincial authorities. From all accounts he is being very useful. He cannot now well be relieved. Ringwalt is not now available but may be later and if he does become available I would consider sending him Chengtu and recommending to Department Penfield’s temporary detail to Army. Sprouse was sent to Kunming for change of climate after 2 years at Chungking and it would be most unfair to bring him back to Chungking for duty of any kind at this time.
If Embassy recommends to Department temporary detail of an officer to Hqrs to replace Service, I would propose to have a definite understanding with Army as to his duties and relative level at which he would serve on Army staff. I must insist that such an officer be responsible as a Foreign Service officer to the Ambassador and not to Secretary Davies.