Office of the Historian

Marshall Mission Files, Lot 54–D270: Telegram

General Marshall to Colonel Marshall S. Carter

Nanking, 26 July 1946.

1182. Reconsideration of deletion of article 22 leads me to same conclusion as before. Your 18 July msg refers. Neither I nor Smyth and Butterworth51 see the desirability of retaining the article. In fact we concur with the Chinese that its retention violates Chinese sovereignty. Actually I am more concerned in anti-American reaction should the article, either included in the contract or in a separate agreement, become widely known. It is almost bound to become public.

[Page 841]

As a matter of fact the contract contains terms which would gain the same effect anyway. Should the Chinese accept assistance from another power which assistance is detrimental to U. S. or the functioning of MAG, the contract can be terminated by United States. Do you think you can swing the proposition with State, War and Navy?

I am also of the opinion that we should go ahead with the contract in spite of my recent views on the China Aid Bill.52 MAG can continue under President’s war powers53 and be all set to operate if the idea of advising and assisting the Chinese Govt continues to fit in with U. S. policy. If it does not, again the contract can always be terminated by the U. S.54

  1. William Walton Butterworth, Minister-Counselor of Embassy in China.↩
  2. See telegrams Nos. 1164, July 22, and 1173, July 24, pp. 753 and 755, respectively.↩
  3. First War Powers Act approved December 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 838) and Second War Powers Act approved March 27, 1942 (56 Stat. 176); further legislative authorization for detail of United States military and naval missions to foreign governments contained in “An Act to authorize the President to detail officers and enlisted men of the United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps to assist the governments of the Latin-American Republics in military and naval matters”, approved May 19, 1926, as amended May 14, 1935 and October 1, 1942 (44 Stat. 565; 49 Stat. 218; 56 Stat. 763; and 34 U. S. C. 441a).↩
  4. Telegram No. 520, July 26, 7 p.m., to the Embassy in China, stated: “Dept and War and Navy concur in deletion of article 22 of Military Group Agreement on basis outlined in reference message” telegram No. 1132, July 13 (893.20M/7–1346).↩