121.5493/10–2849: Telegram
The Military Attaché in China (Soule) to the Secretary of State 6
[Received October 28—9:38 a. m.]
683. ReEmb 2316.7 Part 1: Morning 27 October Soule called at Alien Affairs Office submitted verbal protest and letter as follows:
“It is desired protest my detention in Nanking by the Nanking Public Safety Bureau. To the best of my knowledge and belief I complied with all People’s Government laws and applied for an exit permit. On 15 October I was informed that my exit permit could not be issued until final settlement of separation allowance with Army, Navy and Air Attaché employees who had protested my departure. I was not advised who these employees were though I inquired. Settlement was made with all Attaché employees and all employees have signed a statement accepting same as satisfactory and full payment of all outstanding claims.
An interpreter was sent to secure my exit permit daily. On 24 October he returned stating permit was still withheld because of 3 or 4 unsettled matters. The chief translator of my office was sent to the Public Safety Bureau on the afternoon of 24 October to try and determine what matters remained unsettled. He returned without any definite information.
On 25 October I called at the Public Safety Bureau with Mr. Bacon and the chief interpreter and asked to see the section chief to determine why issuance of my exit permit was still withheld. I was informed that the section chief was absent and would not return until Thursday. I tried to determine what matters under my jurisdiction were considered still unsettled but received no definite reply.
As other diplomatic officials including the American Naval Attaché have been permitted to depart Nanking it appears I am being discriminated against and detained in Nanking. I feel it only just that I be given a clear statement of the reasons my exit permit is being held up, or that I be issued the exit permit and allowed to depart.
Your assistance is requested in securing my exit permit.”
Mr. Kang read the letter, informed me statement the People’s Government was detaining me in Nanking was in error as the government was not detaining any foreigners. He claimed the statement in the letter that other diplomatic officials have been permitted depart was proof that no one being detained. He claimed statement I was being discriminated against was wrong, that when I saw the chief section Public Safety Bureau the reason exit visa held up would be explained. He refused accept letter or copy of memorandum signed by Mr. Bacon, senior Embassy officer, which I presented but read them both. Kang [is] a new official in Alien Affairs Office whom I met for first time. It evident that his main mission was get rid of me.
Part 2: On afternoon 27 October called at Public Safety Bureau with Mr. Bacon and interpreter. After considerable wait managed [Page 843] interview with Miss Chang, Chief of Section. Chang went into various reasons Soule’s exit permit withheld. Finally she agreed only two things remained unsettled, to wit: demands of defunct Embassy club employees for separation pay and claims three former servants employed by Sergeants Abramson and Fox for exorbitant separation pay. Mr. Bacon and I called attention fact she had letter signed by Mr. Bacon and myself stating he assumed all responsibility for settlement club employees dispute, that I had ceased as member of board governors and had no more responsibility club matters than any former members most whom received exit permits. She read letter dated 24 October claiming was signed by 5 club employees which mentioned Frankel, Soule, Moyer, Kutchera as responsible effecting settlement. Chang stated employees claimed Soule was head board governors of club, therefore letter from Mr. Bacon could not be accepted as legal or valid. She said Public Safety Bureau considered Soule responsible because of employees’ letter and matter should be settled prior to his departure. When it pointed out that other members of club and board governors were permitted leave Nanking and this was discrimination against Soule, she denied it on grounds employees had not objected prior departure of some and in Captain Frankel’s case he was not leaving China but only going Shanghai. Chang refused accept statements Soule could not negotiate club employees dispute, claimed Soule should present statement signed by all club employees he not responsible for settlement. With respect the three servants of sergeants, it was pointed out these were hired as personal servants and their claims were against individuals and not Military Attaché. She agreed make further investigation, of case.