123 Olive, William M.: Telegram
The Counselor of Embassy in China (Jones) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 3—5:26 p. m.]
1703. Re Deptel 813, July 11,41 and Embtel 1548, July 18. In view long delay Olive’s departure and fact that case strongly protested Shanghai, Peiping and via VOA, we feel no useful purpose served by Nanking protest at this late date. Local Aliens Affairs Office would, in any case, simply refuse accept as outside their jurisdiction.
Departure of Ambassador and consequent severing special personal channel to Huang Hua raises question whether in future there is any value in making representations here regarding incidents occurring Shanghai or other cities. We have been clearly informed on various occasions that jurisdiction of local Aliens Affairs Office does not extend to Shanghai, and experience has proved that “protests” relating to Shanghai will be curtly rejected—sometimes without even the formality of reading.
Our considered view is that, if we are successful in reestablishing channel to Huang Hua, we may sometimes usefully seek his informal assistance with regard to matters involving other areas, as we did in Mukden case. However, the presentation for facile rejection of protests pertaining to other areas on which Aliens Affairs Office would feel no responsibility for action, may do more harm than good. (This view supersedes that expressed point 3 Embtel 1628, July 2642 before Ambassador’s departure.)
Sent Department 1703; repeated Shanghai 940.