124.936/5–2449: Telegram
The Ambassador in China (Stuart) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 24—8:25 a. m.]
1102. As our experience somewhat different from Peiping, would comment as follows on Peiping’s 860 [896] to Department:42
Important consideration is maintenance channel communication, rather than form of document. Communist authorities Nanking refuse accept letter or memo signed with title. Embassy therefore using primarily unaddressed memos signed without title and handed to Aliens Affairs Office. When use letter desirable, it is addressed to Communist official by name without title and signed without title. Form in Chinese is that of letter between private individuals. Communists have not objected to inclusion in text language which makes obvious official character of representation and it appears unlikely that inclusion or omission official title either side likely seriously [Page 750] influence effectiveness Communist action in response to such representations. However, we see no objection to using titles both sides if considered preferable in local situation, as Communist official addressed would in any case be local official and question implied recognition National Government would not arise. Believe question can usually be side-stepped by use of unaddressed memo delivered to Aliens Affairs Office with oral or textual request it be transmitted to appropriate authorities. Embassy agrees consular officers, as opposed diplomatic, should use official title in all cases where intercourse will not thereby be impeded. By so doing we maintain our position that consular officers are always competent to deal with any local authorities while diplomatic intercourse limited to National authorities.
Sent Department 1102; repeated AmEmb Canton 459; Shanghai 624; Peiping 179.