893.01/10–449: Telegram
The Consul General at Peiping (Clubb) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 4—3:31 a. m.]
1674. ReContel 1665, October 2. British Consulate has acknowledged receipt Peiping Foreign Office by letter, addressed simply “General Chou En-lai”, without consular title, saying note forwarded. French Consulate plans deliver unaddressed letter signed personally to Aliens Affairs Office and reporting forwarding.
Messenger indicated to me October 1 location Foreign Office would be made known in due course, informed Belgian Consulate and [any?] communication re matter could be transmitted via Aliens Affairs Office.
Refraining from addressing Chou pending receipt instruction from Department. Note that this action seems possibly open door if only slightly to contact with Communist side. Noting pending cases such [Page 98] as Mukden Consulate and Smith-Bender,72 and possible future requirements, believe it advisable attempt discover what lies behind door. Will enlarge upon this belief in early message but would recommend at this time some step be taken here to inform Chou his note was forwarded, as first step to development contact. Question in that case would be whether by memo left at Aliens Affairs Office or by letter addressed Chou. In first case, I should prefer sign as Consul General, in second, presume communication would properly be addressed him personally might be signed same way. Attempt might also be made at direct contact, though success unlikely.
Please instruct.