125.0093/1–3049: Telegram
The Ambassador in China ( Stuart ) to the Secretary of State
[Received January 30—6:45 a. m.]
275. Reurtel 128, January 28. While we do not feel justified in recommending making official arrangements for return of dependents [Page 1222] from Manila at this time, we had believed that individual officers would be permitted to return dependents to Nanking at own expense if they desired. Decision to evacuate dependents was made by each officer on basis of situation at that time and those who elected evacuate their families to Manila in preference US did so because proximity would make possible reasonably early return, if necessary at personal expense, to China. Those officers designated remain in Nanking with families still Manila consider they face prolonged period separation from their families under trying conditions. We are in sympathy with Department’s original position that decision whether families were to remain together should be one for each individual, and this we had interpreted to mean that those who wish return their families now should not be prohibited from so doing. Department’s policy, we understand, is to keep families together whenever possible. After studying Embtel 268, January 29, giving reasons why individuals now feel justified returning their families Nanking, does Department still maintain position its telegram 128, January 28, on return dependents to China, under circumstances therein outlined?
Only three Nanking officers affected exclusive of Service Attachés. Urgent reply requested as Clough, Kierman25 and Bennett have commercial reservations their families depart Manila evening January 31 and there is no assurance how much longer commercial facilities will be available.
Sent Department, repeated Shanghai 123, Manila 15.
- Frank A. Kierman, Assistant Attaché.↩