120.301/2–749: Telegram
The Ambassador in China (Stuart) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 8—4:35 a. m.]
328. ReDeptel 157, February 2. Full report on returned dependents China follows:
Question return dependents raised Embassy staff meeting January 27 (not including Service Attachés). Minister-Counselor stated he did not agree conditions had so changed Nanking that Embassy would be warranted in approaching Department to request general return dependents to China. However, in view Department’s position expressed in telegram late November32 that no pressure be brought to bear on officers respect evacuation their families, he (Minister-Counselor) had no more authority order dependents remain Manila than he had authority order them evacuate Nanking last December. He agreed that as original decision to evacuate families from China had been one for each officer, each officer was still free to make individual arrangements bring his family back on his own initiative and responsibility. Ambassador concurred and Clough and Bennett on basis above considerations and after approval of same by responsible officers in Chancery wired families to return commercial means. Department informed this action [Page 1227] Embtel 265, Shanghai 28 and Manila by Embtel 9, January 28,33 text as follows:
“Clough and Bennett are wiring families return Nanking soonest own expense. Embassy interposes no objection.”
Later same day Kierman wired his wife return. Embtel 268, January 29, repeated Manila 14, Shanghai 119, explained fully officer’s reasoning and Embassy’s position. On January 29, Embassy also sent Manila telegram 13, pertinent portion text as follows:
“Service Attachés arranging to send their planes Manila to return dependents Nanking, first flights to arrive Manila Monday. Priority to be given Service Attaché dependents, but State Department dependents will also be returned Nanking this means if conditions permit sufficient flights. As time of essence, some individuals proceeding with commercial arrangements at own expense. Shanghai dependents will not be included these flights since factor not so pressing”.
On January 30, Embassy received Deptel 128, Jan. 28, stating Department could not agree to return dependents, and Manila’s 12, January 28 (repeated Department 25334), stating in view Deptel 128 State Department dependents had been requested delay departure from Manila until further clearance from Nanking. Deptel 128 was shown Service Attachés who considered it inapplicable their dependents as it spoke of “ordering dependents US”, an action outside competence of State Department in so far as Attaché dependents concerned. Embassy therefore informed Manila by Embtel 16, Jan. 30,35 that airlift Attaché dependents was proceeding. As Deptel 128 was not in response to Embtel 268, January 29, and was first indication Department’s opposition to return dependents China, Embassy’s telegram 275, Jan. 30 (repeated Manila 15), explaining further position of Embassy and officers concerned and asking whether after study Embtel 268 Department maintained opposition. Embassy and officers concerned assumed dependents were delaying departure accordance Manila’s request and sent no further communication, either official or personal, Manila concerning them while awaiting Department’s reply to Embtel 275. First intimation officers had of their dependents’ departure from Manila was Shanghai’s report their arrival Feb. 1. Embassy immediately informed Department by telegram 290, Feb. 1.36
Dependents state they were not informed of position Embassy Nanking as outlined telegrams 268 and 275. They were, however, given [Page 1228] memo from PU37 Army authorities dated January 29 to sign stating “Local Embassy will not prohibit your going to China. However, you will be going at your own risk and in violation of State Department radio attached”. This radio apparently paraphrase of Deptel 128 quoted as follows: “State Department does not intend to return State Department and ECA people to China this time.” According dependents, they were orally told by Embassy officer that Embassy could not prevent their going, but disapproved, and urged them to wait for Attaché plane. However, dependents, knowing first flight Attaché dependents was returning Nanking following day and feeling to wait for later Attaché flights might make it impossible return at all because of severed communications, departed commercial air January 31. They interpreted radio quoted above to mean Department would not provide official facilities to them to return, not as prohibiting their return, as they were aware that original decision to evacuate them had been made by their husbands, and that they had not been “ordered” out of China.
Embassy and officers concerned do not feel latter “took action to effect return their families in clear contravention Department’s instruction”, because (1) original action to effect return their families was believed in accordance with Department’s policy that officer should individually decide whether to keep family with him (at time making decision to evacuate them no officer was informed he could not bring his family back upon his own initiative) and (2) after being informed of Department opposition to return of families and Manila’s request to dependents to delay departure, they took no action personal or official beyond requesting Department give matter further consideration.
Sent Department, repeated Manila 28, Shanghai 145, Embassy Canton 20.