Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Japan, Volume XXIII, Part 1

123. Telegram From the Embassy in Japan to the Department of State¹

Tokyo, February 26, 1957—6 p.m.

1869. Reference: Embtel 1776.²

1. Japanese proposal made at Joint Committee meeting February 21 to refer Somagahara shooting incident to criminal jurisdiction subcommittee for resolution jurisdiction issue. Japanese taking position sufficient proof exists that offense did not arise in course performance of official duty. US representative declined concur in proposal for referral to subcommittee pending completion of review official joint investigation findings. His position prompted by following:

a. Latest US report on investigation prepared by camp Provost Marshal contains additional data supporting Japanese allegations sufficient to prompt serious reconsideration by FEC on validity initial certification by local US military authorities February 7 re official duty status.³

b. FEC advised that subsequent AFFE recommendation that proposes original certification be sustained on position that evidence not conclusive re impairment official duty status of soldier.

c. FEC studying reports preparatory proposing US position which could possibly result relinquishing jurisdiction to Japanese without necessity referral Joint Committee consideration.

2. Limited vernacular press speculation over weekend that US “inclined” to transfer jurisdiction based on interpretation “recent USA moves”.

MacArthur

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 711.56394/2–2657. Secret; Priority.
2. Telegram 1776, February 14, reviewed press comment on the Somagahara shooting incident. (Ibid., 711.56394/2–1457)
3. In telegram 1751 from Tokyo, February 12, the Embassy reported that in accordance with the protocol on criminal jurisdiction under the amended Article XVII of the Administrative Agreement, Private Girard’s commanding officer had on February 7 certified that Girard had been on official duty at the time of the shooting, and that the Japanese authorities were contesting this determination. (Ibid., 711.551/2–1257)