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

142. Supplementary Notes on the Legislative Leadership Meeting, Washington, May 21, 1957, 8:30–10:30 a.m.¹

Washington, May 21, 1957, 8:30–10:30 a.m.

[Here follows discussion of unrelated matters.]

Girard Case—Sec. Brucker recounted at length the facts and conflicting stories of this incident. The Leaders were primarily interested in why Girard had been turned over to the Japanese for trial. Mr. Brucker explained that under our treaty with the Japanese, a soldier’s commanding officer certified if he was on official duty when something goes wrong. Generally this is sufficient, but in the Girard case, the Japanese exercised their treaty right to dispute the certificate and have the matter referred to a two man Commission (one Japanese, one American). If they disagree, it continues at stalemate until some sort of agreement is reached. In this instance, the two parties disagreed at first. Experts within the Defense Department also disagreed as to what our position should be. As a result of disagreements among our legal experts both in Washington and in Japan, the matter was referred back to the Admiral who was our member on the commission, the decision being left with him. He then agreed to Japanese exercise of jurisdiction.

Sec. Brucker said he believed the United States should retain jurisdiction and bring Girard before a court martial. Accordingly, he intended to clear with State Department, then send out a cable² directing that we vacate our earlier action and that we assert our jurisidiction and bring Girard to military trial. The cable would go to Gen. Lemnitzer. The Japanese, however, would be able to press their point of view under the treaty, and the Joint Commission would have to listen to the argumentation.

Sen Dirksen³ asked whether State Department officials had had a hand in making the final decision. Sec. Brucker did not know whether or not State might have been the channel (in Japan) for communication with the Admiral on the Joint Commission.

Mr. Brucker asked that the Leaders not say anything until he had had a chance to clear with State and get the cable on its way.

Sen Knowland spoke strongly on U.S. jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers. With Sen. Bridges’⁴ help he went back over some of the Senate debates and the Bow amendment.⁵ He asked that Mr. Bruker keep them well informed.

LAM

1. Source: Eisenhower Library, Whitman File, Legislative Meetings. Confidential. Drafted by Minnich.
2. See footnote 2, Document 147.
3. Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, Minority Whip.
4. Styles Bridges of New Hampshire, a member of the Armed Services Committee.
5. Representative Frank T. Bow of Ohio introduced into the House Foreign Affairs Committee a resolution calling for modification of all status of forces agreements to provide for exclusive U.S. jurisdiction over servicemen charged with crimes in foreign countries.