Office of the Historian

171. Memorandum From the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Murphy) to the Secretary of State1

Washington, June 10, 1957.

SUBJECT

  • Girard Case

The following figures regarding Japanese trials of American personnel in Japan under the Administrative Agreement are, according to Defense, the latest available total figures. These cover the period from October 29, 1953, when the current jurisdictional arrangements went into effect, up through November 30, 1956:

Cases in which Japan had primary jurisdiction—12,581

Trials by Japan—396 (3.1% of above)

Americans actually confined to Japanese prisons—87

According to Mr. Yingling (L),2 whether or not the United States “waived” jurisdiction in the Girard case depends on whether or not he was acting in the performance of official duty. This would seem to be a [Page 345] matter for court decision. In Mr. Yingling’s opinion there has been no waiver of jurisdiction. Apparently United States military authorities decided to let Japan try him without seeking to settle the issue of official duty through resort to government.3

Presumably, the Japanese court would not decide this issue, since it may assume either that the United States by agreeing to Japanese jurisdiction does not consider that Girard was acting in the performance of official duty or, in the reverse situation, that the United States has waived its jurisdiction. In either situation the Japanese court would have jurisdiction.

  1. Source: Department of State,FE Files: Lot 59 D 19, Girard William S. 1957.↩
  2. Raymund T. Yingling, Assistant Legal Adviser for European Affairs.↩
  3. In a memorandum to Robertson dated June 11, Parsons wrote:

    “The information received from the Judge Advocate General’s Office of the Army that the Girard case is the first case under Article XVII of the Administrative Agreement, as amended, in which the United States has waived its primary right to exercise jurisdiction has been verified with L. In the past, a number of cases have arisen in which there initially was a dispute as to whether the United States or Japan had the primary right of jurisdiction, but in all of these cases the dispute was resolved on an ad hoc basis and the United States did not waive its primary right of jurisdiction.” (Department of State, FE Files: Lot 59 D 19, Girard William S. 1957)

    ↩