861.77 Chinese Eastern/112: Telegram
The Minister in China (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 25—1:40 p.m.]
630. 1. Sun Fo, Minister of Railways, now in Peking, this morning confirmed to me the reports that discussions with a view to arranging for direct negotiations are already in progress between the diplomatic representatives of China and of Russia at Berlin; that the Chinese Chargé d’Affaires in Moscow [is?] still remaining at his post; and that the Chinese Minister Designate to Finland and Russia, Chu Shao-yang, is about to proceed in order to take up such negotiations. He said that on the 20th or 21st the Foreign Office had received from General Chiang Tso-pin, Minister at Berlin, a telegram reporting that he had been informed by “a member of the Soviet Embassy” that Russia was opposed to having any third party concerned in the dispute and would welcome the opportunity for direct discussions. He asked what conclusion I drew from Russia’s unwillingness to consider the good offices of any third power. I said I could not attempt to explain it but queried whether China had not indicated [Page 245] the same preference for direct discussions, which he acknowledged to be the fact.
2. He said that the action against railway had been prompted by the fact that the Russian authorities had placed in highly paid positions in the railway administration propagandists who actually received considerably less than their nominal salaries, the balance being alloted to propaganda funds and that these propagandists had actually been forming secret subversive organizations among the Chinese. On my inquiry whether this situation might not have been met by action against responsible individuals rather than by the wholesale ousting of the Russians, he said that such had been intention and understanding of Nanking but that Manchurian authorities had in their zeal taken unexpectedly drastic action. He said that of course there was no intention to deprive Soviet Russia of its legal rights. I then inquired whether I was right in understanding, from what he said and from the recent announcement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that the Chinese Government is prepared to recognize without prejudice joint interest of Russia in the Chinese Eastern Railway as a commercial enterprise in accordance with the treaties of 1924 and would therefore be prepared to restore Russia to the status quo ante with respect to the railway if assured of Russia’s observance on its part of the provisions of those treaties against propaganda. He said that that was the case, subject, however, to the condition that some more effectual safeguard against the recurrence of Soviet propaganda would have to be arranged.
3. He asked my views upon the question. Basing myself upon your conversation with the Chinese Minister, as set forth in your number 237, July 19, 5 p.m., I said that it was most unfortunate that the action taken professedly for the purpose of suppressing Soviet propaganda had been so precipitate and so drastic as to create upon American public opinion unfortunate impression that China was confiscating Russian joint interest in the railway property and that China owed it to her own good name to say and to do whatever might be necessary to dispel what he gave me to understand was a false impression of the intentions of the Chinese authorities.
4. He did not confirm current reports that he is himself planning to proceed shortly to Harbin to discuss railway question with a representative of the Soviet but he indicated that his immediate plans were quite indefinite.