793.94112/33
The Navy Department to the Department of State
Copy of Telegram Received September 6, 1937, 7:20 P.M.
0006. Following letter sent to Admiral Hasegawa43a this date.
“My Dear Admiral Hasegawa: Twice recently, articles have appeared in the local press which apparently have been given out by a Spokesman’ of the Japanese military, naval or diplomatic authorities.
The first of [these?] appeared on September second and according to press reports reads as follows:
‘Foreign ships told not to cross path of Japanese naval craft.
‘Foreign vessels navigating in the Yangtze estuary were warned by a Japanese naval spokesman yesterday against proceeding across the path of Japanese naval craft operating in formation in that zone (sic).
‘The warning, the spokesman said, was “informal”. According to the Japanese naval authorities, foreign vessels approaching Japanese warships are not only subject to the danger of being bombarded by Chinese airplanes, but might also cause a collision because of the necessity of the Nipponese ships to maintain a certain set course dictated by military requirements.
‘The French dispatch ship Savorgnan de Brazza, the spokesman charged, had crossed the path of Japanese warcraft operating off Pootung on Tuesday. Such practice, the Japanese official contended, was “dangerous”.’
The second one appeared on September fourth and read in part as follows: [Page 370]
‘Japanese issue warning.
‘Foreign warships may be endangered by shelling.
‘Presence of foreign warships near Pootung point proved a great handicap to Japanese boats shelling Pootung yesterday, a spokesman for the Japanese Embassy stated yesterday.
‘He added that if Chinese big guns in Pootung continue firing on Japanese civilians in Hongkew and the Japanese Consulate building, the Nipponese naval authorities may change their attitude regarding the firing of their guns near the foreign warships.
‘Asked to amplify this statement, he indicated that in the future the foreign war vessels may be endangered when Japanese ships commence firing on Pootung.’
With reference to the first article may I point out that vessels, naval and merchant, of other nations have equal right to navigate the Yangtze and Whangpoo rivers with those of Japan. In the movements of such vessels, they follow the international rules for the prevention of collision at sea and the decisions of admiralty law courts. These rules and decisions do not give formations of vessels any special rights over a single vessel.
In the navigation of these rivers, naval and merchant vessels of the United States will follow the international rules for the prevention of collision at sea.
The second article issued by a ‘spokesman of the Japanese Embassy’ infers that foreign warships may be endangered to a greater extent than heretofore by future shelling by Japanese ships.
Knowing you desire to reduce the dangers to neutral citizens and vessels during the present conflict, I cannot believe that such a statement was issued with your knowledge or consent.
The neutral men of war are in the Whangpoo River to protect their nationals as far as possible from existing and future dangers. Most of them are concentrated at the one and only area available and it is an area which need not be endangered by the gun fire of either of the opposing forces. There will be a U. S. naval vessel anchored off the Bund until all danger to United States nationals in Shanghai has passed. In this connection, I may state that the United States Government has announced that it will hold the contending government[s] responsible for whatever loss of life or property they may inflict.
May I suggest that the method of issuing information pertaining to naval matters to the press by means of an ‘official spokesman’ be discontinued, and that in all cases in which the neutral naval powers are interested, representation be made by letter or conference. I am sure it will lend [lead?] to more clarity and better understanding.
I have consulted the British, French, and Italian naval commanders regarding the views expressed in this letter, and they have informed me that they are in agreement.
[Page 371]I have the honor to be, very respectfully, H. E. Yarnell, Admiral II. S. Navy, Commander in Chief U. S. Asiatic Fleet.” 2323
- Commander of the Japanese Third Battle Fleet at Shanghai.↩