Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1934, The Far East, Volume III

893.6363 Manchuria/19: Telegram

The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State

Peiping, July 2, 1934—5 p.m.
[Received July 2—11 a.m.⁹⁷]

286. Department’s 180, June 20, 7 p.m., was repeated to Tokyo with request for Ambassador’s views. Following has been received in reply:

[“]June 28, 1 p.m. Legation’s June 22, noon.

1. I perceive no objection to making informal representations in Tokyo in concert with my British colleague provided that a tenable basis for such representations can be found.

2. Representations might be based:

(a) On the ground that an oil monopoly would obviously infringe the principle of the open door. This would in all probability be met by the allegation that the monopoly is for purposes of national defense. (Mukden’s despatch No. 901, March 6⁹⁸)

(b) On article 15 of the United States-China treaty of 1844⁹⁹ (presuming that this article is still effective). Such representations would seem like quibbling.

(c) On the fact that the often expressed policy of “Manchukuo” welcoming the participation of foreign capital in the development of the country would hardly be effective if old-established foreign investments were threatened by a monopoly.

3. I favor representations based on points (a) and (c) in conjunction.

4. I do not believe that any representations will be successful but I do consider it desirable to place our standpoint on record.

5. The British Embassy in Tokyo concurs with above viewpoint.”

British Legation here was informed of the sense of the above and of Grew’s views. The Legation now informs me that instructions have been issued by its Foreign Office to Ambassador [in] Tokyo directing that he informally call the attention of the Japanese Government to the fact that participation by the South Manchuria Railway and the contemplated erection by monopoly of refinery within leased territory indicates Japanese sanction of project and that such sanction would appear to contravene article 3 of the Nine-Power Treaty.¹ British Ambassador was directed to endeavor to secure withdrawal of South Manchuria Railway and all Japanese capital from participation in the enterprise and to urge upon Japanese Government desirability of inducing “Manchukuo” to abandon project.

Before reporting further to its Foreign Office British Legation is requesting observations of British Ambassador in the light of this instruction and has promised to inform me when it is received.

British Foreign Office instruction also directed that instructions be issued to the British Consul General [at] Mukden to enter protest with “Manchukuo” government (which Legation understands is done by personal communication from Consul General to Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs who is a Japanese, omitting all use of titles) on the grounds that establishment of monopoly would contravene treaty undertakings of “Manchukuo”—that government having solemnly undertaken to be bound by provisions of the treaties between China and foreign powers. In view of information contained in Grew’s June 28, 1 p.m. quoted above, British Legation is delaying issuance of instructions to the Consul General until observations of British Ambassador have been received when further instructions will be requested of the Foreign Office. Should British Legation direct representations by Consul General at Mukden to “Manchukuo” authorities the Legation believes that we should do likewise.

Tokyo informed.

Johnson

97. Telegram in two sections.
98. Not printed.
99. Miller, Treaties, vol. 4, p. 559.
1. Treaty regarding China, signed at Washington, February 6, 1922, Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. i, p. 276.