793.94/9647
Memorandum by Mr. Joseph W. Ballantine of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs of a Conversation With the Counselor of the Japanese Embassy (Suma)
Mr. Suma said he wished to report that he had received a telegram from Peiping to the effect that Mr. Powell, an American concerning whom there were reports of maltreatment by the Japanese, had called at the Japanese Embassy there, that he was safe and that he was now proceeding from Peiping to Tientsin.
Mr. Suma stated that the situation in Shanghai had become more serious as a result of an incident involving a Japanese lieutenant and a first-class private who had set out on an inspection tour of the Japanese cotton factory district in the western section of Shanghai. The lieutenant was subsequently found killed on Monument Road riddled with 37 bullets and the private has been missing so that it was feared that he too was killed. Mr. Suma felt that this affair has been deliberately provoked by the Chinese. Mr. Suma then proceeded to relate that in the last few days five Chinese divisions and a force 20,000 strong of the Peace Preservation Corps had surrounded the neutral zone in Shanghai and were preparing trenches there. He felt that this action might be the forerunner of trouble. Mr. Suma said that he had learned that the Chinese authorities at Nanking had approached our diplomatic representatives there with a plan for the neutralization of Shanghai. Mr. Ballantine said that we had been informed of this, but, that, as a matter of fact, prior to the receipt of the Chinese proposal the representatives of the interested powers had been considering the question of making an approach to the Japanese and Chinese authorities with a view to obtaining assurances that each side would refrain from sending troops into the Shanghai area. Mr. Ballantine said that this was not a neutralization proposal but a plan, prompted by a desire to ensure the safety of our large numbers of citizens and great interests in Shanghai, to minimize the possibility of hostilities in the Shanghai area. (Mr. Ballantine did not tell Mr. Suma whether any action had been taken in connection with this proposal.) Mr. Suma asked who had originated this proposal and Mr. Ballantine said that he understood the [Page 371] consular representatives of the powers in Shanghai had initiated the suggestion.
Mr. Suma said that Japan has completed its evacuation of Japanese civilians from Hankow and various up-river ports on the 9th. He said that the Japanese Concession at Hankow was being held by the Japanese Navy and that Japan had no intention of relinquishing it. He said that the Chinese were adopting an increasingly provocative attitude at Hankow but that the Japanese Government with a view to localizing fighting as far as possible had taken the measure of evacuating Japanese civilians. Mr. Suma noted that in South China Foochow and Swatow had been evacuated but not Canton or Amoy.
Mr. Suma observed that the situation in Chahar had become more serious as a result of the central government’s having dispatched five divisions there, including the 84th, 89th, 4th and 143rd.
Mr. Suma said that he assumed that the incident in Peiping involving maltreatment of two American women by Japanese soldiers had now been settled and he expressed the hope that if any other incident arose the Department would let him know so that he might take appropriate steps. He said furthermore that if the Japanese Government could extend its good offices in connection with the evacuation of Americans from danger zones, the Japanese Government would be pleased to render every assistance.
Mr. Suma made reference to resolutions in Congress78 calling for the evacuation of American military forces from Tientsin and Peiping and asked what the status of this question was. Mr. Ballantine said that, so far as he was aware, there was no question of the evacuation of American forces in China before the Government.
- S. Res. 170, on August 6, by Sen. J. Hamilton Lewis, of Illinois, and H. Res. 304, on August 9, by Rep. George H. Tinkham, of Massachusetts, Congressional Record, vol. 81, pt. 7, p. 8351, and ibid., pt. 8, p. 8579.↩