398.115/1008: Telegram
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 14—8:38 a.m.]
982. Department’s telegraphic instruction No. 368, September 27, 6 p.m., and our telegram No. 924, October 1, 4 p.m. During the period of 1 month which has elapsed since the sending of my note No. 1630 and personal letter of September 13 to Mr. Matsuoka33 regarding the continued Japanese bombing of American property in China, a noticeable improvement in that respect appears to have taken place. According to the Embassy’s records, except for one bombing which occurred on the very day that my letter under reference was delivered to the Foreign Minister, no actual American property damage in China has been reported to this Embassy to have been suffered from Japanese air raids during the period mentioned although Kunming reports bombs dropped near the Vacuum Oil Company’s warehouse in that city on September 30.
It appears probable therefore that the Minister’s statements made to me on September 12 (our telegram No. 825, September 12, 7 p.m.,34 paragraph numbered 6), on September 21 (our telegram No. 878, September 22, 2 p.m.35) and on October 6 (our telegram number 949, October 9 [6], 11 p.m.,36 paragraph number 4), to the effect that he intended to make a determined effort to settle the accumulation of American complaints, may constitute the reason for the sharp decline in bombing of American property in China during the past month. It will be recalled in this connection that during the period covering roughly 3 months prior to my letter to the Minister, approximately 23 cases of bombing of American property in China had been reported.
[Page 902]In this connection reference is made to Hankow’s September 28, 10 a.m., paragraph 1, to Chungking38 which may or may not represent a significant symptom. The time lag in receiving reports from offices in China is such that the Embassy has not yet had a sufficient amount of material from China to be able to judge of the trend of developments as regards Japanese interference with American interests in China during the month just ended. I think therefore that we should wait a little longer to judge whether the foregoing reports and the recent absence of bombing incidents involving American property represent a bona fide change in Japanese policy toward American interests in China.
In the meantime I think it might be helpful when I next see the Foreign Minister to tell him of the apparent improvement in the situation under reference, ascribed to his promised efforts in the premises, at the same time pointing out to him that I have unfortunately as yet received no reassuring information from China with respect to the long list of trade interferences39 and in fact have heard of new measures of price control in North China, continued interference with American trade in Shanghai, and a situation in Canton which indicates absolutely no progress in clearing up cases of Japanese interference with American rights in that district. I would propose when mentioning this subject to indicate to him that although appreciative of his efforts in respect to improvement of the bombardment of American properties by Japanese aviators, the mere cessation of such bombing cannot of course be regarded as touching any of the broader aspects of our relations.
Sent to the Department via Shanghai. Shanghai repeat to Chungking, Peiping.