893.4061 Motion Pictures/194 The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State No. 748 PEIPING, September 29, 1936. [Received November 2.] SIR: I have the honor to refer to despatch No. 220 of August 14, 1936, from the Embassy at Nanking to the Department, in regard to the confiscation of American motion picture films by the Chinese National Motion Picture Censorship Committee, and to enclose for the information and consideration of the Department copies of the following further correspondences on the matter: 1. Embassy's note of August 13, 1936, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2. Foreign Office's note of September 1, 1936, to the Embassy. 3. Counselor Peck's despatch of September 15 to the Embassy. 4. Shanghai's despatch No. 379 of September 15 to the Embassy. In its note of August 13 to the Foreign Office the Embassy reviewed the circumstances surrounding the confiscation of the two films concerned, "The Cat's Paw" and "Oil for the Lamps of China", which are the property of Fox Film, Federal Incorporated, U. S. A., and Warner Brothers First National Pictures, Incorporated, respectively. The Embassy pointed out that the two American companies had not protested against the refusal to grant exhibition permits in the case of these two films, but that they had emphatically objected to the retention of the films as an arbitrary and illegal procedure. The Embassy stated that it concurred in this view as it was evident that the owners of the films, in submitting them to the National Motion Picture Censorship Committee for inspection, had manifested their complete good faith. The Embassy stated that there had been no attempt at concealment of the nature of the films and that no offense had been committed which would justify seizure of their property; moreover, when the companies were notified that the pictures could not be exhibited in China they had expressed their willingness to re-export the films from the country. The Embassy did not enter into the question whether these two films were, or were not, derogatory to China and the citizens of China, but stated that if the Chinese Government department concerned wished to supply the Embassy with a statement of its reasons for objecting to the two films, the Embassy would be willing to report the matter to the American Government. The Embassy stated that, apart from this aspect of the case, it must insist that the American property represented by these films be returned to the owners, and that the retention of the films by the Censorship Committee would be regarded by the Embassy as an arbitrary and illegal act for which no authority exists in the treaties now in force between the two nations. 68 None printed. The Embassy therefore requested that steps be taken to bring about the early restoration of the films to their owners. The reply of the Foreign Office to the Embassy's note is most unsatisfactory in that it formally endorses and approves the confiscation of American property without due process of law and in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner, and, as stated by Consul General Gauss in his despatch No. 379 of September 15, the Ministry's action constitutes a precedent which is of serious concern to American interests. As pointed out by Counselor Peck in his despatch of September 15, the Foreign Office completely ignores the charge made by the Embassy that confiscation of the films is "an arbitrary and illegal act for which no authority exists in the treaties now in force between the two Nations". I concur in Mr. Peck's view that the question of whether confiscation of these films is or is not a legal measure has no relation to the question whether the films are, or are not, objectionable or whether producers have been guilty of wrongful practices. As I do not wish the Foreign Office to gain the impression that the Embassy acquiesces in the action of the Censorship Committee in confiscating these films, I have addressed a further note to the Foreign Office, a copy of which is enclosed.70 I state therein that I have forwarded a copy of the Foreign Office's note of August 13 [September 1?] to the Department but that I must insist that the films be returned without further delay to their owners, as I consider that their retention is an arbitrary and illegal act for which no authority exists in the treaties in force between China and the United States. It seems to me that a deadlock has been reached in this matter and I will therefore appreciate receiving any instructions or observations which the Department may care to make on the subject. I commend to the particular consideration of the Department, in its study of the matter, the able despatch addressed to me by Counselor Peck on September 15. Respectfully yours, NELSON TRUSLER JOHNSON 893.4061 Motion Pictures/196: Telegram The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in China (Johnson) WASHINGTON, November 11, 1936—3 p. m. 271. The Department has received a letter under date November 9 70 from Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc., New York City, in regard to the ban which has been placed by the Chinese Government on the distribution in China of Paramount 60 Clarence E. Gauss, Consul General at Shanghai. 70 Not printed. motion picture "The General Died at Dawn" and of all other Paramount pictures. The letter states inter alia that when Paramount started production of the motion picture "The General Died at Dawn", it obtained the help of a General Tu 72 who had been loaned by the Chinese Government to Metro 73 (in connection with the production of their picture "The Good Earth"); that in accordance with the suggestions which he made certain portions were removed from the picture, and that the picture as approved by him was released for general circulation. The letter also states that prior to the showing of the picture in Manila a foreword was added to the effect that the story was laid before the establishment of the Nationalist Government at Nanking, that that Government had freed the Chinese nation from oppression and that the story and characters were fictitious; that the Chinese Consul and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Manila after seeing the picture issued statements to the Chinese press and the Paramount representative to the effect that in their opinion the picture was not in any way offensive to the Chinese and that with the approval of the Chinese Consul and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce the picture was then shown in the Capitol Theatre at that place, which theatre is partly owned by Chinese; and that Paramount is willing to have this foreword placed on all copies of prints throughout the world if such is the desire of the Chinese Government. The letter states further that the Chinese Vice Consul at Los Angeles made a report on this picture to his Government objecting to its protrayal of Chinese people and situations and that as no copy of the picture has as yet reached China it was not possible for the Chinese Government to have seen it before issuing the ban (the inference being that that Government's action was taken on the basis of the Vice Consul's report). The Department desires that the Embassy investigate this matter and in the light of Department's instruction No. 1138, August 3, 1933, make such representations to the concerned authorities as may appear appropriate in the circumstances. 74 Report promptly by radio. MOORE 893.4061 Motion Pictures/194: Telegram The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in China (Johnson) WASHINGTON, November 16, 1936-6 p. m. 278. Your despatch No. 748, September 29, 1936, concerning confiscation of American motion picture films by the Chinese National 72 General Tu Ting-hsiu. 73 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. III, p. 694. Motion Picture Censorship Committee. The Department approves the action taken by the Embassy in regard to this matter. The Department has carefully reviewed this case and concurs in the view expressed by the Embassy that the confiscation of the two films in question is clearly in contravention of Sino-American treaties and that the question of confiscation has no relation to the question whether the films are, or are not, objectionable, or whether producers have been guilty of wrongful practices. It is suggested, accordingly, that the Embassy, unless it perceive objection, informally approach the appropriate Chinese authorities for the purpose of informing the Chinese Government of this Government's view and obtaining, if possible, the return to the owners of the films and that in the event this move does not achieve the desired result the Embassy lodge, as under instruction, a formal protest with the Foreign Office against the arbitrary and illegal retention of American property in contravention of treaty and request the immediate return of the property in question to the owners. MOORE 893.4061 Motion Pictures/199: Telegram The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State PEIPING, November 17, 1936-5 p. m. [Received November 17-1:57 p. m.] 553. Your 271, November 11, 3 p. m. Peck reports under date of November 13 a conversation with Mr. Kao, sales manager for Paramount, who reported that question of ban on "The General Died at Dawn" had been compromised by him with Lo Kang, Chairman of the Censorship Committee, as follows: the Censorship Committee will allow Paramount 40 days to bring to China a positive and a negative of the picture, the company to guarantee that if the committee disapproved of the picture all existing prints would be destroyed, the company to furnish satisfactory guarantee that this action would be taken. In the meantime the committee will resume censoring of Paramount pictures. Peck had not been informed whether the parent company had accepted this solution or not. Kao told Peck that while the company conceded the right of the Chinese Government to ban a picture from China, it did not concede the right of the Government to demand its suppression all over the world. Peck replied that if it was conceded that China had the right to ban a picture in China it seemed to follow as a matter of course that the Government might ban the showing of all pictures in China of a given company as a means of compulsion. I shall await developments to determine whether further steps seem advisable. Peck protested orally to Wu, Director of the Department 919456-54- -49 of International Affairs of the Foreign Office, on November 11, against the arbitrary treatment meted out to Paramount. Repeated to Nanking. JOHNSON 893.4061 Motion Pictures/200: Telegram The Counselor of Embassy in China (Peck) to the Secretary of State NANKING, November 18, 1936-noon. [Received November 18-8 a. m.] 329. Embassy's 553, November 17, 5 p. m. from Peiping. 75 1. I have received call today from Perkins " representing Paramount, Hagar 76 representing Cathay Finite [Grand?] Corporation, Shanghai, and Sellett, Attorney for the latter. Perkins denies emphatically that he even accepted any compromise proposal made by the Censorship Committee. He states moreover that this proposal as reported by Kao was only that positive and negative of "The General Died at Dawn" [be?] brought to China and did not include any undertaking by Paramount that the decision of the Censorship Committee after viewing the picture would be accepted without question. The proposal has been referred to Paramount, New York, but no reply has been received. Perkins believes that Paramount will be willing to come to amicable arrangements if reasonable. 2. These representatives of a major motion picture distributor and of the Cathay Grand Corporation, which was formed by order of the United States Court for China to liquidate the affairs of the United Theatres, Chesterton [sic] an American Corporation, represent that if the ban on Paramount films is enforced there is every indication that one of these theatres would have to close and the Cathay Grand Corporation would be obliged to operate at a loss and would therefore be obliged to cease operations, involving loss to the substantial American interests involved in the corporation and its creditors. They deny any right of the Motion Picture Censorship Committee either under the treaties or under the Chinese motion picture censorship law of 1930 or regulations issued in 1935 in pursuance thereof, to ban all Paramount pictures pending adjustment of the dispute over "The General Died at Dawn". They assert that the principle at issue is of the utmost importance because several motion pictures now in production by major American producers contain matter relating to China and if this precedent is now established practically the entire American motion picture business in China will be involved and imperiled. The representatives therefore urgently request that the Em " J. E. Perkins, Paramount Films of China, Inc. 7A. R. Hagar, president, Cathay-Grand Corporation. |