mount, New York, asks advice the Department reply by representing the possible advisability of acceding to the request of the Chinese authorities for withdrawal of this film. 3. Sent to the Department, by mail to Peiping. JOHNSON 893.4061 Motion Pictures/220 The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State No. 898 PEIPING, December 3, 1936. [Received January 4, 1937.] SIR: I have the honor to refer to the Department's telegram No. 278, November 16, 6 p. m., in regard to the confiscation of American motion picture films by the Chinese National Motion Picture Censorship Committee, and to enclose for the information of the Department a copy of a despatch received from Counselor Peck at Nanking regarding this subject under date November 20, 1936.80 In that despatch Mr. Peck reports that the Director of the Department of International Affairs of the Foreign Office in an interview with Mr. Peck stated that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shares the opinion of the Embassy that there exists no legal provision authorizing the Censorship Committee to confiscate films; and, the Director promised that the Ministry would send a communication to the Censorship Committee in regard to the matter. Respectfully yours, For the Ambassador: F. P. LOCKHART Counselor of Embassy 893.4061 Motion Pictures/215: Telegram The Counselor of Embassy in China (Peck) to the Secretary of State NANKING, December 7, 1936-1 p. m. [Received 2 p. m.] 346. Embassy's 336, December 1, 11 a. m. from Nanking concerning ban on Paramount films. 1. Letter dated December 4 from Perkins stated that the two pictures which were being held by the Censorship Committee had been released with permits for showing and that Paramount had submitted three other films which Perkins believed were being considered. 2. Letter stated that Perkins could not comment on the letter of November 30 from the Director of the Department of International Affairs until he had consulted New York but observed that it would "Not printed. be impossible to withdraw the film from circulation immediately since this would expose Paramount to damage suits for violation of contracts. 3. Perkins requested in letter that the Embassy advise the Foreign Office only that he was taking up with the New York office the matter of international withdrawal of this film. 4. To Peiping for the Ambassador. PECK 893.4061 Motion Pictures/219: Telegram The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State NANKING, December 30, 1936-5 p. m. [Received December 30-10:10 a. m.] 385. Herron, foreign manager Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, New York, has telegraphed asking information concerning situation Paramount Pictures. Please inform him Paramount films are again being censored but when films of "General Died at Dawn" and "Klondike Annie" reach Nanking, about January 9, whole matter will be reviewed. JOHNSON AMERICAN INTEREST IN PROBLEMS AFFECTING THE INTERNATIONAL 81 SETTLEMENT AT SHANGHAI 893.102S/1388 The Consul General at Shanghai (Gauss) to the Ambassador in China (Johnson) 82 No. 169 SHANGHAI, May 6, 1936. SIR: I have the honor to inform you that, following the recent difficulty over the Municipal election in the International Settlement at Shanghai, when the Foreign Treaty Consuls set aside the ballot as invalid and ordered a new election, the German Consul General inquired of the Senior Consul why he had not been invited to attend the meeting of the Foreign Treaty Consuls which took the action indicated. The Senior Consul replied that he was following the precedent established for some years that matters affecting the International Settlement and the Land Regulations are dealt with by the extraterritorial Consuls. Thereupon the German Consul General asked that there should be put on the agenda of the next Consular Body meeting the question of an invitation to "all consular represent "For previous correspondence, see Foreign Relations, 1934, vol. III, pp. 607 ff. Copy transmitted to the Department by the Consul General at Shanghai in his despatch No. 180, May 6; received June 1. atives at Shanghai to meetings of the Consular Body when matters of general interest are to be discussed." This move by the German Consul General arises out of some dissatisfaction felt in the German community that they are invited to support the substantial British-American control of the Settlement but have no representation in the consular group dealing with Settlement matters, and that notices on Municipal matters issued by the Foreign Treaty Consuls are published over the signatures of the extraterritorial Consuls, thus publicly emphasizing the non-participation of the German Consul General in consular deliberations. The action of the German Consul General has, so far, become known only to the Senior Consul (Norwegian), the British Consul General, and myself. The British Consul General and I agree that it is desirable that, so far as possible, an international community of interests in respect of the International Settlement should be recognized and emphasized and that some means should be found of including the German Consul General, as the representative of a substantial German element in the community, in the deliberations of the Consuls on Settlement matters. At the same time, however, we recognize that if the German Consul General were to be accepted as a "Foreign Treaty Consul" under the Land Regulations, an embarrassing situation might arise later if the consular representatives of some other non-extraterritorial treaty power (such as Soviet Russia) fundamentally opposed to the present position of the other powers in China, should demand recognition in the consular meetings on Settlement affairs. There might also be involved in the situation a possible demand by non-career honorary Consuls of non-extraterritorial powers. . . to be consulted in Settlement matters in which they have no real interest. As a result of a study of the matter, I have proposed informally to the Senior Consul and the British Consul General that we might seek a solution of the difficulty along the following lines: (1) That we continue to take the view that the Land Regulations, when referring to the "Foreign Treaty Consuls" and to the "Consuls of Foreign Powers having Treaties with China", contemplate the exercise of the prescribed functions by the Consuls of the extraterritorial powers. (2) That, at the same time, we recognize a community of interest in Settlement affairs on the part of all foreign nationals, and that on that basis, the German community being substantial, we, the extraterritorial Consuls, might "invite" the German Consul General to "meet and consult" with us on Settlement matters. (3) That, in order to overcome that situation in which the German Consul General is so obviously excluded from "Foreign Treaty Consul" notices on Municipal affairs, the extraterritorial Consuls adopt the practice of not publishing such notices over their signatures but that, instead, they cause the Senior (extraterritorial) Consul to communicate to the Municipal Council texts of notices which the Council shall publish as "by direction of the Foreign Treaty Consuls", all signatures being omitted from the published notices. My colleagues, the Senior Consul and the British Consul General, have welcomed these suggestions as providing a happy solution of the difficulty. The Senior Consul will approach the German Consul General in the matter. It is believed that he will find the solution satisfactory. It will then be necessary to consult the Japanese and other extraterritorial Consuls. I believe that the position that, under the Land Regulations, the extraterritorial Consuls alone have status in connection with Settlement matters, is technically correct. At the same time, it does not seem desirable that that situation be emphasized unduly, either in the foreign community or before the Chinese. The system of administration of the International Settlement at Shanghai is closely interwoven with the system of extraterritoriality, and is largely but not entirely dependent thereon. Respectfully yours, C. E. GAUSS 893.102S/1395 The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State No. 646 PEIPING, August 13, 1936. [Received September 8.] SIR: I have the honor to enclose for the information of the Department copies of Consul General Gauss' unnumbered despatch of July 26, 1936, to the Embassy, my instruction to him of July 30, his unnumbered despatch of August 3, and my instruction of August 13,83 relating to the establishment of Japanese naval patrols in certain sections of the American and British defense sectors at Shanghai without notification to the Shanghai Municipal Police or to the commanding officer of the American and British forces. Mr. Gauss reported in his despatch of July 26 that there were numerous Japanese residents in the areas where the Japanese patrols were functioning and that the patrols were undoubtedly sent into those areas to assure the Japanese residents of adequate protection additional to that provided by the Municipal Police following the excitement caused by the recent killing of a Japanese subject named Kayau. Mr. Gauss stated that courtesy should have dictated that the Commanding Officer of the Japanese Naval Landing Party notify the Shanghai Municipal Police or the American and British commanding officers of his intention to establish patrols in sections of their defense areas and of his reasons therefor. Colonel Price of the Fourth Ma 83 None printed. rines consulted Mr. Gauss on July 24 and informed him that he proposed, subject to the approval of the Commander-in-Chief, United States Asiatic Fleet, to address a courteous letter to the Commanding Officer of the Japanese Naval Landing Party requesting information as to the reasons for the presence of the Japanese patrols in the American sector. Mr. Gauss told Colonel Price that he would be in accord with his proposal if he would preface his inquiry with the statement that, while no state of emergency existed under which he had taken up the defense of the sector assigned to the American forces under the defense plan, he was, nevertheless, interested at all times to know of military dispositions in that sector and for that reason made his inquiry. Colonel Price accepted the suggestion. The Embassy informed Mr. Gauss in its instruction of July 30 that it approved his suggestion to Colonel Price. Mr. Gauss reported in his despatch of August 3 that the proposed letter was sent by Colonel Price, under authorization of Admiral Murfin,84 to the Commanding Officer of the Japanese Naval Landing Party and resulted in a visit from the Chief of Staff of the Japanese force, who explained the reason for the establishment of the patrol— the uneasiness in the Japanese community following the killing of Kayau and the desire on the part of the Japanese naval authorities to make a gesture of reassurance to Japanese nationals-and stated that the Japanese authorities regretted that they had overlooked giving the Marines information on the subject. Mr. Gauss stated that he had been informed by the Intelligence Officer of the Fourth Marines that the Japanese patrol had been withdrawn from the American sector but that a patrol at the Toyoda Mill, adjoining the British sector, continued to be maintained. Mr. Gauss said that the action taken by Colonel Price seemed to have had the desired effect of reminding the Japanese that they were intruding on the American sector without the usual polite notification and of inducing an expression of regret over their omission. Respectfully yours, 893.102S/1397 NELSON TRUSLER JOHNSON The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State No. 661 PEIPING, August 20, 1936. [Received September 21.] SIR: I have the honor to enclose for the information and consideration of the Department copies of despatch No. 333, dated August 12, 1936, from the Consul General at Shanghai, in regard to Chinese representation on the Shanghai Municipal Council.85 Mr. Gauss en 84 Rear Adm. Orin Gould Murfin, Commander in Chief, U. S. Asiatic Fleet. Not printed. 85 |