FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1934, VOLUME III



  In commenting on this sudden favorable turn of events, it may be
remarked that the manner in which the fisheries question arose sug-
gests the possibility that the Soviet Government deliberately acted
with the intention of securing a concession from the Japanese on the
question of the sale of the Chinese Eastern Railway. The manoeuvre,
if such it was, has apparently been successful, and, while it is perhaps
premature to be confident that an early solution of these two problems
is probable, nevertheless active negotiations are apparently in the
offing. However, in the case of the Chinese Eastern Railway, it will
be remembered that resumption of the negotiations will not in itself
be reasonable cause for optimism as to their success.* . . .

  Respectfully yours,                            JosEPH C. GREW

893.00/12706
The Counselor of Legation in China (Peck) to the Secretary of State

                                      NANKING, February 23,1934.
                                            [Received March 24.]
  Sm: I have the honor to report that taking advantage of the pres-
ence in Nanking of Marshal Chang Hsueh-liang, who was appointed
on February 7, 1934, Vice Bandit Suppression Commissioner for the
Provinces of Honan, Hupeh and Anhwei, I asked Marshal Chang for
an appointment and called on him on February 22 at 11 a. m. Mar-
shal Chang is living in the modern-style residence built by ex-Minister
of Finance Mr. T. V. Soong on a commanding hill in the center of
Nanking, called Peichiko.
  I had met Marshal Chang several times before I left the American
Legation in 1926 and had seen him again here in Nanking following
my arrival at this post in 1931. I had heard that his health was
greatly improved by his breaking off certain drug addictions and by
his recent tour in Europe, but was agreeably surprised by his physical
fitness, mental alertness and personal charm.
  There has been made in China a considerable effort to discredit
Marshal Chang Hsueh-liang, because of his alleged lack of patriotism
in failing to defend Manchuria against Japanese invasion. His de-
fence of his action is said to be that he merely followed instructions
received from General Chiang Kai-shek. I have heard arguments
from Chinese officials both for and against Marshal Chang's actions
on and following September 18, 1931, when the Mukden Incident

* See Despatch No. 659 of January 26, 1934. [Footnote in the original.]



52