File No. 861.77/597

The Ambassador in Japan ( Morris ) to the Secretary of State

[Telegram]

In reference to the recent railway agreement, I have received from Stevens the following telegrams:

December 29, 7 p.m. Your cable December 27, 11 [10] p.m. I am giving amended plan consideration; would like further information. Have you agreement, secret or otherwise, [as to] who would be president technical board? … Without committing myself would say section 3, president’s powers, should include economic as well as technical operation. Section 3 says president may issue instructions Russian officials but gives him no power whatever to enforce such instructions. He should at least have power dismissal Russian officials and all his powers should be entirely independent of technical board. He should have power to distribute his experts not only at important stations but wherever he deems necessary.

Section 1 says technical board shall be under control of the Allied committee. This would take all control of operation away from technical board or its president and would neutralize all succeeding paragraphs. I could not agree to this. I see no reason why, if good faith is intended, matter can not be put in plain takers [terms]. I think your [supposition wrong?] that president is given full power by the wording of the proposed agreement. I fail to see that president is independent in the last analysis of technical board.

Of course there can be no objection to the 5th section. If an agreement can be reached, absolutely necessary that War Department distributes American troops sufficient numbers along the line as far as Japanese are quartered. I would like to hear from you as to above points. I can not see the way to express views to the Department without further consideration.

December 30, 2 p.m. Further. Your [my] cable December 29, 7 p.m. (1) Technical board, in all matters operation and railway economics, must be independent of Allied committee; (2) president technical board must not be under control of board in matters of operation; he must be free to exercise his judgment in such matters, regardless of views of the majority of board; (3) president must have absolute power to enforce and make effective his orders to any and all Russian railway officials; (4) protection of railway by Allied troops must mean that American soldiers shall be distributed in sufficient numbers as far west as are Japanese soldiers.

Above in addition and elaboration of my cable yesterday. Careful study of the amended proposition forces me to the conclusion [Page 304] that it can be construed as making no essential change from the original. I agree with you that we should effect change of policy but feel that ambiguous wording of plan should be eliminated. Why not have takers [terms] put in language that can not be mistaken?

I have replied to-day as follows:

December 31, 7 p.m. Your telegram of December 29, 7 p.m. Answering your questions and comments:

1.
I have a definite understanding with the Japanese Foreign Office that if the plan now submitted is approved, you are to be named as president, and this understanding will be confirmed in writing to our Government before formal assent is given.
2.
Personally I think it would be a mistake to require authority in economic questions such as freight and passenger tariffs. Such questions, it seems to me, should be determined by the technical board subject to the control of the inter-Allied committee as provided in the agreement. Otherwise there would be continued criticism and suspicion both by Russians and by competing nationalities, particularly if trade conditions in Siberia improve.
3.
I submit that you have not given to sections 2 and 3 (which should be read together) the full import of their wording. Delegating of power to the president is contained in the words, “To whom shall be intrusted the technical operation of the railways.” That is a grant so broad that to enumerate any specific powers would only limit rather than enlarge it. As it stands it is only limited by the requirement in section 2 that “at the head of each railway shall remain a Russian manager or director,” not the present managers or directors necessarily but Russian managers or directors, and to them you are authorized to issue instructions and if anyone should not obey I assume you would discharge him and appoint some other Russian. One specific power is given, which by its very nature does enlarge the general power, and that is the authority to employ other nationalities as assistants, experts, and inspectors. This is a power specified because it would not be of necessity implied with their general power to operate Russian railways.
As to the phrase “More important stations,” you would be the judge.
4.
You are right that the administrative acts of the technical board are subject to the control, of the inter-Allied committee, and one of these administrative acts is to elect a president, to whom, by the terms of the agreement itself, is intrusted the technical operation of the railways. While the technical board, with the approval of the inter-Allied committee, elects the president and thus fulfills its first purpose of administrating the technical management on many railways, neither it nor the Allied committee can interfere with or modify the authority of the president, so elected because the authority was conferred directly by the agreement of the associated nations and not by the action of the committee or the board. I can not therefore agree with your conclusion that the authority of the president could be neutralized. After electing the president, the inter-Allied committee and the technical committee have no further control over technical operation and are limited to economic questions.
5.
I agree with you that the wording could be more simple and direct, but the issues involved were not simple and the methods of meeting them have not always been direct. You know the history of this agreement from your first outline and Horvat’s draft and Ustrugov’s1 objections and amendments to the present time and you know how much sensitiveness on our [their?] side had to be overcome. In my judgment this agreement proves that they have in large measure been overcome and while I appreciate the practical difficulties ahead, I have absolute confidence with their [in our?] ability to solve them with the authority that this agreement gives us.

Many rumors are in circulation at the close of recent developments in Omsk. I received the following from Stevens this morning:

December 30, 3 p.m. Have report from Omsk, which so far can not verify as telegraphic communication cut off, that Kolchak killed and Grand Duke Michael now the head of the government. If it is true, undoubtedly effort to restore monarchy. I have not advised Department.

… correspondent of the …, arrived here on way home. Has been through Siberia as far as Ural Mountains and had unusual opportunities to observe conditions. His knowledge of Russian language greatly aided him in many conferences with leading men. He was in Omsk both before and after the proclamation of Kolchak’s dictatorship. He reports that the Kolchak movement was engineered by former officials of old regime and in the interest of a monarchy; that it has been most unfavorably received in those parts of Siberia through which he passed and that he is convinced that General Knox was involved in it. It is most unfortunate that General Knox continues to interfere in these internal controversies. He seems to have been a disturbing factor from the day of his arrival. I fear that his activities may be interpreted by many Russians as expressing the views of the Associated Governments.

Morris
  1. Assistant Minister of Ways of Communication under Kerensky; later Minister of Ways of Communication in the successive Siberian governments.