Learn about the beta

List of Papers

[Unless otherwise specified, the correspondence is from or to officials in the Department of State.]

GENERAL

Relations of the United States with the Supreme Council and the Conference of Ambassadors

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Feb. 6 (205) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Request for instructions in regard to attending prospective meeting of premiers in London, if invitation is extended.
1
Feb. 9 (124) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions not to attend London meeting of premiers.
1
Mar. 13 (113) From the Chargé in Italy (tel.)
Request for instructions in regard to his relations toward meetings of Council of League of Nations at Rome and of Supreme Council at San Remo.
1
Mar. 16 (52) To the Chargé in Italy (tel.)
Instructions to decline invitations to attend either conference but to report all available information.
2
Apr. 20 (80) To the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Instructions to attend Supreme Council meetings strictly in capacity of observer.
2
Apr. 24 (3) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
His attendance at San Remo Conference as observer and offer to transmit to President Wilson any points upon which Conference desires views.
3
July 19 (1405) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
U. S. policy of making reservations to decisions of Conference of Ambassadors where the United States, in ratifying treaties, might wish to adopt different attitude.
3
Sept. 11 (1690) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
German delegate’s suggestion of personal appearance before Conference as means of reaching better understanding; unsympathetic attitude of Conference.
3
Sept. 21 (1490) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Authorization to recommend to Conference of Ambassadors direct contact with German delegation when latter so requests.
4

Convocation by President Wilson of the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations

Date and number Subject Page
1919 Aug. 27 (3921) From the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
From Polk for the President also: Conflicting theories as to whether Council of League of Nations is legally constituted to exercise powers conferred by the treaty with Germany prior to ratification by all members of Council. Request for U. S. views.
4
[Page XIV]Sept. 3 (3023) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
For Polk: The President’s views that League of Nations Council should not function until at least four of great powers and majority of minor powers having membership thereon have ratified treaty.
6
Oct. 20 (4744) From the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
From Polk: Submission of draft letter (text printed) by which President Wilson may convoke Council of League of Nations on day of entry into force of treaty.
7
Oct. 24 (3552) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
Redraft of letter for convocation of Council of League, first meeting of which should be held not sooner than day after treaty goes into effect by virtue of ratification by three of great powers.
7
Nov. 4 (3664) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
For Polk: Department’s reasons for objecting to issuance of invitation for first meeting of Council before treaty goes into effect.
8
1920 Jan. 10 (90) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Time and place of first meeting of Council of League of Nations.
9
Jan. 12 (31) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Invitation by the President to first meeting of Council of League of Nations (text printed).
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to representatives in Belgium, Brazil, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Spain.)
9
Feb. 7 (315) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Acquiescence in second meeting of League Council; inability to be represented thereat.
10
July 10 (720) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
The President’s summons for first meeting of Assembly of League of Nations at Geneva (text printed); request that it be transmitted to Secretary General for communication to members of League.
10
July 13 (1055) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Postponement of issuance of the President’s summons pending reply regarding Council’s suggestion for convocation of Assembly.
11
July 15 (741) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Substitute summons (text printed), revised to avoid misinterpretation.
11
[Page XV]

Drafting of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice—Transmission of the Statute and the Protocol of Signature to President Wilson

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Mar. 18 (642) To the Chargé in Great Britain
Elihu Root’s notification of acceptance of League of Nations’ invitation (text printed) to become member of committee to prepare plans for establishment of Permanent Court of International Justice.
12
May 24 (87) From the Minister in the Netherlands (tel.)
Date of meeting at The Hague of League of Nations organizing committee for Permanent Court of International Justice; attendance of Root.
13
May 26 (88) From the Minister in the Netherlands (tel.)
Inquiry regarding status of Root at forthcoming meeting of organizing committee.
13
May 29 (404) To the Minister in the Netherlands (tel.)
Root’s position as member of Permanent Court at The Hague to pass upon Portuguese arbitration as well as member of organizing committee.
13
June 17 (123) From the Minister in the Netherlands (tel.)
Opening session of the organizing committee.
13
July 23 (177) From the Minister in the Netherlands (tel.)
Signature of final draft of plan for establishing Permanent Court of International Justice.
14
Aug. 11 (237) From the Minister in the Netherlands
Observations of Council of League of Nations communicated to Governments members of League (text printed), regarding draft of plan for creation of Permanent Court of International Justice.
14
Dec. 14 The Secretary General of the League of Nations to President Wilson
Resolution of Assembly of the League, Protocol of Signature, and Statute of Permanent Court of International Justice (texts printed).
16
1921 Feb. 4 The Secretary General of the League of Nations to President Wilson
Transmittal of certified copy of Protocol of Signature relating to Statute of Permanent Court with request for speedy ratification.
31
Aug. 15 To the Secretary General of the League of Nations
Acknowledgment of Secretary General’s communication; statement that protocol has not been ratified by the United States.
32
[Page XVI]

Appointment of an American Representative on the Åland Islands Commission of the Council of the League of Nations

Date and number Subject Page
1920 July 14 (1062) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Question of U. S. representation on commission of League of Nations to give advisory opinion regarding Aland Islands; request for instructions.
32
July 21 (1100) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Ambassador’s refusal to sit on Åland Islands Commission, in absence of advice from Department; suggestion of U. S. representation by private individual.
33
July 21 (765) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
The President’s desire for Henry White to serve as member of Commission on Aland Islands question.
33
July 22 (1103) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Inability of White to serve on Commission.
33
Oct. 5 (1778) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
League’s informal inquiry whether the President would nominate an American for appointment on Commission for settlement of Åland Islands question; request for instructions.
34
Oct. 9 (1546) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
The President’s willingness to designate American for appointment on Commission.
35
Oct. 13 (1808) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Official League of Nations’ request for designation of American for appointment to Åland Islands Commission.
35
Oct. 30 (1593) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Nomination by the President of Elkus for appointment on Aland Islands Commission.
35
Nov. 6 (1893) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Letter from League of Nations (text printed) announcing appointment of Elkus as U. S. member on Aland Islands Commission.
36

The Teschen Dispute between Poland and Czechoslovakia

proposal by the conference of ambassadors to settle the dispute by arbitration—decision by the allied governments to assume directly the responsibility of making delimitations—agreement of july 28, 1920, between the representatives of czechoslovakia, poland, and the principal allied powers providing for a settlement—desire of the united states to have a voice in the final settlement, but without signing the agreement of july 28; assent of the allied powers

Date and number Subject Page
1919 Dec. 31 (39) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
U. S. willingness to be represented on Teschen plebiscite commission.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to the Minister in Poland.)
(Footnote: Message of Dec. 10 from the Ambassador in France indicating desire of Czechoslovak and Polish Governments for U. S. representation on commission.)
36
[Page XVII]Jan. 27 (20) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Foreign Office note (text printed) requesting U. S. representation on Teschen plebiscite commission.
37
Feb. 20 (88) From the Minister in Poland (tel.)
Polish formal appeal for assignment of U. S. representative on Teschen plebiscite commission.
37
May 25 Memorandum by Mr. William R. Castle, Jr., Division of Western European Affairs, Department of State
Inadvisability of tardy appointment of U. S. representative to existing Teschen plebiscite commission.
38
May 26 (330) To the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
For Dolbeare: Instructions to prepare to go to Teschen as U. S. representative on plebiscite commission.
39
June 5 (1252) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Proposal of Conference of Ambassadors for substitution of arbitration for plebiscite in Teschen, with King Albert as arbitrator; request for instructions.
40
June 12 (1279) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Measures proposed by Conference of Ambassadors (text printed) for securing settlement of Teschen question by arbitration; request for instructions for Ministers at Warsaw and Prague, if arbitration approved.
40
June 15 (151) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Czechoslovak disapproval of abandoning plebiscite for arbitration in settlement of Teschen question.
41
June 15 (1290) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Interview between Polish and Czechoslovak officials resulting in tentative agreement favoring arbitration.
42
June 15 (1117) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Approval of arbitration provided Poland and Czechoslovakia agree.
42
June 18 (77) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Inquiry regarding report that trains of ammunition for Poland have been detained in Czechoslovakia.
42
July 3 (162) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Official statement that Government would intervene in detention of munitions if hostile attitude of Polish press and Parliament were controlled.
43
July 9 (83) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Instructions to intimate inadvisability of further detention of munitions for Poland.
43
July 12 (1387) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Resolution of Supreme Council (text printed), accepted in advance by Polish and Czechoslovak officials, as bases for division of Teschen, Spitz, and Orava, delimitation to be made at Ambassadors’ Conference.
44
[Page XVIII]July 14 (430) From the British Ambassador
Notification of Supreme Council resolution with request that prompt instructions be given U. S. Ambassador at Paris to approve.
(Similar notes from French, Italian, and Japanese Embassies.)
46
July 16 (171) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Agreement between Polish and Czechoslovak officials covering all points in dispute.
47
July 17 (172) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Economic value of Teschen region because of coal deposits; political opposition to President Masaryk’s conciliatory policy.
48
July 19 (1404) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Declaration of delegates from Poland and Czechoslovakia at Spa Conference (text printed) agreeing to submit settlement of Teschen dispute to Allied Powers.
49
July 21 (1278) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Opposition to Allied intervention in Teschen dispute; consent to temporary settlement by Conference of Ambassadors pending final rectification by impartial three-power commission.
50
July 21 (1424) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Decision of Conference of Ambassadors as to frontier line; reservation by U. S. Ambassador pending receipt of instructions.
52
July 22 (1284) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Recommendation that Italy and Japan be included among powers on rectification commission; suggestion regarding apportionment of coal to Poland.
53
July 23 To the British Ambassador
Restatement of U. S. attitude toward determination of Teschen frontier by Conference of Ambassadors, as previously set forth to U. S. Ambassador in France.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to French, Italian, and Japanese representatives.)
53
July 23 (1434) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Conference’s disapproval of U. S. rectification commission in view of Polish and Czechoslovak initiative in requesting decision.
55
July 23 (1435) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French note (text printed) stressing Polish and Czechoslovak approval of settlement of dispute by Conference of Ambassadors; Conference’s adoption of U. S. proposal for delimitation commission; request for U. S. acceptance of solution.
57
July 26 (1302) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
U. S. desire to have voice in final settlement of dispute; approval of solution in accordance with Ambassador’s recommendations.
59
[Page XIX]July 28 (1305) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
U. S. attitude on Teschen question as set forth in interview with British Ambassador.
60
July 28 (1462) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Satisfactory settlement of Teschen question at meetings of Conference of Ambassadors; signature of four Allied Powers and Czechoslovak delegate.
(Footnote: Ambassador’s despatch of Aug. 13, 1920, reporting signature of Polish delegate.)
61
July 29 (1468) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Teschen agreement of July 28, 1920 (text printed) with modifications as proposed by the United States; request for U. S. signature.
62
Aug. 27 (1410) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
U. S. approval in principle of economic provisions of agreement; inquiry whether U. S. signature is expected and also regarding membership on delimitation commission.
66
Sept. 4 (1653) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Appointment of Allied members on delimitation commission; recommendations for signing of agreement and appointment of U. S. member on commission.
67
Sept. 7 (1666) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
First meeting of delimitation commission.
69
Sept. 22 (1493) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Apparent unwillingness of Allies to consider U. S. opinion on Teschen question; determination to appoint representative on commission; instructions in regard to withholding signature as unessential.
69
Sept. 25 (1751) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Difficulty of urging U. S. representation on delimitation commission if signature to agreement creating commission is withheld; preliminary character of meetings already held.
70
Sept. 28 (1515) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Appointment of DuBois as informal American member of commission; reluctance to sign Teschen agreement supplementing Austrian treaty, which the United States has not signed; insistence on delegation of adequate power to commission.
71
Oct. 5 (1775) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Assent of Conference of Ambassadors to appointment of U. S. informal representative on commission.
72
1921 Mar. 3 (131) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For DuBois: Instructions to withdraw from commission. Explanatory statement for commission (text printed).
72
Mar. 11 From the Commissioner at Vienna (tel.)
From DuBois: Withdrawal from commission.
73
[Page XX]

Treaty between the United States and Other Powers Relating to Spitzbergen

Date and number Subject Page
1918 Apr. 13 To the British Embassy
Statement that no reply can now be made to inquiry regarding U. S. future interest in settlement of affairs in relation to Spitzbergen.
73
1919 Mar. 10 (1615) From the Minister in Norway (tel.)
Norway’s decision to make representations to delegates of Associated Governments with view to securing sovereignty over Spitzbergen.
74
Apr. 5 (1458) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
For Lansing: Norwegian Minister’s request for U. S. support of Norway’s representations regarding Spitzbergen.
74
Apr. 19 (1688) From the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
From Lansing: Grant of support to Norway’s desire for sovereignty over Spitzbergen if U. S. interests are not involved.
74
July 26 (3336) From the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
Suggestion for U. S. participation as signatory to proposed treaty between certain of Associated Powers, neutrals, and Norway, recognizing Norwegian sovereignty over Spitzbergen.
75
Aug. 27 (2963) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
Assurance of U. S. support to Norway’s claim to islands.
75
Sept. 2 (4004) From the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
Substance of proposed treaty, draft of which has been given to Supreme Council for submission to interested governments.
75
Sept. 6 (3051) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
U. S. approval in principle of treaty but unwillingness to assume positive obligations thereto. Instructions to forward draft.
(Footnote: Transmittal Sept. 12, 1919, by Commission to Negotiate Peace, of copies of report to Supreme Council by Spitzbergen commission containing text of draft treaty.)
76
Nov. 12 (1385) From the Minister in Norway
Norwegian acceptance of sovereignty over Spitzbergen on conditions named by Supreme Council at Paris; expressions of appreciation of U. S. friendly attitude.
76
1920 Jan. 21 (205) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French request for U. S. reply regarding participation in Spitzbergen Treaty and, if favorable, prompt appointment of plenipotentiary.
77
Jan. 26 (193) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Grant of full power to Ambassador to conclude and sign treaty (text printed).
77
Feb. 9 (415) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Signing of Spitzbergen Treaty by the United States and certain European countries.
78
[Page XXI]Feb. 9 (686) Treaty between the United States and Other Powers Relating to Spitzbergen
Recognition of sovereignty of Norway over Archipelago of Spitzbergen (text printed).
78

International Financial Conference at Brussels, September 24 to October 8, 1920

invitation, april 15, by the council of the league of nations to the government of the united states to participate in the conference; acceptance, may 28, by the united states–reports of committees

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Mar. 19 (773) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Rathbone to Davis: Proposed conference to be called by financial section of League of Nations; its probable relations with Reparation Commission. Request for instructions.
88
Apr. 3 (679) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Davis to Rathbone: Conclusion that conference of representative business interests of respective countries would be more practical and effective than conference of government representatives.
90
Apr. 19 (2686) From the Ambassador in Great Britain
Resolutions of Council of League of Nations to convene international conference to study financial conditions and remedial measures; invitation for U. S. participation (texts printed).
91
May 28 (562) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Reply to League of Nations’ invitation to Conference (text printed) expressing willingness to appoint unofficial representative.
93
June 8 (913) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Probability that Conference will not take place before middle of July.
94
Aug. 13 (1222) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Further postponement of Conference to Sept. 24.
94
Sept. 17 (1480) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Houston to Boyden: Latter’s appointment as unofficial representative at Conference; instructions.
95
Sept. 28 (973) From the Ambassador in Belgium
Report of first two meetings of International Financial Conference.
97
Sept. 30 (128) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Boyden to Davis: Report of his unofficial participation in Financial Conference including presentation of U. S. attitude toward furnishing credit to Europe.
100
[Page XXII]Oct. 6 (132) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Boyden to Davis: Discussion of schemes proposed for relief of financial and economic situation.
100
Oct. 9 (135) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Boyden to Davis and Houston: Adjournment of Conference; comments on results; arrangements for transmittal of record of proceedings.
102
Oct. 12 (990) From the Ambassador in Belgium
Report on final sessions of Conference.
103

International Conference on Electrical Communications

invitation, february 10, 1920, by the united states to a preliminary conference of the principal allied and associated powers at Washington—invitation, march 30, to a subsequent general conference; indefinite postponement of the general conference

Date and number Subject Page
1919 Undated To the Senior Delegate to the EU–F–GB–I Radiotelegraphic Commission
Authorization to urge Commission members to recommend to Governments favorable action on U. S. proposal to British, French, Italian, and Japanese members of Council of Five (text printed) for convening at Washington of an international conference on electrical communications, previously contemplated by agreement of Council.
107
Aug. 28 (3928) From the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
From Polk: Acceptance in principle by Allied Powers of invitation to conference; suggestion that preliminary meeting be held in Paris to draw up agenda.
108
Sept. 4 (3034) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
For Polk: U. S. desire that first meeting be held in Washington rather than Paris; willingness to postpone meeting if necessary.
109
Sept. 26 To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Determination to hold conference in Washington upon securing consent of Congress.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to representatives in France, Italy, and Japan.)
109
Dec. 22 To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Instructions to request President to take no action regarding Liberian cable line pending disposition of captured German cables by Principal Allied and Associated Powers at coming conference.
110
1920 Feb. 10 To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Invitation to Great Britain to be represented at Washington, May 1, to prepare program for general international conference on electrical communications, scheduled for September.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to representatives in France, Italy, and Japan; substance also communicated to diplomatic representatives in Washington of the four interested countries.)
111
[Page XXIII]Feb. 21 To the Japanese Appointed Ambassador
Disposition of ex-German cables, a topic susceptible of discussion at preliminary conference rather than at general world conference.
112
Mar. 1 (136) From the British Chargé
Request for list of specific subjects to be discussed in preliminary conference.
113
Mar. 9 To the British Chargé
Present limitation of program of preliminary conference to discussion of world conference and its agenda.
113
Mar. 17 (547) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Telegram received from Ambassador at London (text printed) stating French objections to participation by nonmembers of League in settlement of question of German cables; U. S. assertion that cables will be disposed of by Principal Allied and Associated Powers according to treaty.
114
Mar. 22 (178) From the British Chargé
Request for postponement of preliminary conference in order to consult Dominions.
114
Mar. 24 (120) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Request for postponement of preliminary conference (text printed) in order to make necessary preparations.
114
Mar. 25 From the Netherland Legation
Importance of U. S. and Netherland control of former German-Netherland cables to East Indies; desire that mandate over Yap be not given to a third nation.
115
Mar. 30 To All American Diplomatic Representatives (tel.)
Invitation to country to which accredited to send representatives to general conference set for Nov. 15, 1920, in Washington for facilitating international communication.
116
Apr. 8 To the British Chargé
Postponement of preliminary conference until Aug. 1.
(Substance sent also to representatives in France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan.)
116
Apr. 24 (1050) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Boyden to Davis also: Deferring of action by Reparation Commission on Netherland claim to cables in East Indies pending discussion of subject at preliminary Washington conference; request for U. S. attitude toward Netherland claims.
117
Apr. 28 From the Netherland Legation
Necessity for special arrangements to protect Netherland interests in transfer of former German-Netherland cables, in view of relations established by German-Netherland agreement of 1901 between latter Government and cable company.
118
May 1 (869) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Boyden: Information regarding preliminary and general conferences; recommendation that Netherland claim to cables be considered in preliminary conference rather than by Reparation Commission; Netherland Minister’s willingness that this course be followed.
119
[Page XXIV]May 5 (737) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British acceptance of invitation to preliminary conference; renewed request for outline of subjects to be discussed; suggestion that date and place for general conference be determined at preliminary conference.
120
May 10 (472) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to inform Government of plan to discuss in preliminary conference all matters of interest pertaining to international communications.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris and Rome. Sent, mutatis mutandis, to the Ambassador in Japan.)
120
May 15 (1159) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Draft resolution of leaders of Associated Powers in 1919 (text printed) to provide for ownership and operation of former German cables by separate protocol rather than by incorporating settlement into Versailles Treaty.
121
May 25 (39) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Information that Pernambuco-Monrovia cable is not in operation and that Brazilian Government has no intention at present of utilizing it.
122
May 31 (271) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Japan’s decision to send representative to preliminary conference provided majority of Principal Allied and Associated Powers participate.
122
June 8 (233) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Italy’s intention to participate in preliminary conference; appointment of delegates and enumeration of points on which delegates might agree privately prior to conference.
122
June 14 (360) From the British Ambassador
Desire that question of disposal of ex-German cables be settled at preliminary conference.
123
July 9 From the French Chargé
French refusal to send delegates to preliminary conference on grounds that neutral powers are not qualified to settle question of allotment of former German cables.
124
July 23 (774) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Postponement of preliminary conference until Sept. 15, to be participated in by the five Principal Allied and Associated Powers alone, for determining disposition of German cables and for preparation of agenda for general world conference; other topics for discussion.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to representatives in France, Italy, and Japan.)
125
Aug. 9 Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs, Department of State
Conversation with Counselor of Chinese Legation regarding China’s desire that Yap-Shanghai cable be allocated to the United States rather than to Japan; information that Yap-Shanghai cable was largely owned by Netherland interests.
126
[Page XXV]Aug. 9 (1192) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Foreign Office note (text printed) accepting invitation to preliminary conference, naming delegates, and suggesting that date of world conference be agreed upon in preliminary conference.
127
Aug. 12 (878) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Concurrence in British suggestion that date of general conference be postponed and agreed upon in preliminary conference.
128
Aug. 18 From the French Chargé
French reconsideration and acceptance of invitation to participate in preliminary conference; request for its postponement to November.
128
Aug. 19 (1387) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information regarding conference; willingness to postpone convening until Oct. 1 if other Governments concur.
128
Sept. 4 (1654) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French request that preliminary conference be postponed until French delegates can arrive on Oct. 8.
129
Sept. 15 To the Japanese Ambassador
Necessity for postponing preliminary conference until Oct. 8.
129
Sept. 17 To the Ambassador in Spain (tel.)
Instructions to inform Government of indefinite postponement of world communications conference.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to representatives in all other countries except France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan.)
129
Sept. 23 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State
Conversation with Netherland Chargé during which request for Netherland representation at preliminary conference was rejected.
130
Sept. 28 (1759) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Departure of French delegation for preliminary conference at Washington; personnel and instructions.
130
Sept. 30 Memorandum by the Third Assistant Secretary of State
Conference with Japanese delegates; discussion of possibility of improving cable communication between the United State; and Japan.
131

opening of the preliminary conference, october 8–question of the status of cables in time of war—“modus vivendi” regarding the disposition of former german cables—adjournment december 14–reports of subcommittees

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Oct. 7 To the British Ambassador
Notification of time and place of first meeting of preliminary conference.
(Sent also to Italian and Japanese Ambassadors. Note verbale, in similar terms, to French Embassy.)
132
[Page XXVI]Oct. 11 From the Netherland Chargé
Memorandum for information of delegates to conference (text printed), designed to protect Netherland interests in transfer of former German-Netherland cables, in view of relationship between latter Government and cable company established pursuant to German-Netherland agreement of 1901.
132
Oct. 25 (1610) To the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
For Stewart: Instructions to obtain information regarding certain German cables in Atlantic and those operating between England and Germany.
134
Oct. 28 (399) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to urge Japanese Government to assent to discussions in conference regarding formulation of legal principles applicable to cables in time of war.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to representatives in France and Great Britain.)
134
Undated [Rec’d Oct. 29] (1241) From the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
From Stewart: Report on cable service between Germany and England and Germany and the Azores.
135
Nov. 4 (1124) To the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Necessity for unanimous consent of Principal Allied and Associated Powers for disposition and future operation of cables; unreasonable claims of France; instructions to obtain permission for British delegates to cooperate with U. S. delegates in effecting settlement.
135
Nov. 5 (1127) To the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Further outline of U. S. position in cable controversy and necessity for British adherence thereto; instructions to repeat to Paris, together with Department’s no. 1124, supra, and statement of desirability of French Foreign Office preventing departure of French delegates within week, as rumored.
137
Nov. 10 (739) From the British Embassy
Disapproval of consideration in conference of far-reaching proposals for limitation of rights of belligerents regarding interruption and diversion of cables.
138
Nov. 13 (1918) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s concurrence in view that French delegates should not depart from conference prior to settlement of cable question.
140
Nov. 16 (591) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Japanese reply (text printed) consenting conditionally to discussion in conference of legal principles applicable to cables in time of war.
140
[Page XXVII]Nov. 29 (3360–A) Executive Order
Cancelation of cable permit issued to the Deutsch-Atlantische Telegraphengesellschaft.
141
Dec. 7 From the British Senior Delegate to the Washington Conference on Communications
Decision to absent himself from committee meetings in view of settlement of U. S.–British differences and since remaining controversy lies between France and Japan and the United States.
142
Dec. 8 To the British Senior Delegate to the Washington Conference on Communications
Statement of British responsibility in bringing about equitable solution of cable question since U. S.-British accord is contingent on satisfactory settlement of other controversy.
143
Dec. 13 To the British Embassy
Reply to British objections to consideration by Conference of tentative proposals for codifying laws of war applicable to submarine cables.
145
Dec. 14 Press Release of the Department of State
Resolution of preliminary conference (text printed) for modus vivendi pending agreement to be reached by delegates after consultation with their Governments.
147
Undated Report of Subcommittee on Universal Communications Union and Telegraph and Radiotelegraph Conventions
Submission of draft convention (text printed) and regulations to be circulated for consideration of world conference.
148
Undated Report of Subcommittee on International Cable and Radio Law and on Cable Landing Rights
Recommendations on monopolies, status of cables in war time, and prevention of damage to cables by trawlers, and draft agreement regarding use of islands and other points as relay stations (text printed), for submission to world conference.
159
Undated Report of Subcommittee on Improvement of Communication Facilities between the Five Principal Allied and Associated Powers
Fifteen voeux (text printed), recommended for adoption by conference.
162
Undated Report of Subcommittee on the EU–F–GB–I Radio Protocol
Submission for consideration of Principal Allied and Associated Powers of certain appendices to draft convention together with annex recommending formation of a provisional technical committee (text printed).
165
[Page XXVIII]

Central American Conference

proposal by salvador, june 24, 1920, for a conference to frame a plan of union—attitude of the governments regarding the treaties of 1907—opening of the conference at san josé, december 4—attitude of the united states

Date and number Subject Page
1920 June 25 (321) To the Minister in Nicaragua
Instructions to inquire of Nicaragua status of treaties known as “conventions of 1907”.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to representatives in other Central American states.)
168
June 25 (638) From the Chargé in Salvador
Salvadoran invitation to Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (text printed) to conference to effect union of Central America.
169
July 27 (819) From the Consul at San José
Costa Rica’s compliance with treaties concluded in 1907 and acceptance of Salvadoran invitation to conference.
172
Aug. 20 (859) From the Minister in Nicaragua
Nicaraguan reply (text printed) that conventions of 1907 are considered as continuing in force with exception of those of restricted duration.
173
Aug. 25 (88) From the Minister in Guatemala
Guatemalan reply (excerpt printed) stating treaties of 1907 have not been denounced; acceptance in principle of proposed union of Central America.
175
Sept. 13 (17) To the Chargé in Salvador (tel.)
Instructions to report whether conference is to be held Sept. 15 and whether program has been agreed upon.
176
Sept. 14 (32) From the Chargé in Salvador (tel.)
Agreement (lacking Nicaraguan concurrence) for Central American International Bureau in Guatemala to arrange date, place, and program of proposed conference.
176
Oct. 15 (24) From the Chargé in Salvador (tel.)
Fixing of Dec. 1, 1920, as date for meeting of conference at San Jose, Costa Rica.
176
Nov. 8 (149) From the Chargé in Guatemala (tel.)
Guatemalan belief that all governments except Salvador favor union, and request for U. S. views.
176
Nov. 18 (78) To the Chargé in Guatemala (tel.)
U. S. friendly attitude toward decisions which represent free mature judgment of people; recommendation for treaty of arbitration and for development of communications, such questions to be considered by a permanent committee.
177
Dec. 22 (39) To the Chargé in Costa Rica (tel.)
Instructions to report on attitude of conference toward recognition of Bryan-Chamorro Treaty and on proposed resolutions relating to judgments of the Central American Court of Justice in connection therewith.
177
[Page XXIX]Dec. 23 (22) From the Chargé in Costa Rica (tel.)
Secret nature of conference; information that differences have arisen as to recognition of Bryan-Chamorro Treaty, with Nicaragua favoring such recognition.
178
Dec. 29 (24) From the Chargé in Costa Rica (tel.)
Conference determination to sign, irrespective of Nicaraguan action, a pact of union declaring all existing treaties binding on federation and future treaties based on contractual obligations shall require sanction of central government.
178

Convention for the Control of the Trade in Arms and Ammunition, September 10, 1919

Date and number Subject Page
1919 Sept. 8 (3059) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
Venezuela’s desire to purchase airplanes with bombs and ammunition; British assumption of U. S. objection to their exportation; inquiry as to status of proposed Arms Traffic Convention.
179
Sept. 13 From the Secretary General of the Commission to Negotiate Peace
Transmittal of advance copy of convention regarding traffic in arms and munitions, with protocol.
179
Sept. 10 (Y–9) Convention between Principal Allied and Associated Powers
Text of convention signed at Saint-Germain-en-Laye and Paris for control of trade in arms and ammunition and protocol requiring observance thereof pending ratification.
180
Oct. 1 (3293) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
Reported sale of arms or munitions to Spain by U. S. military authorities; instructions to furnish latter with text of convention and protocol.
196
Oct. 2 (3310) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
Inquiry as to reason why Brazil is not signatory to Arms Traffic Convention.
197
Oct. 9 (4592) From the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
From Polk: Information that Brazil, Honduras, and Uruguay had no plenipotentiaries in Paris at time of signature.
197
Oct. 13 (4637) From the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
From Polk: Denial by military authorities of sale of arms or munitions to Spain.
197
Oct. 17 (3469) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
Inab lity to be bound by terms of protocol as contrary to U. S. laws. Restrictions of War Trade Board as virtual fulfillment of intent of protocol.
198
Oct. 25 (4824) From the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
From Polk: Concurrence of Commission and Principal Allied and Associated Powers in U. S. views regarding nature of protocol.
198
[Page XXX]Nov. 13 (818) From the British Appointed Ambassador on Special Mission
Interpretation of convention and protocol as undertaking of signatory powers not to permit exportation of arms to governments not parties to convention; proposed requiring of guaranty of adherence to convention by purchasing governments. Request for U. S. views.
199
Dec. 16 (892) From the British Appointed Ambassador on Special Mission
British invitation to certain nonsignatory powers to give guaranty to sign convention when opportunity occurs. Desire for U. S. cooperation in policy.
200
Dec. 23 (904) From the British Appointed Ambassador on Special Mission
Refusal of Brazil to sign Arms Traffic Convention and consequent withholding of licenses by Great Britain for export of armaments to that country. Request for U. S. views.
200
1920 Jan. 6 To the British Chargé
U. S. concurrence in British policy of requiring nonsignatory powers to give guaranty before obtaining Government-owned munitions. No restrictions on private arms exports except to Mexico, China, and Bolshevik Russia. Inquiry as to British policy regarding arms exportation to Kolchak government.
201
Jan. 22 (51) From the British Chargé
British intention to inform Japan when British request non-signatory power to sign convention or when guaranty has been given. Desire for similar U. S. action.
202
Jan. 24 (58) From the British Chargé
Information of notification to Peru, Guatemala, and Haiti that no arms can be obtained from signatory powers until they have guaranteed to sign convention.
203
Feb. 3 (80) From the British Chargé
Attention called to fact that failure to prevent export by private firms would nullify intent of convention; willingness to sell arms to Kolchak government without guaranties.
203
Feb. 25 (123) From the British Chargé
British view that aircraft not supplied with munitions of war are free from restrictions imposed by convention.
204
Mar. 9 (150) From the British Chargé
Urgent request to prevent export of munitions by private firms to other destinations as well as to China, Mexico, and Soviet Russia.
204
Mar. 13 To the British Chargé
Reiteration of U. S. position on arms exportation; inability to take further steps, as previously pointed out to and acknowledged by Principal Allied and Associated Powers, because of existing laws.
205
July 1 (1348) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
British memorandum (excerpt printed) and discussions in Conference of Ambassadors relative to application of protocol in view of U. S. position.
206
July 19 (1273) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Restatement of U. S. attitude toward exportation of arms and ammunition. Inquiry as to decision of other powers regarding adherence to protocol.
207
[Page XXXI]

Abrogation of Treaties and Provisions of Treaties Which Conflicted with the Seamen’s Act of March 4, 1915

belgium: termination as of july 1, 1917, of the treaty of january 24, 1891, between the united states and the independent state of the congo

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Nov. 19 (615) To the Ambassador in Belgium
Instructions to present formal acknowledgment (text printed) of denunciation of treaty of Jan. 24, 1891, between the United States and the Congo, as operative from July 1, 1917.
207
1921 Mar. 22 (1157) From the Ambassador in Belgium
Information that no official reply to notification was given; publication in official paper of notice that treaty ceased to be operative July 1, 1917.
209

sweden: termination of articles xi and xii of the consular convention of june 1, 1910

Date and number Subject Page
1919 July 23 To the Swedish Chargé
Legal objections to Swedish proposal to prolong treaty of July 4, 1827, until new commercial treaty may be concluded.
210
Sept. 24 From the Swedish Chargé
Proposal of new commercial treaty in lieu of treaty of 1827; Sweden’s willingness, if treaty is concluded, to abrogate articles 11 and 12 of consular convention of 1910, insofar as they are inconsistent with Seamen’s Act.
210
Oct. 21 To the Swedish Minister
U. S. willingness to consider commercial treaty and Swedish acceptance of abrogation of articles in consular convention.
211
1920 Mar. 11 (34) To the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Instructions to present notice of denouncement (text printed) of entire consular convention of 1910 in view of Swedish nonacceptance of partial denouncement.
212
Mar. 20 (91) From the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Swedish expression of surprise at U. S. change of attitude in view of Sweden’s willingness to accept abrogation of articles in question through provision in new commercial treaty; Swedish desire for effective commercial and consular treaties.
212
Mar. 23 From the Swedish Legation
Memorandum confirming Swedish Minister’s conversation with Polk setting forth Swedish willingness to abrogate articles in consular convention in lieu of complete denouncement.
213
Apr. 2 (46) To the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Willingness to withdraw notice of termination of consular convention if arrangements can be made, preferably by exchange of notes, to effect abrogation of certain articles.
214
Apr. 22 (644) To the Minister in Sweden
Instructions regarding draft note (text printed) proposing that certain provisions in articles 11 and 12 of consular convention of 1910 shall terminate as of Mar. 18, 1921, effective by exchange of notes.
214
[Page XXXII]June 10 (138) From the Chargé in Sweden (tel.)
Sweden’s desire that articles 11 and 12 of consular convention of 1910 shall be eliminated in their entirety.
216
June 17 (71) To the Chargé in Sweden (tel.)
Instructions to effect entire elimination of said articles from convention by modifying draft note to be presented to Foreign Office.
216
July 9 (1934) From the Chargé in Sweden
Termination, as of Mar. 18, 1921, of articles 11 and 12 of consular convention of June 1, 1910, accomplished by exchange of notes between the United States and Sweden (texts printed).
216

Denunciation by Guatemala and Nicaragua of the Convention of August 20, 1910, Concerning the Protection of Trade Marks

Date and number Subject Page
1920 July 12 (37) From the Argentine Ambassador
Note of Foreign Minister enclosing copy of Guatemalan notice of denunciation of convention of 1910 relative to trade marks (texts printed).
218
July 16 (397) To the Minister in Guatemala
Instructions to report reasons for Guatemelan denunciation of convention relative to trade marks.
291
Aug. 11 (854) From the Minister in Nicaragua
Note from Nicaraguan Minister of Development to Foreign Minister (text printed) requesting that convention on trade marks be denounced because of financial burden without compensating benefits.
220
Aug. 26 (93) From the Minister in Guatemala
Foreign Office note (text printed) setting forth one-sidedness of convention relative to trade marks as reason for denunciation.
221
Nov. 29 (56) From the Argentine Ambassador
Note of Acting Foreign Minister enclosing copy of Nicaraguan notice of denunciation of convention of 1910 relative to trade marks (texts printed).
222

Interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine

Date and number Subject Page
1919 Dec. 14 (752) From the Salvadoran Minister of Foreign Affairs
Request for interpretation of Monroe Doctrine prior to joining the League of Nations.
223
1920 Feb. 26 To the Salvadoran Minister
Extract from address of President Wilson, Jan. 6, 1916, before 2d Pan American Scientific Congress (text printed) sent as U. S. interpretation of Monroe Doctrine.
226
Mar. 26 To Diplomatic Representatives in Central and South America
Copy of excerpt from President Wilson’s address of Jan. 6, 1916, interpreting Monroe Doctrine, for publication if desired.
227
[Page XXXIII]

Visit of the Secretary of State to Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Oct. 21 (58) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Proposed visit of the Secretary of State to Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina as representative of U. S. Government.
228
Oct. 22 (101) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
President’s assurance of appreciation of visit of U. S. Secretary of State.
228
Oct. 23 (44) To the Minister in Uruguay (tel.)
Proposed visit of the Secretary of State to Uruguay and Brazil as representative of U. S. Government.
229
Oct. 23 (118) To the Chargé in Argentina (tel.)
Proposed visit of the Secretary of State to Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina as representative of U. S. Government.
229
Oct. 26 (75) From the Minister in Uruguay (tel.)
President’s assurance of appreciation of visit of U. S. Secretary of State.
230
Nov. 5(242) From the Chargé in Argentina (tel.)
Argentine expression of pleasure over proposed visit of U. S. Secretary of State.
230
Nov. 10 (64) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Formal announcement of visit of the Secretary of State to Brazil and President Wilson’s statement (text printed) regarding value of such visits in cementing friendship between American states.
(Similar telegrams to the representatives in Argentina and Uruguay.)
230
Nov. 29 (258) From the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Doubt as to official nature of invitation extended to the Secretary of State to visit Argentina.
231
Dec. 2 (136) To the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Instructions to seek interview with President if there is reason to think visit of Secretary of State would cause political embarrassment, and to stress U. S. friendly intentions.
232
Dec. 3 (68) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Departure of the Secretary of State and party for Brazil.
232
Dec. 22 (276) From the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
From Russell: Tender of formal and official cordial invitation to the Secretary of State to visit Argentina as guest of the nation.
233
Dec. 23 (128) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Satisfactory visit of the Secretary of State to Brazil.
234
Dec. 29 President Brum to President Wilson (tel.)
Expressions of felicity over the visit of U. S. Secretary of State to Uruguay.
234
1921 Jan. 3(3) From the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Visit of the Secretary of State; cordiality exhibited.
234
[Page XXXIV]

Relief in Central Europe

assistance to poland in combating typhus—consideration by the united states and the allied powers of measures of relief in Austria–establishment of american relief warehouses—sales on credit by the united states grain corporation—intimation to the german government of the necessity for political stability as a condition of relief unofficial participation by the united states in the austrian section of the reparation commission—admission to the united states of polish child refugees from Siberia

Date and number Subject Page
1919 Sept. 29 From the Secretary General of the Commission to Negotiate Peace
Hoover’s report to Supreme Council as Director General of Relief (text printed) summarizing work of organization for period of the Armistice.
235
Oct. 28 (4877) From the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
From Polk: Furnishing of funds by Army Liquidation Board and experts by Pershing for antityphus campaign in Poland; request for retention of personnel in Poland beyond Dec. 18, date set for withdrawal.
238
Nov. 10 (3722) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
Order for commissioned and enlisted personnel to continue antityphus campaign after Dec. 18.
239
Nov. 17 (3797) To the Commission to Negotiate Peace (tel.)
For Polk: Instructions to inform Warsaw of authorization for U. S. Grain Corp. to sell wheat to Poland on credit or otherwise.
239
Nov. 22 (841) From the British Appointed Ambassador on Special Mission
Discussion of situation in Austria and plan proposed for U. S. and British aid for its economic and financial reconstruction.
240
Dec. 3 (58) From the Commissioner at Vienna (tel.)
Austrian appeal to Allies for immediate credit in goods or money; detailed offer as to securities.
243
Dec. 18 (1837) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Estimated requirements of Austria; decision of Council of Heads of Delegations to refer the matter directly to Principal Allied and Associated Powers.
244
Dec. 23 (9400) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Wallace and Rathbone: Advocacy of a coordinated plan for relief in Europe. Instructions to reserve agreement to any plan for Austrian relief until advised by Department.
245
1920 Jan. 6 From the Director of the American Relief Administration (tel.)
Establishment of relief warehouses in Central Europe and arrangement with American Bankers Assn. for selling food drafts to be exchanged for food at these warehouses.
246
Jan. 14 (103) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Davis to Rathbone: Prospect of U. S. relief to Austria, Poland, and Armenia by act of Congress; instructions to obtain understanding regarding British cooperation as to Austria and Poland.
247
[Page XXXV]Jan. 23 (12) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Instructions to call attention to desperate conditions in Austria and necessity for cooperation of Czechoslovakia if U. S. relief is expected.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to the Chargé in Yugoslavia.)
248
Jan. 23 (66) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to call attention to desperate conditions in Austria and necessity for European cooperation if U. S. relief is expected.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris and Rome.)
249
Jan. 26 (61) From the British Chargé
Assurance of British efforts to cooperate with U. S. Congress by solving difficulties of shipping problem and supplying other requirements for Austrian and Polish relief.
250
Jan. 29 (67) From the British Chargé
Conditions upon which British participation in Austrian and Polish relief will be given, not to exceed 10,000,000 pounds in all.
251
Feb. 2 (27) From the Commissioner at Berlin
Establishment in Germany of organizations for handling relief supplies from foreign countries.
252
Feb. 6 (296) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Davis to Rathbone: Suggestion that Germans be asked to authorize conversion into food for shipment to Germany of funds to their credit in Hoover’s hands.
253
Feb. 6 (6) To the Chargé in Yugoslavia (tel.)
Instructions to make representations regarding obligations of Yugoslavia to furnish relief to Austria; similar representations made to Bucharest.
253
Feb. 6 (14) To the Minister in Rumania (tel.)
Instructions to make representations regarding obligations of Rumania to furnish relief to Hungary; similar representations made to Belgrade.
253
Feb. 6 (305) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Davis to Rathbone: Introduction of bill in House of Representatives for appropriation of $50,000,000 for relief in Europe (text printed); necessity, under the circumstances, for British to supply all tonnage.
254
Feb. 11 (425) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Rathbone to Davis and Hoover: Information regarding relief plan; extent of British cooperation and efforts to secure full participation of Allies and neutrals.
255
Feb. 12 (33) From the Chargé in Yugoslavia (tel.)
Foreign Office denial of disregard of obligations to Austria and assertion that statement of its position will be made.
257
[Page XXXVI]Feb. 14(85) From the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
Prediction that supplies will be exhausted before next harvest, bringing disorders and financial depression unless credits can be procured; request for permission to issue reassuring statement on U. S. attitude.
258
Feb. 17 (18) From the Minister in Rumania (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s statement discrediting report of food shortage in Hungary, but promising aid if needed.
258
Feb. 17 (492) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Rathbone to Davis: Letter from German Under Secretary of State (text printed) arranging for liquidation of German food account in America and requesting that Hoover be notified.
259
Feb. 20 From the French Ambassador
Discussion of situation in Poland, Austria, and Armenia, and measures taken for relief by France and other countries. Desirability of prompt passage of U. S. food-relief bill.
260
Mar. 2 (141) From the Yugoslav Minister
Yugoslav participation in relief of Austria in fulfillment of obligations.
261
Mar. 6 (482) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Davis to Rathbone: President Wilson’s letter to Barnes, President of Grain Corp. (text printed) suggesting disposal of accumulated grain for cash or credit to best interests of Government; Barnes’ message to Davis (text printed) concurring in plan and suggesting that Rathbone procure necessary tonnage.
261
Mar. 9 (665) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Rathbone to Davis: Letter from Organization Committee to Austria (text printed) permitting the use of certain securities to enable Austria to make purchases of food and raw material.
263
Mar. 11 (71) From the Chargé in Yugoslavia (tel.)
Delivery of relief supplies by Yugoslavia to Hungary.
264
Mar. 12 (518) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Legations at The Hague, Stockholm, Christiania, Copenhagen, and Embassy at Madrid: Message to Governments to which accredited (text printed) appealing to neutral governments for cooperation with the United States in relief measures for Central Europe. Suggested meeting of representatives at Paris.
264
Mar. 13 To the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Note for Government (text printed) calling attention to desperate conditions in Central Europe and U. S. contribution of wheat, and appealing for advances of fats and raw materials. Suggested meeting of representatives at Paris.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to representatives in Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay.)
265
Mar. 15 (115) To the Minister in Poland (tel.)
Probable failure of relief bill in Congress; decision of Grain Corp. to grant relief to Austria and Poland as countries in greatest need.
266
[Page XXXVII]Mar. 19 (203) From the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
German request for vigorous declaration by Entente against lawlessness and anarchy as precluding proposed relief measures. Recommendation for separate statement by the United States.
267
Mar. 21 (209) From the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
Statements by Allied and U. S. representatives (texts printed) declaring against revolutionary movements as jeopardizing foreign assistance to Germany.
268
Mar. 21 (210) From the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
German official suggestion of strong statement by President Wilson against radicalism in Germany. Commissioner’s recommendation for cautious action.
268
Mar. 22 (71) To the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
Message to Government (substance printed) declaring against lawlessness and anarchy as precluding proposed relief measures and immediate resumption of trade relations.
269
Mar. 23 (75) To the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
Approval of Commissioner’s statement; opinion that sufficient has been said regarding Bolshevik danger.
269
Mar. 24 (93) From the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Sweden’s intention to send representatives to Copenhagen to confer with British relief agent on financial aid for Central Europe.
270
Mar. 25 (1732) From the Ambassador in Spain
Foreign Minister’s reply (text printed) acknowledging receipt of communication regarding conditions in Central Europe and appeal for aid.
270
Mar. 25 (814) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Rathbone to Davis also: Report of proceedings of meeting of Organization Committee of Reparations Commission, enumerating measures adopted for reconstruction of Austria, including establishment of Austrian Section of Commission.
271
Mar. 27 (227) From the Chargé in the Netherlands (tel.)
Netherland consent to participate in relief work.
272
Mar. 27 (74) From the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s reply (text printed) stating that Argentine Congress has been asked to assist in relieving distress in Austria.
272
Mar. 27 (828) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Rathbone to Davis: U. S.-British program for Austrian relief and reconstruction under supervision of Austrian Section of Reparations Commission.
273
Mar. 31 (645) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Davis to Rathbone: Passage by Congress of bill (text printed) providing for relief in Europe through U. S. Grain Corp.; arrangements for execution of obligations by beneficiary countries.
275
[Page XXXVIII]Mar. 31 (88) To the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
Hoover telegram (text printed) suggesting surrender of German gold to Ebert government for food purchases; U. S. willingness to do so if government is as stable as reported.
276
Apr. 1 (665) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Davis to Rathbone: Objections to financing Austrian relief by means of sale of private property and control over revenues.
276
Apr. 5 (904) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Boyden to Davis: Defense of reconstruction plan for Austria.
277
Apr. 6 (29) To the Chargé in Yugoslavia (tel.)
Report that portion of railroad has been removed in Serbia thus obstructing transportation of supplies to Hungary. Instructions to urge, if true, that track be replaced.
278
Apr. 8 (115) From the Chargé in Yugoslavia (tel.)
Refusal of Yugoslav military authorities for strategic reasons to replace lifted rails; U. S. representations.
279
Apr. 9 (291) From the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
For Davis and Barnes also: Germany’s prospects for securing supplies and desire to purchase U. S. wheat by means of Liberty bonds in hands of U. S. Alien Property Custodian.
279
Apr. 12 (175) From the Chargé in Denmark (tel.)
Danish decision to participate, in principle, in relief work, provided other states do so; appointment of representative to conference in Paris.
280
Apr. 12 (748) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Davis to Boyden: U. S. adherence to proposed plan with stipulation that it is based on Austrian predicament and is not to be made precedent for dealings with Germany.
280
Apr. 15 (1526) From the Minister in Norway
Foreign Minister’s statement that bill has been presented to Storting proposing to extend credits to Central Europe for purchase of fish and whale oil.
281
Apr. 17 (144) To the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
Preclusion of use of Liberty bonds or other securities in hands of Alien Property Custodian in exchange for wheat for Germany.
282
Apr. 22 (162) To the Commissioner at Berlin (tel.)
Inability of Grain Corp. to sell wheat or flour on credit to Germany.
282
May 6 (1627) From the Ambassador in Brazil
Brazilian reply that, in principle, Brazil is in accord with U. S. views regarding relief for Europe. Inquiries about part Brazil is expected to play.
282
[Page XXXIX]June 25 (3079) From the Ambassador in Great Britain
Letter from Secretary General of League of Nations to President Wilson (text printed) describing typhus situation in Poland and soliciting U. S. funds to assist in combating disease.
283
July 26 From the Polish Minister
Request for permission for Polish child refugees in Siberia to depart for temporary stay in the United States under protection of National Polish Committee.
285
July 29 (797) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to inform League of Nations of inability of Government to contribute financially to typhus fund for Poland; consideration of other means of cooperation.
286
Aug. 3 From the Polish Minister
Request for temporary admission to the United States of Polish child refugees now on way from Siberia.
286
Aug. 5 (1179) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Inadvisability of continuing relief work in parts of Poland subjected to Bolshevik occupation.
287
Aug. 11 To the Polish Minister
Granting of permission for temporary sojourn in the United States of Polish child refugees; request for assurances regarding maintenance and date of departure.
287
Aug. 12 (866) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Statement of instructions given to Director of European Children’s Fund that no member of organization remain in territory under Bolshevik occupation.
288
Sept. 4 From the Director of the A. R. A. European Children’s Fund
Report on relief activities in Central Europe.
288
Nov. 18 (1936) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Boyden to Davis and Treasury also: Report on situation in Austria and suggestion of U. S. offer of 25 millions for immediate relief, at the same time requiring necessary constructive conditions.
290
Nov. 26 (1661) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Boyden: Probability that credits for relief of Austria can be obtained only from private sources in the United States.
293
Dec. 9 (384) From the Commissioner at Vienna (tel.)
Conference with Austrian officials who assert probability of being unable to buy grain to tide nation over winter.
294
Dec. 29 (403) From the Commissioner at Vienna (tel.)
Procurement of funds by Government for purchase of 60,000 tons U. S. grain.
295
[Page XL]

Boundary Disputes

the dominican republic and haiti: proposal by the military governor of santo domingo to the president of haiti for settlement by a commission—revival of the arrangement of 1895 for arbitration by the pope—protocol of agreement

Date and number Subject Page
1919 July 31 To the Secretary of the Navy
Concurrence in suggested settlement of boundary dispute between Haiti and Dominican Republic by commission.
295
Aug. 20 (496) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Submission of draft note from Dominican Republic to Haitian Minister (text printed) proposing revival of plan of 1895 for boundary arbitration by the Pope; request for U. S. approval and good offices.
296
Dec. 10 (321) To the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Disapproval of Dominican draft note to Haiti as not in accord with preliminary agreement for settlement of boundary by commission with U. S. umpire.
297
Dec. 19 To the Secretary of the Navy
Confusion as to plans for settlement of boundary dispute; suggestion that Military Governor consult Department before taking action.
298
1920 Jan. 29 (5526–200:1 Op–13A/L) From the Secretary of the Navy
Letter from Military Governor of Santo Domingo (text printed) in explanation of change of plans for settlement of boundary dispute, and renewal of request for approval of arbitration by the Pope.
299
Feb. 19 (21) To the Chargé in Haiti (tel.)
Instructions to exercise good offices with Haitian Government to obtain prompt consideration of Dominican proposal for papal arbitration.
300
Feb. 27 (549) From the Chargé des Affaires in the Dominican Republic
Further explanation regarding plans for settlement of boundary dispute and statement that Dominican note suggesting papal arbitration has been sent to Haitian Minister.
301
Mar. 1 (9) To the Chargé des Affaires in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Inquiry as to character of instructions Haiti has given its Minister in Dominican Republic regarding settlement of boundary dispute.
302
Mar. 7 (9) From the Chargé des Affaires in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Haitian Minister’s authorization to enter informal negotiations for protocol of arbitration by the Pope.
302
Mar. 10 (27) To the Chargé in Haiti (tel.)
Instructions to call attention to desirability of submitting entire question to arbitration and concluding agreement promptly.
303
May 14 (574) From the Chargé des Affaires in the Dominican Republic
Submission for U. S. approval of draft protocol between Haiti and Dominican Republic (substance printed).
303
June 4 (17) To the Chargé des Affaires in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Expression of satisfaction over intention to submit protocol to Haiti; suggested changes in text.
304
[Page XLI]Aug. 12 (598) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Dominican note enclosing amendment to protocol proposed by Haiti and draft of Dominican reply (texts printed), latter subject to U. S. approval.
304
Sept. 13 (35) To the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Recommendations and suggestions regarding changes proposed by Haiti for protocol.
307
Nov. 23 (41) To the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Desirability of providing in protocol for eventual demarcation of boundary by commission of U. S. experts under supervision of U. S. Geological Survey, in view of surveys already in progress.
307
Dec. 3 (641) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Draft protocol of agreement between the Dominican Republic and Haiti (text printed) regarding settlement of boundary dispute.
308

guatemala and honduras: failure of mediation by the secretary of state during conferences at Washington

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Jan. 7 Memorandum by Mr. Leon Dominian, Division of Latin American Affairs, Department of State
Honduran-Guatemalan boundary conference, Jan. 6, which produced no inclination to settle matter without recommendations of mediator.
311
Undated Memorandum by Mr. Leon Dominian, Division of Latin American Affairs, Department of State
Honduran-Guatemalan boundary conference, Feb. 16, in which it was concluded that no settlement could be reached by mediation.
312
Feb. 28 (15) To the Consul in Chargé of the Legation in Honduras (tel.)
Mediator’s willingness to propose boundary line only if both Governments so request and give assurance of acceptance.
(Sent also to the Minister in Guatemala.)
313
Undated Memorandum by Mr. Leon Dominian, Division of Latin American Affairs, Department of State
Mediator’s announcement at conference on Mar. 1 (text printed), offering to propose boundary line only if both Governments so request and give assurances of acceptance.
314
Apr. 1 (30) From the Consul in Chargé of the Legation in Honduras (tel.)
Honduran reply that proposed settlement of boundary is essentially arbitration and hence necessitates previous treaty with Guatemala fixing conditions.
316
June 24 (371) To the Chargé in Honduras
Inquiries regarding occupation of disputed territory by Honduran troops during recent change in government.
316
July 2 (57) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Instructions to ascertain President’s attitude toward proposed solution of boundary question.
316
[Page XLII]July 17 (116) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Information that Guatemala and Honduras are trying to agree on compromise boundary with favorable prospects.
317
Aug 26 (89) From the Minister in Guatemala
Explanations of delay in effecting compromise boundary.
317
Oct. 15 (24) From the Chargé in Honduras
Foreign Office note (text printed) regarding temporary occupation by Honduran troops of ranches in disputed territory and their withdrawal upon request of Guatemala.
318

Conference at Amapala between the Presidents of Honduras and Nicaragua—Agreement of November 17, 1920

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Oct. 1 (66) From the Chargé in Honduras (tel.)
Probability of conference at Amapala of Presidents of Honduras and Nicaragua with view to ending border disturbances; request for U. S. warship as meeting place.
318
Oct. 4 (53) To the Chargé in Honduras (tel.)
U. S. approval of conference between Presidents of Honduras and Nicaragua but refusal of use of warship.
319
Oct. 8 (68) From the Chargé in Honduras (tel.)
Costa Rican mission urging conference of Presidents; selection of Amapala for meeting and intimation of presence of Salvadoran President.
319
Oct. 8 (55) To the Chargé in Honduras (tel.)
Suggestion of point near Choluteca as site for holding conference.
319
Oct. 15 (56) To the Chargé in Honduras (tel.)
Desirability of limiting conference to discussion of revolutionary invasions and boundary questions, thus eliminating necessity for presence of Salvadoran President; suggestion of point on Rio Negro as place for conference.
320
Nov. 9 (150) From the Chargé in Guatemala (tel.)
Arrangements for conference of Presidents of Honduras, Nicaragua, and Salvador at Amapala to discuss boundary difficulties and prevention of revolutionary invasions.
320
Nov. 13 (50) To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.)
Instructions to accompany President to Amapala, if invited, as indication of U. S. interest in questions to be discussed.
321
Nov. 23 (900) From the Minister in Nicaragua
Report on conference at Amapala, enclosing agreement of Nov. 17 between Presidents of Nicaragua and Honduras (text printed).
321
[Page XLIII]

The Tacna-Arica Question

assertion of bolivia’s claim to a port on the pacific; denial of the claim by peru—anti-peruvian disorders in bolivia, march 14, 1920—efforts of the united states to avert developments endangering peace—unsuccessful attempt by chile to open negotiations with peru—projects for submitting the question to the league of nations

Date and number Subject Page
1919 Dec. 23 To the Consul at Tacna (tel.)
Instructions to investigate report that Chile is incorporating in its army Peruvians born in Tacna and Arica during period of occupation, and is constructing roads to frontier.
324
1920 Jan. 9 From the Consul at Tacna (tel.)
Report that conscripts are ostensibly retained on account of strikes but in reality for road building to frontier; Chilean claim that persons born in Tacna and Arica are legally liable to Chilean military service.
324
Feb. 26 From the Peruvian Appointed Ambassador
Foreign Office repudiation of Bolivia’s claim to a seaport in Tacna-Arica (text printed).
326
Feb. 27 (41) From the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Peru’s note to Bolivia asserting its right to territory held by Chile and demanded by Bolivia.
326
Mar. 2 (21) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Bolivian reply to Peru respectfully calling attention to Bolivia’s claim to Arica upon geographical and historical grounds.
327
Mar. 4 (22) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Request for instructions regarding press report alleging that the United States will favor Peru in Tacna-Arica controversy.
327
Mar. 5 (46) From the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Proposed Peruvian counterreply to Bolivian note; possible severance of diplomatic relations.
328
Mar. 10 (17) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Denial by Department of making statement favoring either side in Tacna-Arica controversy; instructions to intimate that agitation at this time will defeat Bolivia’s aim.
328
Mar. 10 (34) To the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Recommendations to Peru not to sever diplomatic relations with Bolivia.
329
Mar. 15 (26) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Anti-Peruvian disorders in Bolivia; wrecking of Peruvian Legation; measures taken by U. S. Minister to protect Peruvian officials.
329
Mar. 17 [16?] (30) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Probability of Chilean mobilization if Peru mobilizes because of events in Bolivia.
330
Mar. 16 (51) From the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Bolivian and Peruvian troop movements.
330
[Page XLIV]Mar. 17 (18) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Statement for presentation (text printed) deploring anti-Peruvian agitation and acts which would endanger peaceful solution of boundary question.
330
Mar. 17 (19) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Representations to Bolivia against mobilization and troop movements.
331
Mar. 17 (38) To the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Representations to Peru against mobilization.
331
Mar. 17 (17) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Representations to Chile against mobilization.
332
Mar. 17 (39) To the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Instructions to reiterate U. S. opinion that diplomatic relations with Bolivia should be continued as effective means for solution of difficulties.
332
Undated [Rec’d Mar. 22] (38) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Chilean reply to U. S. representations, deploring disturbances in Bolivia and Peru and disclaiming any thought of mobilizing on part of Chile.
333
Mar. 23 (55) From the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Peru’s reply to Bolivia, reaffirming position previously taken; assurance that agitation has ceased and that calm prevails.
333
Mar. 23 (33) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Bolivian explanation of difficult situation; assurance that no mobilization is planned; offer to buy the rights in a port.
334
Mar. 25 (35) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Further demonstration against Peruvians; verbal delivery of Department’s no. 18; satisfactory situation at present; friendly feeling toward the United States.
336
Mar. 27 (49) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Proposal of Chilean statement and U. S. reply regarding U. S. note on mobilization, for publication to quiet public feeling. Request for instructions.
337
Mar. 29 (23) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions as to reply to be made to proposed Chilean statement.
337
Mar. 31 (57) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Note of Foreign Minister setting forth Chile’s foreign policy and interpreting U. S. note on mobilization, and Ambassador’s reply reciprocating feeling of cordiality (texts printed).
338
May 6 Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Conversation with the Brazilian Appointed Ambassador; suggestion to Ambassador that Council of League of Nations be requested not to take cognizance of Tacna-Arica dispute at present time.
341
[Page XLV]June 5 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs, Department of State
Receipt of message from Brazilian Ambassador at London (text printed) reporting presentation of U. S. views and inquiring if negotiations are proceeding between Chile and Peru; U. S. statement in negative to Brazilian Ambassador at Washington.
341
June 12 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs, Department of State
Chilean Ambassador’s suggestion of separate plebiscite in Provinces of Tacna and Arica with submission of terms of settlement to arbitral tribunal; probable inactivity until after Chilean Presidential election and inauguration.
342
July 15 (52) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions to report regarding rumors of further expulsion of Peruvians from Tacna-Arica.
342
Aug. 6 (104) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Report of expulsion of Peruvians in exaggerated form and without opposition from the Government.
343
Aug. 11 (57) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions to report on rumor that Chile intends to mass troops on Peruvian frontier and annex disputed provinces.
343
Aug. 15 (110) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
No solution of Tacna-Arica question expected pending settlement of election controversy; rumor of mission sailing on S. S. Chacabuco to Peru to open negotiations.
343
Aug. 17 (113) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Cabinet crisis not yet passed. Report that Chacabuco has sailed south from Arica after landing troops.
344
Sept. 10 (82) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Inquiry as to his alleged instructions to military attaché to proceed with permission of Peruvian President to northern Chile to inform Chilean chief of staff that no warlike preparations are being made by Peru.
345
Sept. 11 (110) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
War Department’s authorization of military attaché’s mission to northern Chile, and Peruvian approval of information given out.
345
Sept. 13 (18) To the Ambassador in Peru
Instructions to report developments in situation regarding any efforts of Chile to open negotiations with Peru on Tacna-Arica question, such as alleged approach by Puga Borne.
(Sent also to the Ambassador in Chile.)
346
Sept. 21 (533) From the Ambassador in Peru
Account of unsuccessful mission of Puga Borne, sent by Chile to negotiate directly with Peru; improved chances for arbitration with failure of countries to agree on direct negotiations.
347
[Page XLVI]Nov. 4 (122) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Peru’s proposed request to League members to appoint special commission to consider Peru-Chile case. Delay in dispatching request pending expression of U. S. views.
349
Nov. 6 (90) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Opinion that submitting of Peru-Chile case to League at some future time will not add to difficulty and that whole problem, including Bolivia’s claim, may be arbitrated following assumption of office by new Chilean Government.
349

Petroleum Exploitation

report to the senate relative to restrictions imposed by certain foreign countries—attitude of the department of state toward monopolies in foreign countries

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Apr. 15 To Senator Wesley L. Jones
Information regarding activities of Department in behalf of U. S. oil companies in foreign countries.
350
May 14 To President Wilson
Report to the Senate in response to Senate Resolution 331 (texts printed) regarding restrictions imposed upon U. S. citizens in prospecting, acquiring, and developing petroleum lands abroad, and action taken for removal of such restrictions.
351
Nov. 13 (601) To the Chargé in Argentina
U. S. attitude toward monopolistic measures relating to petroleum.
369

BOLIVIA

Political Affairs

coup d’état” by the republican party, july 12, 1920—attitude of the united states; understandings with argentina and brazil regarding recognition—victory of the republican party in the elections of november 14–decision of the united states government for eventual recognition

Date and number Subject Page
1920 July 12 (71) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Military coup d’état with Republican leader Saavedra in charge; request for instructions as to policy.
372
July 14 (97) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Saavedra’s assurance that officials of fallen government, as well as Chilean citizens, will be protected; report of Peruvian and Chilean mobilization.
372
July 17 (45) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Instructions to keep Department informed of developments and to take no action which could be construed as U. S. recognition of provisional government.
373
[Page XLVII]July 17 (76) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Guaranties by Junta de Gobierno respecting persons of foreigners, treaties, etc.; proclamation for reorganization of government under free suffrage (text printed).
373
July 19 (81) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
New government’s guaranty to respect all treaties, and its friendly assurances to Chile.
374
July 20 (82) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Recognition by Peru; unanimous opinion of diplomatic corps favoring future provisional recognition of de facto government.
374
July 20 (47) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Instructions to hold only unofficial intercourse with new government concerning American life and property and to report any recognition by other governments.
375
July 21 (84) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Carlos Montes’ request that Legation take charge of Ex-President Montes’ private papers.
376
Undated [Rec’d July 22(?)] (99) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Chilean attitude toward recognition of Bolivian government and inquiry as to U. S. proposed action.
376
July 21 (53) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Authorization to assert that reports of Peruvian mobilization are without foundation.
376
July 23 (54) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions to inquire if mobilization is necessary in view of Bolivian friendly assurances and absence of mobilization both in Bolivia and Peru; U. S. indecision on recognition of Bolivian government.
377
July 23 (49) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Instructions to refrain from taking charge of private property of any Bolivian citizen.
377
July 24 (62) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Request of new Bolivian government for Brazilian recognition; Brazilian inquiry as to U. S. intentions.
377
July 31 (95) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Recommendation for U. S. provisional recognition of de facto government without delay pending fair elections; Minister’s intimation to junta that U. S. recognition is more probable if Salamanca is in government.
378
Aug. 1 (96) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Bolivian request for U. S. recognition and good offices in securing settlement of problems with Peru and Chile.
378
Aug. 4 (52) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Warning against any act which would commit U. S. Government or impair its freedom of action regarding Bolivian recognition.
379
[Page XLVIII]Aug. 24 (56) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Dependence of U. S. recognition upon popular sentiment as expressed in coming general elections.
379
Aug. 24 (96) To the Chargé in Argentina (tel.)
Explanation of U. S. attitude toward recognition and desire for accord with Argentina on subject.
380
Sept. 11 (209) From the Chargé in Argentina (tel.)
Argentine view that recognition should be deferred until definite government has been established. Request for U. S. opinion.
380
Sept. 27 (116) To the Chargé in Argentina (tel.)
U. S. accord with Argentine policy respecting recognition of Bolivia; desire for concerted future action.
381
Sept. 27 (54) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Explanation of U. S. and Argentine attitude toward recognition of Bolivia; desire for U. S. concerted action with Brazil in the matter.
381
Sept. 29 (225) From the Chargé in Argentina (tel.)
Argentine assurance that no action will be taken on recognition without communicating with the United States.
382
Sept. 30 (89) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Brazil’s desire to act in unison with the United States in regard to recognition of Bolivia.
382
Nov. 15 (140) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Orderly elections sustaining Republican Party represented by junta. Recommendations for immediate recognition of government as de facto.
383
Nov. 22 (75) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Request for full report on elections and for date of next session of Congress.
383
Nov. 23 (147) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Recognition of Bolivia by Italy; U. S. action awaited by Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Colombia.
383
Nov. 23 (148) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Results of elections; meeting of Senators and Deputies in convention, Dec. 20, to revise Constitution and select President. Further recommendation for recognition.
384
Nov. 24 (252) From the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Economic inconvenience to Argentina of delaying further the recognition of Bolivia; request for U. S. views.
384
Dec. 9 (80) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Decision to recognize de facto government of Bolivia as soon as provisional president is elected.
385
Dec. 9 (141) To the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Notification to Argentina of proposed U. S. recognition of de facto Bolivian government and of desire for Argentine accord in this decision.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to the Ambassador in Brazil.)
385
Dec. 17 (124) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Brazilian accord with decision of the United States regarding recognition of Bolivia.
386
[Page XLIX]

CANADA

Fisheries

signature of a new convention for the protection preservation, and propagation of salmon, may 25, 1920

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Mar. 9 (148) From the British Chargé
Request for draft of proposed amendment to art. II of Sockeye Salmon Treaty for transmittal to Canada.
387
Mar. 24 To the British Chargé
Proposed amendment of art. II of Sockeye Salmon Treaty (text printed) submitted for views of British Government.
387
Apr. 20 (250) From the British Appointed Ambassador
Canada’s acceptance of U. S. amendment and desire for prompt signature of treaty.
388
May 25 Memorandum by the Assistant Solicitor for the Department of State
U. S. and British signatures to Sockeye Salmon Treaty as amended. Steps to expedite ratification.
388
Dec. 28 (837) From the British Ambassador
Inquiry at the instance of Canada as to prospects for early ratification to afford protection contemplated by treaty during coming season.
389
1921 Feb. 2 To the British Chargé
Improbability of action being taken regarding ratification during present session of Congress because of desire for fuller consideration of matter.
389

negotiations for a convention concerning port privileges of fishing vessels, lobster fishing, halibut fishing, and tariff on fresh fish

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Mar. 23 (183) From the British Chargé
Inquiry as to date when the United States will sign treaty on port privileges of fishing vessels, lobster and halibut fishing, and tariff on fresh fish.
390
Mar. 24 To Senator Wesley L. Jones
Reply seriatim, after consulting U. S. members of American Fisheries Conference, to Senator’s objections to proposed treaty on port privileges.
390
June 10 (354) From the British Ambassador
Further inquiry as to date of signature of fisheries treaty and request for consent to publication of report of International Fisheries Commission.
395
June 19 To the British Ambassador
Advisability of postponing signature pending consideration of certain objections; submission to proper authorities of request for consent to publish Commission’s report.
395
June 22 From Senator Wesley L. Jones
Objections to terms of proposed treaty as giving British subjects advantage over Americans regarding fisheries.
396
[Page L]July 20 To the British Ambassador
U. S. consent to publication of report of International Fisheries Commission.
404
Sept. 10 (582) From the British Ambassador
Canadian suggestion of addition to draft treaty providing for reciprocal arrangement for curing of catch by citizens of one country on territory of other.
404
Sept. 20 To the British Ambassador
Consideration of Senator Jones’ objections to treaty and of Canada’s added suggestion.
405

conference at ottawa, september 23, 1920, for cooperation in scientific investigation of deep-sea fisheries

Date and number Subject Page
1920 May 18 (306) From the British Appointed Ambassador
Suggestion that conference be held at Ottawa for scientific investigation of deep-sea fisheries along coasts of North America.
406
June 14 To the British Ambassador
U. S. acquiescence in proposed conference and suggestion as to procedure.
407
Oct. 7 (663) From the British Ambassador
Resolution of Conference of Fishery Experts (text printed) recommending ways and means for conducting cooperative investigations. Request for U. S. approval.
407
Oct. 14 To the British Ambassador
U. S. approval of resolution of Conference and consent to its publication.
408

St. Lawrence Waterway

consideration of the question of further improving the st. lawrence river between montreal and lake Ontario—reference to the international joint commission

Date and number Subject Page
1919 Apr. 10 To the British Ambassador on Special Mission
Request for Canadian views on suggestion that certain questions concerning development of St. Lawrence waterway be submitted to International Joint Commission.
409
July 25 (552) From the British Chargé
Canada’s consent to refer to International Joint Commission investigation regarding development of boundary waters and willingness to appoint representative to prepare such reference.
409
[Page LI]Dec. 6 To the British Appointed Ambassador on Special Mission
Recommendations of U. S. and Canadian engineers (text printed) for reference to International Joint Commission regarding further improvement of St. Lawrence between Montreal and Lake Ontario.
410
1920 Jan. 6 (10) From the British Chargé
Canadian approval of recommendations drawn up for reference to International Joint Commission.
(Footnote: U. S. note of Jan. 21 to British Embassy stating that reference as agreed upon by United States and Canada had been sent to International Joint Commission.)
413
Feb. 13 To the British Chargé
U. S. appointment of Colonel Wooten to cooperate with engineers of Canada in furthering improvement of St. Lawrence waterway; request for name of Canadian appointee.
413
Apr. 22 (252) From the British Appointed Ambassador
Appointment of Bowden as Canadian engineer to confer with U. S. appointee on improvement of boundary waterways.
414

CHINA

Political Affairs

dissension among the leaders in south china—continued deadlock in negotiations for reunification with the north

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Apr. 8 (48) From the Consul General at Canton
Withdrawal of Wu Ting-fang from Administrative Council leaving militarists in control; financial and political situation in South.
416
Apr. 28 (51) From the Consul General at Canton
Unsuccessful attempt of General Mo, Military Governor, Canton, to gain control of Yunnan troops; redisposition of troops; prevalence of piracy and banditry.
418
May 31 (69) From the Consul General at Canton
Memorandum of military government (text printed) setting forth terms necessary as basis of permanent peace between North and South.
419
June 4 (126) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Formation of military force with Japanese aid to take aggressive action against supporters of Canton government.
423
June 5 (214) From the Consul General at Shanghai
Manifesto, June 3, 1920, issued by four Southern constitutionalist leaders (text printed) deploring chaotic conditions in South, and resolving to move seat of government and to continue peace negotiations with North.
423
[Page LII]June 17 (81) From the Consul General at Canton
Removal of Wu Ting-fang, Tang Shao-yi, and Sun Yat-sen from office by military government and appointment of successors; probability of civil war in South if opposition military government is set up.
426
June 18 (83) From the Consul General at Canton
Manifesto issued by military government (text printed) to confute manifesto of June 3, 1920, and to protest against activities of Anfu Party. List of Chinese party leaders.
427
Quarterly Report of the Legation in China for the Period April 1–June 30, 1920
Report on Lamont’s mission in interest of consortium; situation on Chinese Eastern; continued deadlock in peace negotiations.
433

civil war in north china; overthrow of the anfu club—action by the foreign representatives to keep fighting away from peking and tientsin; question of asylum for political refugees

Date and number Subject Page
1920 July 8 (161) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Presidential mandate degrading Tsao Kun and dismissing Wu Pei-fu, dictated by Anfu Club under Tuan Chi-jui and Hsu Shu-cheng: movement of Tuan’s troops against those of Tsao Kun and Wu Pei-fu.
437
July 9 (165) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegrams sent to Tientsin (texts printed) regarding probable attack on Paotingfu by rival Northern forces and warning to Americans to leave.
437
July 9 (168) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Establishment of dictatorship and martial law in Peking by Tuan Chi-jui. Notification by diplomatic corps that Government will be held responsible for lives of foreigners and that no fighting in Peking is expected.
438
July 10 (171) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Background of present situation in China.
439
July 11 (179) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Nation-wide military activities; interruption of railway service.
440
July 13 (183) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Italian statement regarding sale of arms; Japanese statement that Japanese instructors have been recalled from Tuan forces. Chang’s determination to occupy Peking and extirpate Anfu Party.
440
July 14 (49) The Consul General at Mukden to the Minister in China
Dispatch of troops by Chang, following conference with military and civil officials, to control Peking-Mukden Railway, to attack Tuan, and to protect the President.
441
[Page LIII]July 14 (184) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Presidential order instructing troops to return to original posts; accord of eight military governors in policy of opposing Tuan; proclamation of martial law in Peking.
443
July 16 (180) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to avoid diplomatic action construable as taking sides, since agreement following Boxer troubles applies only to protection of diplomatic representatives in Peking; inquiry as to originator of diplomatic representations.
443
July 16 From the Consul General at Tientsin (tel.)
Reported interruption of railway, telephone, and telegraphic communication with Peking; consideration of consular measures to keep fighting away from Tientsin.
444
July 17 (52) The Consul General at Mukden to the Minister in China
British representations to Chang regarding seizure of rolling stock of railroad and interruption of service. Chang’s resolve to wage vigorous campaign against Anfu Party.
444
July 17 From the Consul General at Tientsin (tel.)
Restoration of train and telegraphic service between Tientsin and Peking; maintenance of order in Tientsin.
445
July 17 (182) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to repeat substance of Department’s 180 to consul at Tientsin as warning against intervening in behalf of any faction.
445
July 18 From the Consul General at Tientsin (tel.)
From Crane: Routing of Tuan’s forces by Wu Pei-fu. Protest by diplomatic corps against violations of protocol of 1901 concerning railway service.
446
July 18 (186) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Further repulse of Tuan forces; quiet in vicinity of Tientsin.
446
July 18 From the Consul General at Tientsin (tel.)
Further retreat of Tuan troops toward Peking.
447
July 19 (53) The Consul General at Mukden to the Minister in China
Advance of Chang’s troops along Peking-Mukden Railway; Chang’s guaranty of respect for British rights and demand for railway funds; consul general’s letter (text printed) calling attention of Chang to railway’s financial obligations to American corporation.
447
July 19 (254) From the Consul General at Tientsin
Correspondence of senior consul at Tientsin with Civil Governor of Chihli and with senior military commander at Tientsin (texts printed) regarding protection of railway, foreign concesssions, and city of Tientsin during present disturbances.
448
July 19 From the Consul General at Tientsin (tel.)
Intention of foreign military contingent to send military train through to Peking.
451
[Page LIV]July 20 From the Consul General at Tientsin (tel.)
Arrival of military train; restoration of train and telephone service to Peking.
451
July 20 (183) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Inquiry regarding reported Japanese occupation of railway allocated to British troops and alleged refusal to allow Chinese troops to utilize railway in violation of 1912 precedent.
452
July 20 (188) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Defeat and retirement of Tuan’s forces; Tuan’s resignation of all posts and honors; President’s attempt at mediation; lull in military operations.
452
July 21 (191) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Statement that action of diplomatic body to keep fighting away from Peking and Tientsin is not regarded as intervention by either Chinese faction.
453
July 23 (187) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Request for report as to who initiated move to keep fighting away from Peking and Tientsin and form of action taken.
454
July 24 (197) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Japanese denial and Tsao’s reaffirmation of reported interference with Chinese troops along railway.
454
July 25 (198) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Retreat and surrender of Tuan and Hsu forces to Chang who supports President as sole constitutional agency for reunification and consecutive continuance of Government.
454
July 25 (183 bis [199?]) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Resignations of Cabinet and Anfu officials; pursuit of Tuan’s troops.
455
July 26 (200) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Origin in U. S. Legation of motion to prevent fighting in Peking, on request of leading Chinese.
455
July 28 (201) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Restoration of Wu Pei-fu and Tsao Kun to former positions; disarming of Anfu troops.
456
July 28 (53) From the Minister in China
Circular no. 108 from dean of diplomatic corps to Chinese Acting Foreign Minister (excerpt printed) holding Government responsible for any attack which may be made against foreigners and recommending that measures be taken to prevent entrance of armed troops into Peking.
456
July 30 (205) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Disbandment en masse of Tuan troops; granting of asylum in Legation quarter by Americans to Chinese women and children but not to men.
457
Aug. 2 (66) From the Minister in China
Correspondence with dean of diplomatic corps and with U. S. residents of diplomatic quarter in Peking and also a news report on question of asylum for political refugees (texts printed).
457
[Page LV]Undated [Rec’d Aug. 8] (215) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Disbandment of Anfu Club and 15th division of Regular Army which assisted Tuan; conference between President, Tsao, and Chang.
459
Aug. 11 (217) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Japanese statement that certain Anfus are receiving due protection in Japanese Legation but that act has no political significance.
459
Aug. 12 (218) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Announcement of personnel of President’s Cabinet.
459
Sept. 22 (135) From the Consul General at Canton
Postponement of declaration of peace between North and South because of revolts in South supported by former members of Administrative Council.
459
Quarterly Report of the Legation in China for the Period July 1–September 30, 1920
Report on downfall of Anfu Party and account of conflict in South; Chinese withdrawal of recognition of old regime in Russia; financial situation and activities looking toward loan by consortium.
460

conflicts in south china—unsuccessful attempt to dissolve the military government at canton—unproductive efforts at reform in north china

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Undated [Rec’d Oct. 6] (297) From the Minister in China (tel.)
From Bergholz: Threatened rebellion against General Mo; ample naval protection for foreigners.
476
Sept. 28 (139) From the Consul General at Canton
Demand of Gen. Lee Fu-lin and Gen. Wei Pang-ping for resignation of Mo. Foreign Office proposal of mediation by diplomatic corps.
476
Sept. 29 (142) From the Consul General at Canton
Endeavor of the two factions to arrange peaceful settlement of affairs at Canton. Recommendations of senior consul to rival generals to avoid attack on city.
477
Oct. 5 (144) From the Consul General at Canton
Refusal of consular body to comply with request to notify Mo that his opponents had appointed his successor. Description of three political elements in Canton.
478
Undated [Rec’d Oct. 12] (314) From the Minister in China (tel.)
From Bergholz: Installation at Honam of Tang Tingkwang as Military Governor in opposition to Mo.
480
[Page LVI]Oct. 30 (164) From the Vice Consul in Chargé at Canton
Withdrawal of Mo and others from military government and cancelation of Kwangtung’s independence; arrival of troops of General Chen friendly to Sun Yat-sen and other ousted members of Administrative Council.
480
Nov. 6 (168) From the Vice Consul in Chargé at Canton
Nullification by General Chen of action canceling independence of Kwangtung; probable shifts in personnel of government.
482
Nov. 13 (171) From the Vice Consul in Chargé at Canton
Assumption of duties by certain newly appointed officials.
483
Nov. 17 (386) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Japan’s notification of escape of Hsu from Japanese Legation.
484
Dec. 1 (87) The Vice Consul in Chargé at Canton to the Minister in China
Arrival of Sun Yat-sen, Wu Ting-fang, and Tang Shao-yi to resume duties as Administrative Council. Irredentist movement in Kwangsi similar to enterprise in Kwangtung.
484
Quarterly Report of the Legation in China for the Period October 1–December 31, 1920
Résumé of domestic political events; disorders in Mongolia; events following Chinese assumption of control of Russian concessions; conclusion of agreement regarding control of Chinese Eastern Railway.
485

Organization of a New International Financial Consortium

visit of mr. lamont to japan and china on behalf of the american group—proposals of the japanese government, march 2, 1920—rejection by the united states and great britain of the japanese formula—japanese memorandum of april 3; replies by france, great britain, and the united states—exchange of letters between the japanese and american groups, may 11

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Feb. 7 (38) To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to facilitate mission of Lamont, of J. P. Morgan & Co., sent as representative of American group to confer with Japanese bankers regarding proposed consortium.
497
Feb. 28 To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
History of efforts to form consortium and Japan’s failure to cooperate.
(Instructions to repeat to Peking for information. Sent also to the Ambassador in Great Britain with instructions to repeat to Paris, for information only.)
497
Mar. 2 From the Japanese Embassy
Memorandum expressing Japanese attitude toward proposed consortium and offering formula of reservations and statement of undertakings in Manchuria and Mongolia which Japan expects to be excluded from scope of consortium (texts printed).
500
[Page LVII]Mar. 6 (227) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Discussion of Japan’s memorandum of Mar. 2; criticism of formula of reservations; request for British views.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris.)
503
Mar. 7 (82) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Promise of views and suggestions as result of discussion of Japan’s memorandum with Lamont and British Minister.
505
Mar. 8 (84) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Decision of Ambassador, British colleague, and Lamont that Japanese formula should be rejected, and that banking groups should review situation to find solution satisfactory to all governments concerned. Repeated to Peking.
506
Mar. 11 (434) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Similarity of British and U. S. views regarding Japan’s attitude toward consortium.
507
Mar. 11 (90) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Proposed correspondence between American and Japanese banking groups (texts printed) as basis for U. S., British, and French negotiations with Japan replacing formulas offered by Japan.
508
Mar. 16 To the Japanese Embassy
Rejection of Japanese formula as being unnecessary to protect Japanese interests; recommendation that banking groups confer further to evolve solution satisfactory to all governments.
512
Mar. 16 (92) To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Transmittal of copy of Department’s Mar. 16 to Japanese Embassy. Approval of exempting from consortium certain railway undertakings to be agreed upon between Japanese group and Lamont, but rejection of proposed correspondence between banking groups.
513
Mar. 17 (279) To the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Transmittal of copies of Department’s memorandum to Japanese Embassy and of instructions to Ambassador in Japan, Mar. 16, for information of Foreign Office in hope of securing British accord in position taken.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris for similar action.)
514
Mar. 20 (484) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Japanese memorandum (text printed) presenting formula, etc., in reply to British note on consortium, similar to Japanese memorandum of Mar. 2 to the United States. Paris informed.
515
Mar. 20 (485) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
British reply to Japanese memorandum (text printed) stating objections to formula and giving assurance that no consortium activities would affect Japan’s security. Paris informed.
517
Mar. 23 (796) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French assurance that if Japanese memorandum is received reply will be made in same sense as U. S. and British reply.
519
[Page LVIII]Mar. 26 (124) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
From Lamont to American group also: Japan’s willingness to enter consortium without reservations, upon exchange of letters removing certain railways from sphere of consortium. Recommendations to urge prompt London and Paris acquiescence in arrangement.
519
Mar. 30 (112) To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Approval of Lamont’s proposed exchange of notes. Information that British and French are being requested to concur.
521
Mar. 30 (329) To the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Summary of Lamont plan for British consideration, with instructions to urge cooperation and speedy solution of consortium question.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris for similar action.)
521
Apr. 1 (879) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French approval in principle of Lamont plan.
522
Apr. 1 (545) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Probability that Great Britain will accede to U. S. wishes regarding solution of consortium question.
523
Apr. 3 From the Japanese Embassy
Willingness of Japan to withdraw proposed formula if other interested powers concur in U. S. proposal and if two propositions regarding Taonanfu-Jehol Railway projects are accepted.
523
Apr. 3 (344) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Transmittal of copy of Japanese memorandum of Apr. 3 for attention of Foreign Office, with request to defer further communication with Japan pending consideration of subject.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris.)
526
Apr. 6 (559) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British willingness to concur with the United States and France in exchange of letters suggested by Lamont. Paris informed.
526
Apr. 9 (576) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British refusal to consent to Japan’s two propositions and request for postponement of U. S. action. Paris informed.
(Repeated by the Department to Chargé in China for information, with instructions to repeat to Tokyo.)
527
Apr. 14 (376) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Proposed joint agreement with Great Britain and France in opposing new Japanese propositions.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris.)
527
Apr. 15 (614) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Receipt by Foreign Office of Japanese note replying to British note of Mar. 19 and outlining two propositions as submitted to the United States. Paris informed.
528
[Page LIX]Apr. 15 (81) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Lamont to Morgan: Recommendation for strong attitude by Americans and British, with French concurring, in settlement of consortium. Chinese desire for consortium or American group to cooperate in management of Chinese Eastern.
529
Apr. 16 (388) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Cablegram sent from Embassy in Japan to Minister in China for Lamont (text printed) on interview with governor of Bank of Japan regarding new propositions. Instructions to propose united and final representations to Japan for their elimination and conclusion of consortium.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris.)
530
Apr. 21 (645) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British concurrence in proposed united representations to Japan. Paris informed.
531
Apr. 21 (89) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Undesirability of introducing into negotiations suggestion that consortium loan be used to operate Chinese Eastern.
(Instructions to repeat to Ambassador in Japan and orally to Lamont. Similar telegram to Ambassador in Great Britain with instructions to repeat to Ambassador in France.)
532
Apr. 22 (1032) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French difficulty in joining in representations because of Japan’s failure to include France in direct negotiations concerning consortium; French support of U. S. views.
532
Apr. 22 (90) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Morgan & Co. to Lamont: Objections to three-power consortium; suggestion for presenting to Japan time limit for entrance into consortium; proposed settlement of Chinese Eastern question after consortium is formed.
533
Apr. 23 (417) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Concurrence in British position; hope of early reply to Japan and conclusion of consortium arrangements.
534
Apr. 26 (1056) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French note to Japanese Ambassador (text printed) opposing Japan’s two propositions and indicating support of U. S. and British views.
534
Apr. 28 (688) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Draft of British reply to Japan (excerpt printed) requesting withdrawal of two propositions regarding Taonanfu-Jehol Railway and conclusion of consortium on basis of compromise proposed by Lamont.
535
Apr. 29 To the Japanese Embassy
Reply to Japanese note of Apr. 3, asking withdrawal of propositions and speedy conclusion of consortium on basis of Lamont compromise.
536
[Page LX]Apr. 29 (163) To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Transmittal of copy of note of Apr. 29 to Japanese Embassy; instructions to express to Foreign Office U. S. disappointment at delay and to urge decision on the matter.
(Instructions to repeat to Peking for information and for communication to Lamont.)
538
Apr. 30 Memorandum by the Third Assistant Secretary of State
Conversation with Japanese Ambassador regarding the two propositions in question; his consent to recommend to his Government acceptance of U. S. arrangement for consortium.
538
May 8 From the Japanese Embassy
Japan’s interpretation of general assurances offered by three powers as adequate to safeguard its interests; withdrawal of its two propositions.
539
May 8 To the Japanese Embassy
Expressions of gratification at Japan’s concurrence in and offer of support to consortium.
541
May 11 Memorandum by the Third Assistant Secretary of State
Conversation with counselor of Italian Embassy in which permission is given for Italy to make application for participation in consortium.
542
May 19 (2866) From the Ambassador in Great Britain
British note to Japanese Embassy (text printed) expressing satisfaction over accord reached and hope that immediate action will be taken toward establishing consortium.
542
May 19 From the Italian Ambassador
Request for statement of U. S. attitude toward eventual participation by Italy in consortium loans to China.
544
June 22 To the Italian Ambassador
Approval of Italy’s ultimate participation in consortium; suggestion that subject be taken up with banking groups at meeting in September.
544
June 26 (149) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Japanese demand for formal approval by all governments concerned of notes exchanged between Lamont and Japanese group before they are communicated to China.
545
June 28 (156) To the Minister in China (tel.)
U. S. approval of Lamont-Kajiwara notes on Mar. 30.
545
July 2 From the Japanese Embassy
China’s request for information respecting consortium; Japanese desire that information be communicated in confidence pending final arrangements.
545
July 8 From the Japanese Embassy
Japan’s proposal to withhold notification to China of Kajiwara-Lamont correspondence unless mention is made of understanding as to noninterference with Japan’s defense and economic existence.
547
July 9 (167) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to refrain from any communications with China regarding consortium pending instructions.
548
[Page LXI]July 9 (717) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to ascertain whether British and French have formally notified Japan of approval of Kajiwara-Lamont letters.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris.)
548
July 11 (180) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Note sent to Foreign Office (text printed) enclosing Lamont-Kajiwara correspondence and offering to arrange loans through Legation; exceptions taken by Japanese Minister to sending of note.
548
July 13 To the Japanese Embassy
Advisability of communicating confidentially to China all correspondence among interested governments respecting establishment of new consortium.
550
July 13 (1057) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Doubt as to whether Japan has formally signified acceptance of formula. British instructions to Embassy, Tokyo, to follow the United States in notifying Japan of British adherence. Paris informed.
551
July 15 (742) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
U. S. willingness to communicate to Japan British and French approval of Lamont-Kajiwara letters if authorized to do so.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris.)
551
July 15 (179) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to consult colleagues with view to communicating confidentially to Chinese Government all relevant documents on consortium. List of communications in question; intimation of eventual publication of documents.
552
July 16 (1075) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Great Britain’s plan for its announcement to follow that of the United States. Inquiry as to U. S. announcement to Japan of approval of letters and Japan’s acceptance of proposed formula. Paris informed.
553
July 19 (272) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Inquiry whether U. S. approval of notes has been transmitted to Foreign Office and whether Japanese formal approval has been announced. Instructions to consult with colleagues on matter.
554
July 20 From Mr. Thomas W. Lamont
Transmittal of draft announcement—to be sent to Chinese Government—of formation of consortium with approval of four governments.
554
July 20 (1414) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French notification to Japan of approval of Lamont correspondence with Japanese banking group.
555
July 22 From the American Group
Letters exchanged on May 11 between Kajiwara for Japanese group and Lamont for American (texts printed) regarding Japan’s withdrawal of reservations and entrance into new consortium on same terms as American, British, and French groups.
555
[Page LXII]July 22 (359) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Failure to notify Japan of U. S. approval of Lamont letters. Japan’s notification of approval to Japanese group but not to public.
557
July 23 (282) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Request for approval of government to which accredited of proposed simultaneous announcement to Chinese Government of organization of consortium with approval of four governments (text printed).
(Sent also to the Ambassador in Great Britain with instructions to repeat to Paris.)
558
July 24 (779) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Apparent acceptance by the four governments of Lamont-Kajiwara exchange of letters and of formula defining diplomatic support to be given consortium.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris.)
558
July 24 (780) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Japan’s acceptance on Oct. 8, 1919, of French formula on diplomatic support in modified form as suggested by the United States.
559

discussion regarding communication of documents to the chinese government—joint note of september 28, addressed to the chinese foreign office and accompanied by documents relating to the consortium—consortium agreement and resolutions by the four groups, october 15; approval by the governments—admission of a belgian group into the consortium—communication of further documents to the chinese government

Date and number Subject Page
1920 July 24 (196) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Difficulties attendant upon negotiations in Peking for jointly communicating consortium documents to the Chinese Government.
559
July 24 (190) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Approval of China’s applying to four group representatives for loans under the consortium rather than applying to Legation in Peking.
560
July 29 (1463) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
French decision to join other powers in making announcement on Aug. 1 concerning establishment of consortium.
560
July 29 (196) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Decision that conference of four interested Legations is most direct method of reaching agreement on presentation of documents. Department’s intention to assist negotiations.
560
July 29 (1144) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British suggestion that consortium notification to China be based on British draft now pending before representatives in China, and that such notification should precede publication of announcement; unfinished status of consortium until formal exchange of agreements. Paris informed.
561
[Page LXIII]July 31 (1320) To the Chargé in France (tel.)
Instructions to suggest to France that announcement be deferred until British and Japanese reply.
(Instructions to repeat to London present telegram and Chargé’s 1463, July 29.)
562
Aug. 2 (389) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Information that text of proposed announcement has been presented and request made for early reply.
562
Aug. 3 (1499) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
French delay in making announcement in accordance with request.
562
Aug. 6 (216) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Summary of British draft of joint note to China (excerpts printed) in explanation of scope of consortium and government support to be given it; approval by all representatives save Japanese, who awaits instructions.
562
Aug. 11 (412) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Japanese note (text printed) acquiescing in plan to make identic, simultaneous announcement to China and suggesting that selection of text announcement be left to representatives at Peking.
564
Aug. 11 (208) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Desirability of full disclosure of notes exchanged and hence objections to draft joint note proposed by British Chargé; Lamont’s note (text printed) regarding Japan’s withdrawal of reservations.
565
Aug. 13 (1225) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that Great Britain has telegraphed Peking its approval of draft text of announcement concerning consortium. Paris informed.
566
Aug. 16 (873) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Advocacy of transmitting to China all essential documents relating to consortium rather than brief résumé proposed by British Chargé in China.
566
Aug. 24 (905) To the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Proposed change in original U. S. draft announcement, to accord with British suggestion regarding unfinished status of consortium.
568
Aug. 27 (1307) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
British and Japanese willingness to transmit all essential documents in connection with submission to China of announcement drafted by British Chargé in China.
568
Sept. 21 To the British Embassy
Reply to British objections to certain portions of U. S. proposed announcement.
569
[Page LXIV]Sept. 27 (291) From the Minister in China
Presentation of joint note of Sept. 28 (text printed) announcing formation and aims of consortium and enclosing relevant documents (only text of French memorandum printed, assuring Japan of approval of Lamont-Kajiwara notes); substitution, in some cases, of document texts different from those Department listed for inclusion.
570
Oct. 1 (642) From the British Ambassador
Desirability of refraining from discussion of wider political issues by consortium groups in first meeting held in New York.
574
Oct. 4 To the British Ambassador
Information that American group will be instructed to discourage discussion of wider political issues at forthcoming meeting.
575
Oct. 19 From the American Group
The China consortium agreement, Oct. 15, and resolutions adopted by the four groups (texts printed). Request for formal approval of resolutions, the agreement being already approved.
575
Oct. 28 (302) To the Minister in China (tel.)
From American group: Signature of consortium agreement; statement for repetition to Government (text printed) of purposes of consortium.
589
Oct. 30 (306) To the Minister in China (tel.)
No objection to furnishing to press statement in Department’s 302; explanation of consortium reference to land tax.
590
Nov. 2 (309) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Information furnished by American group (text printed) regarding attitude toward land tax, application of consortium loans to constructive work, joint announcement regarding consortium, and its duration.
590
Nov. 2 (405) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Proposed public announcement on Nov. 8 of approval of organization of consortium (text printed). Request that interested governments make similar announcement simultaneously.
(Sent also to the Chargé in Great Britain with instructions to repeat to the Ambassador in France. Subsequent instructions to repeat announcement to the Minister in China.)
591
Nov. 3 (408) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to inform government to which accredited of U. S. approval of consortium resolution to include Belgian group in consortium, subject to approval of respective governments.
(Instructions to repeat to Peking for information. Similar telegram to the Chargé in Great Britain with instructions to repeat to the Ambassador in France.)
592
Nov. 3 (409) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Notification of U. S. approval of consortium resolutions; desire for similar action by other interested governments.
(Instructions to repeat to Peking for information. Similar telegram to Chargé in Great Britain with instructions to repeat to Ambassador in France.)
592
[Page LXV]Nov. 6 (1584) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Probability of British approval of consortium agreement and of admission of Belgium thereto. Italy’s application for admission; request made of Japanese Ambassador for publication of entire consortium correspondence. Paris informed.
593
Nov. 9 To the American Group
Approval of publication of consortium agreement, subject to assent of other interested governments; approval also of publication of summary of agreement.
593
Nov. 9 (1137) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Japan’s conditional approval of proposed public announcement; postponement of date of announcement in hope of simultaneous action.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris.)
594
Nov. 12 (423) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Proposed note to Belgium (text printed) approving its participation in consortium; request that Japan make identic communication. Submission of proposed note to Great Britain and France for similar action.
594
Nov. 13 (588) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s note (text printed) signifying formal approval of consortium resolutions, subject, however, to former reservations.
595
Nov. 15 (1615) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British conditional concurrence in public announcement of consortium; news of French concurrence; suggestion that China be notified prior to public announcement.
595
Nov. 16 (336) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to participate jointly with colleagues in communicating to China the Governments’ approval of consortium before announcement is given to press.
596
Nov. 19 (390) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Delay in announcing to China Governments’ approval of consortium because of failure of British, French, and Japanese Legations to receive instructions.
596
Nov. 20 (344) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to limit communication to China to mere statement of U. S. approval of consortium agreement. Release to press of public announcement.
597
Nov. 21 (601) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Public announcement by Foreign Office in Japanese and English. Repeated to Peking.
597
Nov. 24 (402) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Agreement of Legations as to form of joint announcement to China, to be sent upon receipt of answer to British Chargé’s request of his Government for authority to participate.
597
Nov. 30 (437) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Proposed change in joint note to Belgium (text printed) for sake of clarity. British and French prior announcement on subject of Belgian participation in consortium.
598
[Page LXVI]Dec. 9 (364) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Reprimand because of omission of U. S. texts from consortium documents transmitted to China.
599
Dec. 13 To the Belgian Chargé
Notice of U. S. approval of entrance of Belgian banking group into Chinese consortium in accordance with vote taken by four banking groups.
600
Dec. 13 (433) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Draft of note for China (text printed) announcing consummation of consortium agreement, submitted for U. S. approval.
600
Dec. 14 (435) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Japanese request for publication of consortium documents already given to Chinese Government; inquiry whether the United States wishes to insist on inclusion of omitted American texts of documents when others are published.
601
Dec. 24 (392) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Acceptance of suggestion that additional confidential correspondence including American texts should be communicated to Chinese Government before publication.
601
Dec. 28 (1738) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Proposed change in text of draft announcement to China in order to make discretionary the communicating of actual texts of resolutions.
601
Dec. 30 (1270) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Approval of frankly and promptly communicating to China complete texts of consortium agreement and resolutions.
602
1921 Jan. 12 (18) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Affirmation that agreement is most important thing to communicate to China, and that resolutions may await accord among those interested.
602
Jan. 19 (734) From the Minister in China
Note to Foreign Minister signed by representatives of America, Great Britain, France, and Japan (text printed) signifying approval by four governments of new consortium and making available the text of agreement.
603
Jan. 19 (726) From the Minister in China
Note to Foreign Minister signed by representatives of America, Great Britain, France, and Japan (text printed) transmitting for confidential information of Chinese Government further documents on consortium, including texts of American documents.
603
[Page LXVII]

Loan Negotiations

loan contract with the pacific development corporation, november 26, 1919—efforts of the chinese government to secure an emergency loan from the consortium members japanese advance of nine million yen, february 19, 1920—repudiation of german-issued hukuang railway bonds; american efforts to secure a reversal of the chinese government’s decision—arrangement between the american group and the pacific development corporation; protection of the corporation’s contract by the american government—unavailing efforts of the chinese government to secure funds—arrangement for honoring the hukuang bonds

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Jan. 6 From the British Chargé
French concurrence in British and Japanese views regarding immediate loan to China, disbandment of troops, control of expenditures, etc. Request for U. S. cooperation.
605
Jan. 8 From Sullivan & Cromwell
Loan contract between China and Pacific Development Corp., declaration by corporation regarding appointment of U. S. associate inspector general of Wine and Tobacco Administration, and China’s declaration regarding increase of revenues of Wine and Tobacco Administration (texts printed).
606
Jan. 10 (26) From the British Chargé
Inquiry regarding reported unwillingness of U. S. group to carry British share of loan; different character of Egyptian (Vickers) loan.
615
Jan. 13 (120) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Extract from French note (text printed) explaining French desire for representation on Wine and Tobacco Administration because of existing loan by Banque Industrielle, and expressing willingness for French and U. S. cooperation in arranging $25,000,000 loan providing consortium cannot do so.
616
Jan. 13 (12) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Probable unsatisfactory reorganization of Wine and Tobacco Administrations by Americans if loan option is not used; request for instructions as to Department’s attitude toward Pacific Development Corp. loan.
617
Jan. 15 (1118) To the Chargé in China
Letter from J. P. Morgan & Co. in behalf of American group (text printed) protesting against Chinese requirement for proof of nonenemy ownership of German issue of Hukuang Railway loan bonds. Instructions to join British and French colleagues in pointing out danger of such policy.
618
Jan. 17 From the French Ambassador
Chinese threat to borrow elsewhere if former consortium fails to advance funds; request that the United States join French and British in protesting.
620
Undated [Rec’d Jan. 20] (17) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Request for instructions regarding proposed five-power loan to China. Japan’s consent to participate under certain conditions specified.
621
Jan. 23 (124) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Difficulties in Chinese fulfillment of loan conditions, especially disbandment.
621
[Page LXVIII]Jan. 27 (26) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Urgent appeal for U. S. decision regarding loan to China before Chinese new-year settlement is due.
622
Jan. 28 (25) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from Morgan & Co. in behalf of American group (text printed) agreeing to act in conjunction with Japan in emergency loan to China and in assuming responsibility for British and French quotas.
(Instructions to repeat to Tokyo.)
622
Jan. 29 (29) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Japanese proposal that the four legations instruct the four banks concerned to make certain advances against loan to China to tide over new-year settlements.
623
Jan. 30 (30) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
China’s notification to Pacific Development Corp. that unless further advance is made immediately, previous loan will be canceled. Negotiations for loan from Japanese Okura firm.
624
Jan. 31 (27) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Facilitation of negotiations of proposed emergency loan as requisite for temporary advances to China.
624
Feb. 2 (32) To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to remind Foreign Office of U. S. nonsupport of Pacific Development Corp. loan and to inquire regarding reported negotiations for Okura loan.
(Instructions to repeat to Peking for information.)
624
Feb. 2 (29) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Department’s obligations to back new consortium and to withhold support from Pacific Development Corp. Instructions to make practice of repeating to Tokyo information on situation.
625
Feb. 4 To the French Ambassador
Unimportance of lapsed options under old loan agreement in view of pending negotiations for emergency advance under new consortium.
625
Feb. 4 (38) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Decision of Cabinet to make independent advance to China in case of failure of four-power emergency loan.
626
Feb. 5 To the British Chargé
Undertaking by American group to bear British quota of proposed immediate loan to China.
626
Feb. 7 (35) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Proposed arrangement for international consortium to take over loans contracted by Pacific Development Corp. Advisability of China’s refraining from negotiating Okura loan.
627
[Page LXIX]Feb. 7 (37) To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Transmittal of Department’s message of Feb. 7 sent to Peking. Objections to separate Japanese loan. Satisfactory understanding with Japanese group regarding terms of proposed emergency loan to China.
(Instructions to repeat certain portions to Peking for information.)
628
Feb. 7 (32) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Interview with Premier, who promises additional time for Pacific Development Corp. advance if prior advance is forthcoming from four-power consortium.
628
Feb. 8 (35) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Offer by Ministers of a £5,000,000 loan on three conditions specified. Chinese acceptance of conditions and request for immediate advance of $7,000,000.
629
Feb. 10 (37) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Japanese insistence upon separate agreements for U. S. and Japanese advances and upon exclusion of British and French. Chargé’s insistence upon joint participation by four-power groups. Repeated to Tokyo.
629
Feb. 12 To the American Group
Japan’s request for U. S. good offices to secure immediate joint advance to China, to forestall need for independent Japanese action. U. S. desire for cooperation of American group.
629
Feb. 12 (39) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Approval of Chargé’s insistence upon joint participation in loans by four-power groups.
631
Feb. 12 (40) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions to explain to Foreign Office, if ever urgently necessary, U. S. support of Pacific Development Corp. as opposed to companies of another nation but not as opposed to interests of new consortium.
631
Feb. 15 (46) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Japanese memorandum (text printed) making representations regarding U. S. attitude toward Pacific Development Corp.
632
Feb. 16 (44) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Message from American group for International Banking Corp. (text printed) giving authorization to join with Japan in advance of $7,000,000 Mexican to China. Details of arrangement; instructions to notify colleagues.
633
Feb. 19 (58) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Assurance that report of loan by Okura Co. to China is without foundation.
634
Feb. 19 (44) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Japan’s advance to China, with expectation of repayment out of proceeds of proposed emergency loan.
634
[Page LXX]Feb. 24 (51) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Inquiry whether Japanese loan took place of proposed joint advance and, if so, why.
634
Feb. 25 (65) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Japanese assurance of adherence to four-power consortium and of emergency character of Japanese advance. Repeated to Peking.
635
Undated [Rec’d Mar. 3] (51) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram sent to Embassy, Japan (text printed), giving history and present status of loan negotiations. Request for Lamont’s opinion as to expediency of U. S. immediate short-time loan to China.
636
Mar. 6 (77) To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Attitude toward Japanese representations regarding Pacific Development Corp. and restatement of U. S. attitude on loan negotiations.
637
Mar. 9 From the Japanese Embassy
Explanation of Japan’s independent advance to China; hope of U. S. participation in remaining share of advance requested by China.
638
Apr. 20 Mr. Thomas W. Lamont to the Chinese Minister of Communications
Effect of repudiation of Hukuang Railway bonds upon China’s financial status.
640
Apr. 29 (98) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
From Lamont to American group also: Standstill in loan negotiations because of China’s defaulting on payment of Hukuang coupons.
643
May 4 The Chinese Minister of Communications to Mr. Thomas W. Lamont
Explanations in justification of China’s policy regarding Hukuang bonds.
644
June 29 (158) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to make representations regarding proposed termination of Pacific Development Corp. contract when China itself is in default, and to explain arrangement between corporation and American group for transfer of corporation’s rights to consortium.
(Instructions to repeat to Tokyo for information.)
646
June 29 (245) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Proposed joint note to China (text printed) pointing out that default on German-issued Hukuang bonds will preclude any action by consortium. Instructions to urge Government to which accredited to join in above representations.
(Sent also to Ambassador in Great Britain with instructions to repeat to Paris.)
647
July 11 (337) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Japan’s willingness to participate in representations to China provided other interested governments concur.
648
[Page LXXI]July 20 From the American Group
Proposed agreement with Pacific Development Corp. whereby American group, and therefore consortium, will take option on whole position as regards loan to China. Request for approval.
649
[July 24] To the American Group
Willingness to support Pacific Development loan contract in view of arrangements made with American group. Information that inquiry will be made regarding extension of option.
650
July 27 From the Japanese Embassy
Representations against U. S. support of Pacific Development Corp. contract without consulting consortium powers.
651
July 27 (1445) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French instructions to French Minister at Peking to send note identical with U. S. note on Hukuang bond default.
652
July 27 (286) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Notification for Government of merging of Pacific Development loan into consortium and U. S. support thereof, and of efforts to ascertain whether option runs for period of 7 months after U. S. associate inspector of Wine and Tobacco Administration enters upon duties.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to Ambassador in Great Britain with instructions to repeat to Ambassador in France.)
652
July 29 (295) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to repeat to Peking Department’s 245, June 29, and to propose again to Japan simultaneous representations to China regarding Hukuang Railway bonds.
653
July 31 (198) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to ascertain veiws of new Minister of Communications regarding Hukuang bonds.
653
Aug. 4 To the Japanese Embassy
Explanation of U. S. policy regarding consortium and Pacific Development Corp. activities.
653
Aug. 4 (212) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Inquiry whether Department’s July 29 gives instructions to present text of Hukuang bond protest to Chinese Foreign Office.
655
Aug. 5 (200) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to withhold representations at present unless other representatives are agreed on simultaneous communication to China.
655
Aug. 11 (413) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Information that Japan favors protest regarding payment of Hukuang coupons as expressed in Legation’s 337, July 11.
(Repeated to Peking, together with his 337.)
656
Aug. 12 (1214) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British desire to postpone proposed announcement regarding Hukuang bonds as possibly prejudicing Chinese opinion regarding consortium.
656
[Page LXXII]Aug. 22 (432) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Proposed consideration in New York conference of question of merging contract of Pacific Development Corp. into consortium.
657
Sept. 1 (1320) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
British desire to cooperate with other governments in pressing China to accept as sufficient evidence of nonenemy interest of Hukuang bonds a declaration to that effect, endorsed by approved bank. Paris informed.
657
Sept, 7 (243) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Assumption of office by C. L. L. Williams, Sept. 1, as associate inspector general of Wine and Tobacco Administration.
658
Sept. 9 (250) From the Minister in China (tel.)
For Lamont: Chinese request for advance to restore Government credit in view of Williams’ installation and Minister’s recommendation for such advance to aid Hukuang negotiations.
659
Sept. 23 (265) From the Minister in China (tel.)
For Lamont: Intention that provisions of Pacific Development contract shall run for 7 months from June 26. Chinese memorandum (text printed) agreeing to honor Hukuang bonds if advance is forthcoming. Recommendations for immediate advance.
659
Sept. 27 (249) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Communications from Lamont and American group (texts printed) on necessity for referring questions regarding second Pacific Development advance to international consortium.
660
Oct. 5 (291) From the Minister in China (tel.)
For Lamont also: Failure to secure figures on wine and tobacco revenue; conflicting views as to expiration of option of Pacific Development Corp.
661
Oct. 6 (267) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Reiteration of statement that advance to China must await consent of international consortium; request for estimate of amount needed to meet Hukuang obligations; repeated request for wine and tobacco revenue returns.
662
Oct. 9 (274) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to report status of Pacific Development contract and data on revenue returns and to urge necessity for full compliance with contract on part of China.
662
Oct. 12 (317) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Certain official assurance that option would run from June 26 and that transfer of option to consortium depends upon advance loan under Pacific Development contract.
663
Oct. 15 (323) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Proposal of loan for famine relief secured by salt revenues.
663
[Page LXXIII]Undated [Rec’d Oct. 20] (336) From the Minister in China (tel.)
From Williams: Report, for information of consortium, on wine and tobacco revenue from provinces recognizing authority of Peking Government.
664
Oct. 22 (339) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese opposition to use of land tax as security. Urgency of further advance by Pacific Development Corp. if option is to be transferred to consortium.
664
Oct. 25 (344) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Refusal of consortium group representatives to consider any loans unless authorized by new consortium, which China refuses to recognize. Press reference to “stringent terms” of consortium.
665
Nov. 2 (308) To the Minister in China (tel.)
From American group: Impossibility of floating loans for relief purposes; inquiry regarding terms considered “stringent”.
665
Nov. 2 (310) To the Minister in China (tel.)
From American group: Reply to Chinese objections to transfer of Pacific Development contract and denial of any proposal for loan on land tax.
666
Nov. 4 (315) To the Minister in China (tel.)
From American group: Tentative comprehensive plan whereby consortium can be of early practical help to China and precedent conditions thereto.
666
Nov. 9 (363) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese objections to “stringent terms” of consortium as jeopardizing Chinese sovereignty through supervision of national finance and railways.
669
Nov. 12 (331) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Necessity for China to meet its past-due interest payments on Treasury notes of 1919 sold by Continental & Commercial Bank of Chicago.
669
Nov. 15 (333) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Lamont’s comment on hostile attitude in China toward supervision by consortium (text printed).
670
Nov. 16 From the American Group
Resolution by consortium recommending that China recognize Hukuang bond issue in full. Recommendations that British take no step in matter of joint protest at present.
670
Nov. 18 (388) From the Minister in China (tel.)
China’s lack of funds to pay Continental & Commercial Bank of Chicago on date due.
671
Nov. 30 From the American Group
Futility of efforts to come to constructive agreement with China regarding consortium program.
671
[Page LXXIV]Dec. 4 (356) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to call attention to complaint that China has failed to pay interest to Chase National Bank due Dec. 1 on Pacific Development loan.
672
Dec. 16 (442) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Finance Minister’s promise to pay in January amount due Continental & Commercial Bank of Chicago.
673
Dec. 22 (453) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Statement of Finance Minister that Chinese-American Bank of Commerce has been instructed to remit interest due to Chase National Bank.
673
Dec. 28 (397) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to verify report that China has agreed to honor Hukuang bonds when shown not to possess enemy character.
673
Dec. 30 (470) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Message from group representative to American group (text printed) giving China’s decision that, in order for Hukuang bonds to be valid, holders must prove ownership prior to China’s declaration of war.
673

Railways

threat by the chinese government to cancel the siems-carey contract

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Oct. 2 (285) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese threat to cancel Siems Carey railway contract in October; foreign efforts to bring about cancelation. Recommendations for action.
674
Oct. 2 (259) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to inform China that attempt to cancel Siems-Carey contract is unwarranted and would react disastrously upon Chinese credit in the United States.
675
Oct. 10 (309) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese complaint of lack of accomplishment and insistence upon resumption of operation on Siems-Carey contract.
676
Nov. 10 (325) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Note from American International Corp. (text printed) in justification of delay in resuming operations under existing financial and political conditions. Instructions to renew oral representations.
677
Dec. 3 (542) From the Minister in China
Memorandum of conversation between T. C. Sun of Ministry of Communications, Torrance, of Siems-Carey Railway, and secretary of legation, Peking (text printed), regarding survey and construction of railway.
677
[Page LXXV]

operation of the chinese eastern railway: efforts by the chinese government to extend its control—proposals for continued international supervision and financing—agreement between the chinese government and the russo-asiatic bank, october 2, 1920

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Jan. 15 (15) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Proposed operation of Chinese Eastern by Government, retaining Stevens and staff; inquiry whether financial assistance can be assured.
679
Jan. 19 (14) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Impossibility of financial aid or authorization for assistance by Stevens in Chinese operation of railway.
680
Undated From the Chinese Legation
Chinese declaration that Horvat, being railway official only, cannot exercise governmental powers assumed by him within Chinese territory.
680
Feb. 11 From the President of the Technical Board (tel.)
Japanese offer of unsecured loan to railway; China’s effort to secure control of railway.
680
Feb. 24 (121) From the British Chargé
Importance of preventing control of Chinese Eastern by any single power and of retaining American representative on Allied Technical Board at Harbin.
681
Mar. 12 (158) From the British Chargé
British intention to retain services of Beckett on Technical Board so long as Stevens remains. Inquiry regarding tenure of office of latter.
681
Mar. 13 From the President of the Technical Board (tel.)
Strike in railway zone caused by refusal of Horvat to relinquish all power.
682
Mar. 16 From the President of the Technical Board (tel.)
Chinese control of situation, demand for Horvat’s surrender, and intention to take over administration of railway.
682
Mar. 17 To the British Chargé
Information that Stevens will remain at Harbin at least until Czechoslovak troops have been evacuated.
683
Mar. 17 From the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Resignation of Horvat and end of strike.
683
Mar. 22 From the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Unsettled conditions as to management of railway and doubt as to Horvat’s successor.
683
Apr. 9 From the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Horvat’s departure for Peking, manager of Russo-Asiatic Bank assuming control in his absence.
684
Apr. 12 From the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Conflicts between Chinese and Japanese troops over Russian railway workmen.
684
[Page LXXVI]Apr. 20 To the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Inquiry as to extent of Chinese assumption of Russian functions in control of railway and of municipal administration in railway zone.
684
Apr. 24 (94) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Request for available information regarding Chinese plans for railway and possibility of agreement between China and Horvat on subject.
685
Apr. 26 (425) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Discussion with Great Britain of preservation of status of Chinese Eastern and prevention of extension of Japanese control. Instructions to ascertain British attitude toward Russian interests in Manchuria and Siberia.
685
Apr. 28 From the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Chaotic status of control of Chinese Eastern and municipal administration of railway zone.
686
Apr. 28 (695) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British proposal that Inter-Allied Board continue control of railway for present, that operation be confined to Chinese, and finances be arranged by consortium.
687
May 4 (100) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Conclusion that China will not disregard agreement with Russia but wishes to make Chinese influence more effective in management of railway.
688
May 5 To the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Inquiry as to means of establishing ratio of Chinese to Russians on board of directors of railway.
688
May 9 From the President of the Technical Board (tel.)
Financial condition of railway and account of manner in which expenses have been met in last 6 months.
688
May 14 From the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Method and legality of appointment of Chinese to board of directors of railway.
689
May 14 (117) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Request for summary of Li-Lobanov agreement regarding construction of railway and supposed clause in supplementary agreement of July 3, 1916, between Japan and Russia providing for transfer to Japan of portion of Chinese Eastern.
689
May 17 (192) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Outline of Russian, British, and U. S. proposals regarding control of railway; request for comments.
(Sent also to Ambassador in Great Britain for information and comment.)
690
May 22 (836) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British plan for inter-Allied control and financing of railway, with Chinese and Japanese jointly protecting the line.
691
May 22 (168) From the Consul at Vladivostok (tel.)
From Smith: Committee report calling attention to bankrupt condition of railway due to failure of Allies to pay for military transportation.
692
[Page LXXVII]May 22 (259) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Comments of British Ambassador, probable attitude of Japan, and recommendations of Chargé regarding plans for operation of railway.
693
May 27 (551) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Concurrence with British views regarding railway as set forth in Embassy’s 836, May 22. Inquiry as to whether France has been approached.
693
June 3 (123) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Unavailability in Peking of agreements requested in Department’s May 14.
694
June 3 From the President of the Technical Board (tel.)
Encouraging report on railway situation since military movements have stopped and commercial business has increased.
695
June 19 (232) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Evidence obtained by Stevens regarding Japanese intention to gain control of Chinese Eastern. U. S. desire to set up international bankruptcy commission to administer railway.
695
June 19 (655) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Transmittal of Department’s 232 sent to Japan with instructions to inform Foreign Office of U. S. attitude and to request British aid in urging France to pay for French and Czech use of railway.
696
June 22 (312) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Japan’s general approval of British plan but opposition to financing railway through consortium; advisability of conferring fully with Japan before taking action.
696
June 22 (979) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British concurrence in views that consortium should finance railway. Information that scheme for its administration will be submitted to France with inquiry as to payment of debts due railway, including cost of evacuating Czechs.
697
June 23 (314) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Japanese continued unwillingness to approve railway financing by consortium; probability of reaching an agreement on administration of railway.
697
June 30 (694) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Transmittal of telegram no. 314 from Japan. Proposal to consolidate Technical Board and Inter-Allied Committee into bankruptcy commission, with borrowings subject to approval of governments represented thereon.
698
June 30 (246) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Information about bankruptcy commission proposed by the United States; China’s wish to have financing of Chinese Eastern a field for consortium activity.
699
July 8 (1032) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British opposition to nomenclature of bankruptcy commission; inquiry as to its purpose; request for information on financial status of railway.
700
[Page LXXVIII]July 10 From the President of the Technical Board (tel.)
Report on railway earnings; encouraging outlook, dependent upon settlement of military transport bills by Allies.
700
July 15 To the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Inquiries as to extent of authority exercised in railway zone by Russian consul and as to his views regarding various angles of situation.
701
July 15 (746) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Further explanations regarding proposed international control of railway for economic purposes.
701
July 19 From the President of the Technical Board (tel.)
Ineffectiveness of present arrangement of railway control; recommendations for modifications.
701
July 19 From the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Russian consul general’s declaration of power as political head of Russian colony in railway zone. His friendliness with Semenov.
702
July 21 From the President of the Technical Board (tel.)
Request for funds to be used in emergency for railway coal supply in view of Japan’s delay in contributing to Allied fund.
702
July 22 (279) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Promise of information on plan for financial assistance to railway, which has been discussed tentatively only with Great Britain.
703
July 29 (193) To the Minister in China (tel.)
For Stevens: Proposed plan for withdrawal of Japanese troops, control of railway system by Allies, operation under Stevens, and appropriation of funds for necessary expenses.
(Instructions to repeat to Japan.)
703
July 29 (1143) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
French statement of impractical nature of proposed railway plan; British belief that France can be won over. Paris informed.
704
Aug. 5 (838) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Informal conference in Department with British officials regarding control, protection, and financing of Chinese Eastern, reported to Great Britain.
704
Aug. 7 From the President of the Technical Board (tel.)
Encouraging report on financial results of July operation of railway; probability of railway operating at a profit under proper conditions.
705
Aug. 11 (862) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Inquiry whether French object to proposal for financing railway by consortium.
706
Aug. 13 (1230) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
French view that consortium plan for financing is not practical because Japan would not consent to it.
706
[Page LXXIX]Aug. 17 (881) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to repeat pertinent telegrams to Paris and request Embassy to ascertain French position regarding plan proposed for financing railway.
707
Aug. 18 To the British Ambassador
Information regarding funds already advanced for financing railway and further funds required to assure efficient operation.
707
Aug. 18 (1256) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Foreign Office views regarding points raised in informal conference at Department.
708
Aug. 26 (1614) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French ownership of nearly half of Russo-Asiatic Bank, causing France’s reluctance in making known its position on railway financing. Its willingness to pay for transportation of French troops but not of Czech Army.
709
Sept. 2 (947) To the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Suggestion, objected to by Russian interests, that notes of Chinese Eastern might be guaranteed by Chinese Government.
709
Sept. 10 From the President of the Technical Board (tel.)
August report on railway earnings from commercial transport, showing profit.
710
Sept. 18 (239) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to verify report that China protested to Japan against presence of Japanese troops on Chinese Eastern line.
710
Sept. 24 (268) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Japan’s announcement that Japanese troops would be retained in certain areas to prevent Bolshevik invasion of Manchuria; China’s insistence upon withdrawal, followed by Japanese partial compliance.
710
Sept. 24 (1748) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French statement that agreement was made for maintenance of Czech troops but not for their transportation.
711
Sept. 24 To the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
For Stevens: Request for his presence in Washington for conference with the Secretary of State.
711
Oct. 6 From the President of the Technical Board (tel.)
Objections to trip to Washington with prospect of returning for another winter under existing conditions.
712
Oct. 7 (281) From the Minister in China
Agreement of Oct. 2, 1920, between China and Russo-Asiatic Bank (text printed) supplementary to contract for construction and operation of Chinese Eastern Railway.
712
Oct. 12 (316) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Substance of Chinese Presidential mandate putting into effect agreement between China and Russo-Asiatic Bank.
722
[Page LXXX]Oct. 18 From Mr. Thomas W. Lamont
Minute adopted by consortium (text printed) agreeing conditionally to financing of Chinese Eastern. Japan’s objections.
722
Oct. 21 To the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
For Stevens: Transmittal of extract from consortium minutes; China’s intention to continue Inter-Allied provisional control. Request for Stevens to come to Washington to assist in devising new plan of operation.
723
Oct. 21 (285) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to secure China’s assurance that continued Government support will be given Inter-Allied agreement concerning railways.
723
Nov. 5 (357) From the Minister in China (tel.)
From Stevens: Intention to start for Washington; request for Department message authorizing Colonel Johnson to act as temporary president of Technical Board.
724
Nov. 5 (1615) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to cooperate with British in representations to France to pay debts due Chinese Eastern for maintenance and transportation of Czech troops.
724
Nov. 5 (573) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
From Peking: Note from Minister of Communications (excerpt printed) giving assurance that nothing in agreement with Russo-Asiatic Bank is in conflict with Inter-Allied agreement regarding continuance of Technical Board.
725
Nov. 10 (324) To the Minister in China (tel.)
For Stevens also: Colonel Johnson’s designation as president pro tern, of Technical Board; scheduled sailing of George W. Stevens, consortium representative, from San Francisco.
(Instructions to inform Tokyo.)
726
Dec. 28 (1745) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British concurrence in opinions concerning Chinese Eastern advanced in recent conversation between Stevens and British Ambassador at Washington, and probable support of proposals provided the United States advances said opinions.
726
Dec. 30 From the Acting President of the Technical Board (tel.)
Report of confusion in Kappel army and necessity for financial assistance to railway in near future.
726
1921 Jan. 5 (697) From the Minister in China
Japan’s reiterated refusal to withdraw troops from railway zone.
727
[Page LXXXI]

Customs Surtax for Famine Relief

approval by the american and other governments of the proposed levy

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Oct. 2 (290) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese proposal of customs surcharge of 10 percent of present native and maritime duties for 1 year as security for famine-relief loan.
727
Oct. 8 (271) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Department’s understanding as to proposed surtax and its object, in view of which no objection will be raised.
728
Dec. 1 (419) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Legation’s authorization for million dollar American loan to be obtained outside consortium and secured by customs surtax.
728
Dec. 3 (352) To the Minister in China (tel.)
No objection to proposed loan, on assumption that it involves no public notation of bonds and is approved by consortium. Inquiries regarding assent of powers and effective date of tax.
729
Dec. 16 (441) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that various banks have been approached for loan. Proposed meeting of diplomatic corps on subject.
729
Dec. 22 (456) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese announcement of consent of powers and imposing of surtax after Jan. 16. Demand by British and French Legations for greater foreign control over disbursements.
729
Dec. 29 (400) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Inquiry as to date when tax will be imposed, in view of British and French objections. Reminder that U. S. approval is conditional on its being imposed on all countries alike.
730
1921 Jan. 5 (4) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Uncertainty regarding date for levying surtax since matter is still under consideration.
730
Jan. 22 (51) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Final arrangement for financial committee of Chinese and foreigners to disburse proceeds of famine customs surtax, which will be imposed beginning Mar. 1.
730

Internal Trade

proposed abolition of likin with compensating increase in customs rates; approval by the united states—disapproval of proposed time limit for inward transit passes

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Apr. 7 (3207) From the Chargé in China
Chinese request (text printed) for tariff revision in exchange for abolition of likin, and British assurances (text printed) of compensation for loss of likin by imposition of sufficiently high tariff surtax pending tariff revision.
731
June 5 (127) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Chinese request for reply to note regarding abolition of likin. Recommendations for adherence to British assurances.
735
[Page LXXXII]June 26 (157) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Approval of abolition of likin and willingness to join other powers in assurances recommended by Great Britain.
735
Sept. 20 (225) From the Minister in China
Chinese note (text printed) announcing limitation of duration of inward transit passes; U. S. Minister’s reply (text printed) objecting to limitation of passes in view of transportation difficulties in interior of China.
735
Nov. 8 (62) To the Minister in China
Approval of Minister’s action in objecting to time limitation on inward transit passes.
737
Dec. 23 (571) From the Minister in China
Disapproval by British, French, Italian, and Japanese Legations of proposed time limit for inward transit passes.
737

Embargo on Shipments of Arms and Ammunition to China

reports of violations—representations to italy regarding reported violations

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Feb. 5 (88) From the British Chargé
British account of Japanese representations to Italy and Great Britain regarding reported violations of arms embargo, and intimation of desire to export to China arms contracted for prior to agreement; British reply to representations and objection to such exportations by Japan.
738
Feb. 16 (25) To the Chargé in Italy (tel.)
Inquiries regarding Chargé’s representations to Italy against violation of embargo.
740
Feb. 18 (78) From the Chargé in Italy (tel.)
Information that representations have been made to Italy for uniformity of action regarding embargo; cause of delay of Italian reply.
740
Mar. 13 To the British Chargé
Concurrence in British view as to consequences which would follow lifting of embargo. Indications that Italian activities do not jeopardize purpose of embargo.
741
Apr. 23 (91) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Inquiry whether Belgium was party to joint declaration on arms embargo and, if so, whether there is evidence of violation, as reported.
742
May 14 (116) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions to report whether complaints of violation of embargo by Belgian, British, Italian, and Japanese interests are well founded.
742
May 17 (109) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Investigation and report on alleged violations of embargo by nationals of interested powers.
743
[Page LXXXIII]June 24 (147) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Belgium’s announced intention to withhold exportation of munitions of war to China.
743
July 8 (W. T. B. R. 841) Announcement by the War Trade Board Section of the Department of State
Reissue of special export license RAC–77 as amended, restricting exports of particular commodities to certain European countries and munitions of war to China and Mexico.
743
July 10 (169) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to verify report of certain shipments of arms o China by Italian Government.
745
July 12 (180) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report regarding Italian arms shipments to China; formal complaint of Tsao Kun against shipments by Japan.
746
Sept. 8 (248) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Inquiry whether Department will approve U. S. sale of commercial airplanes to China in view of indisposition of other governments to forbid it. Desire to reply to Japanese notes regarding rumored U. S. airplane contracts.
746
Sept. 10 From the Chief of the Far Eastern Division, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Department of Commerce
Report of acting commercial attaché, Peking (text printed), on airplanes in China, and dissatisfaction of U. S. merchants because the United States is the only country observing the embargo.
747
Sept. 15 (237) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Request for information and comment regarding acting commercial attaché’s report on sale of munitions of war to China.
748
Sept. 17 (238) To the Minister in China (tel.)
No objections to exportation of strictly commercial airplanes to China.
748
Sept. 23 (266) From the Minister in China (tell)
Exaggerated report of violations of embargo. Proposal that new declaration on embargo be made by Great Britain, France, and Japan.
749
Sept. 23 (267) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Identic telegram to home governments from legations of four interested powers (text printed) protesting against Italian exportation of arms to China and suggesting reiteration by all governments, including Italy, of adherence to embargo agreement.
749
Sept. 24 (246) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Disapproval of movement for reiteration of arms embargo agreement. Consideration of question whether authority should be requested of Congress for enforcing embargo following termination of war powers.
750
Oct. 1 (254) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to report on British, French, and Japanese replies to identic note.
750
[Page LXXXIV]Dec. 1 (463) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Instructions of British and French Governments to their ambassadors in Italy to inquire of Italian Government why it was selling arms to China; French desire for similar U. S. action; lack of protest by Japan.
751
Dec. 4 (424 bis) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Recommendation for maintenance of embargo if possible. Arrival of U. S. vessel Wondrichen, with cargo of seaplanes and machinery, presumably in part for arsenal.
751
Dec. 9 (237) To the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Instructions to join British and French in representations to Italy regarding sale of arms contrary to embargo.
752
Dec. 10 To the Italian Chargé
Inquiry whether certain Italian transactions in arms with China were shipments undelivered at time of arms embargo declaration.
752
Dec. 13 (432) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Japanese protest against violation of arms embargo by Great Britain, Italy, and the United States and proposal for delivery of all arms previously ordered but not delivered. Minister’s recommendations for continued adherence to embargo; proposed prosecution of owner of Wondrichen.
753
Dec. 20 (479) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Presentation of U. S. note to Italy, also of British and French notes separately, taking firm stand on arms embargo.
754

Russian Rights in China

cancelation by the chinese government of agreements with russia affecting the status of outer mongolia—withdrawal by china of recognition of russian diplomatic and consular officers—suspension of the extraterritorial rights of russians—remonstrances and proposals by representatives of the powers in china

Date and number Subject Page
1919 Mar. 21 From the Russian Chargé
Memorandum of Russian Embassy (text printed) requesting Allies to call upon China to observe treaties with Russia or to join with Allies in declaring treaties with Bolsheviks null and void.
754
Apr. 10 To the Russian Chargé
Acknowledgment of receipt of memorandum of Mar. 21; U. S. view that temporary operation of Chinese Eastern by Inter-Allied Commission should be without prejudice to previously existing rights.
755
May 17 From the Russian Embassy
Request that U. S. Minister at Peking be instructed to make representations to China regarding violation of existing treaties with Russia.
756
[Page LXXXV]Nov. 24 From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Presidential mandate canceling independence of Outer Mongolia and restoring former status of Mongolia.
756
Nov. 25 From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Russian protest to China against cancelation of certain agreements, reserving all Russian rights under said agreements.
757
Dec. 4 From the Russian Chargé
Memorandum of Russian Embassy (text printed) protesting against violation by China of Russian-Chinese-Mongolian agreement of 1915; appeal to Allies for guarantee of self-determination of Mongolian people.
757
Dec. 26 From the Russian Embassy
Request that U. S. representative in China be instructed to call attention of Government to violation of Russian rights caused by Chinese gunboats entering Amour and Soungari Rivers.
758
1920 Feb. 4 From the Russian Ambassador
Note of Russian Embassy, Paris, to Allied Powers (text printed) requesting joint protest to China against violation of Treaty of Peking, 1913, and of Agreement of Ourga, 1915.
759
Mar. 20 To the Russian Ambassador
Refusal of the United States to make protests requested because of inability to judge merits of Russo-Chinese situation since it is not familiar with agreements in the case.
760
Apr. 3 From the Russian Ambassador
Bolshevik offer of certain advantages to China, which would be detrimental to Russia. Appeal for U. S. good offices to prevent one-sided denouncement of rights during Russia’s temporary disability.
760
Sept. 10 (253) From the Minister in China (tel.)
For Russian Ambassador also: Withdrawal by China of recognition of Russian diplomatic and consular officers, virtually ending extraterritoriality for Russians in China and indicating Bolshevik influence.
761
Sept. 17 (258) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Foreign Office statement regarding need of trade regulations with Russia; arrival of trade representatives from Far Eastern Republic. Probability that negotiations will go beyond commercial phase.
762
Sept. 21 (242) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Warning to China against Bolshevik influence and suggestion of joint international commission for administration in trust of Russian interests in China, pending establishment of recognized Russian government. Inquiry regarding payment of Russian share of Boxer indemnity.
(Instructions to inform Tokyo.)
763
Sept. 24 (273) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Presidential mandate (text printed) declaring nonrecognition of Russian diplomatic and consular officials in China and promising future measures regarding Russian concessions and rights.
764
[Page LXXXVI]Sept. 24 (274) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese plan for administration of Russian concessions in China; disapproval by certain Allies of exclusive Chinese control. Request for instructions whether to press for joint international administrative commission.
765
Sept. 25 (278) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Arrangements for Chinese commissioners to take over functions of Russian consular officials immediately.
767
Sept. 30 (281) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Further report on status of Chinese control of Russian affairs.
768
Oct. 2 (258) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Difficulties attendant upon China’s assuming duties of Russian officials. Soviet’s plan to use China indirectly to strike at countries refusing recognition of Soviet regime. Instructions for discussion of any proposed plans by interested nations.
768
Oct. 7 The Chinese Foreign Office to the Chinese Legation
China’s policy regarding Russian affairs in China.
770
Oct. 7 (300) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Inquiry whether consuls should be instructed to withhold official recognition of Russian officials in China and admit Chinese jurisdiction over Russians.
771
Oct. 9 (273) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to cease recognizing Russian diplomatic and consular officers in China but to avoid commitment on Chinese jurisdiction over Russians.
771
Oct. 11 (312) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Proposed modus vivendi between China and diplomatic corps for administration of Russian interests.
772
Oct. 13 (320) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Request for instructions as to joining with colleagues in modus vivendi negotiations with China regarding Russian interests.
772
Oct. 19 (331) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Efforts of representatives of interested countries to reach understanding with China regarding Russian interests.
773
Oct. 21 (286) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Request for clear statement as to scope and character of modus vivendi proposals to be presented to China.
773
Oct. 24 (341) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that full statement will be made regarding discussions on modus vivendi when reply to proposal is received from China.
773
Oct. 28 (370) From the Minister in China
Note from Chinese Foreign Minister (text printed) giving assurances as to friendly motives while withdrawing recognition from Russian Minister and consuls in China.
774
[Page LXXXVII]Nov. 13 (374) From the Minister in China (tel.)
China’s restatement of assurances regarding Russian rights in China; proposed reply of diplomatic corps (U. S. Legation dissenting) proposing certain modifications in Chinese measures. Request for instructions.
776
Nov. 13 (375) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Establishment and jurisdiction of Chinese courts of procuration in Chinese Eastern Railway zone.
777
Nov. 16 (335) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to join colleagues in communicating proposed note to China.
(Footnote: Presentation of note to China Nov. 18.)
778
Nov. 18 (340) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to report any changes in conditions surrounding proposed Chinese negotiations with Bolsheviks and to inform China of U. S. attitude toward situation, if advisable.
778
Nov. 26 (405) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s deprecation of note of diplomatic corps on Russian affairs.
778
Nov. 26 (408) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s reiterated assurance of opposition to Bolshevism, stressing necessity for commercial relations with Yourin mission.
779
Nov. 29 (61) The Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps in Peking
Full exposition of China’s policy and legal status of Russians in China; comments on proposals of diplomatic corps for modification of Chinese measures.
779
Dec. 7 (546) From the Minister in China
Circular no. 241 of dean of diplomatic corps in China regarding status of Russian citizens and draft of proposed note to China requesting explanation of certain points in policy as of interest to all foreigners (texts printed).
(Footnote: Approval and delivery of note to China.)
784
Dec. 7 (427) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Substance of note from Yourin, head of mission from Far Eastern Republic, to Foreign Office, opening negotiations with China and proposing revision and elimination of all privileges not reciprocal.
786
Dec. 17 (583) From the Minister in China
Presidential mandate, Dec. 1 (text printed), enjoining military and civil officials to issue orders for protection of all law-abiding Russians in China.
786
Dec. 21 (450) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Creation of Bureau of Russian Affairs, presided over by former Minister to Russia. China’s comment on Yourin’s note.
787
[Page LXXXVIII]

Negotiations for Regulating Relations between the Municipality of Harbin and American Residents

Date and number Subject Page
1917 Oct. 1 From the Minister in China (tel.)
Request for authorization to adhere to Anglo-Russian agreement on municipal administration and taxation in Chinese Eastern Railway zone, provided Russia offers to apply all administrative acts through respective foreign consuls.
787
Oct. 5 To the Minister in China (tel.)
Granting of requested authority to negotiate.
788
1919 June 9 From the Minister in China (tel.)
Urgency of request for authorization to consent to Anglo-Russian agreement with view to safeguarding interests of U. S. business firms
788
June 21 From the Minister in China (tel.)
Eagerness of U. S. interests to accept Russian offer to refer to U. S. consul any administrative acts which Americans find objectionable.
789
July 2 To the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that decision regarding Harbin regulations will be reached after consultation with Consul Moser.
789
July 12 From the Minister in China (tel.)
Complaint of Standard Oil Co. that further delay in making decision will cause loss to them of desired business site.
789
Aug. 2 To the Minister in China (tel.)
Opinion that interests of U. S. firms can be protected by informal good offices on part of consul at Harbin rather than by formal agreement under present conditions.
789
Oct. 11 From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Russian refusal to agree to provisional acceptance of Anglo-Russian agreement; recommendations for promise of U. S. acceptance of agreement without proviso on recognition of Russian Government.
790
Nov. 22 To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions to inform Russian Legation that uncompromising attitude regarding U. S. interests in Harbin will cause withdrawal of offer for settlement on basis of Anglo-Russian understanding.
(Instructions to repeat to Harbin for information.)
790
1920 Mar. 24 (3197) From the Chargé in China
China’s assumption of full responsibility for protection of Chinese Eastern Railway and maintenance of peace and order in railway zone; Chargé’s approval, without supporting Chinese control of railway or abrogation of treaties with Russia.
791
May 22 To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Necessity for leaving in abeyance issue regarding change in de facto or de jure status of Chinese Eastern Railway zone in order to preserve Russian interests.
792
[Page LXXXIX]Nov. 9 (364) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Necessity for at least working settlement of U. S. municipal rights and obligations at Harbin. Suggested drafting of agreement with China.
793
1921 Jan. 15 (25) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Inexpediency of official action in Harbin municipality matter at present, notwithstanding desirability for extension of U. S. interests of private character.
793

Protection of the Persons and Property of Americans and Other Foreigners

rescue of a. l. shelton from bandits—quelling by american sailors of a riot in the british concession at kiukiang—murder of w. a. reimert; american insistence on responsibility of the local military commander—rebuke to an american for involving himself in negotiations between chinese factions

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Jan. 8 (6) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Kidnaping by brigands of A. L. Shelton, missionary doctor, traveling from Batang to Yunnanfu.
793
Jan. 27 (25) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions to military attaché at Saigon to negotiate with Yunnan authorities for release of Shelton.
794
Mar. 26 (69) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions to investigate reported death of two Chinese coolies at hands of U. S. marines, who landed at Kiukiang at request of British consul.
(Instructions to repeat to consul general at Hankow.)
794
Mar. 31 (70) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that there were no casualties at Kiukiang and that report will be mailed.
794
Apr. 6 (30) From the Consul General at Hankow
Report of quelling by U. S. sailors of riot in British concession at Kiukiang and slight nature of injuries received by coolies.
794
Apr. 8 The Military Attaché at Peking to the Chargé in China
Account of rescue of Shelton including communications exchanged between U. S. and Chinese officials (texts printed).
796
Apr. 12 (3208) From the Chargé in China
Further account of riot in Kiukiang and restoration of order by U. S. sailors; note from British Chargé in China (text printed) expressing thanks for U. S. assistance in matter.
803
June 12 (57) From the Consul General at Hankow
Despatch from Civil Governor of Kiangsi (text printed) indicating that amicable settlement has been made in case of disturbances at Kiukiang.
804
[Page XC]June 16 (135) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Murder by Chang Ching-yao’s troops at Yochow of U. S. missionary; representations to Peking Government.
806
June 19 (140) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Identification of murdered missionary as William A. Reimert.
806
June 30 (154) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chang Ching-yao’s dismissal from office in consequence of loss of province to southern forces. Official expression of regret and investigation of murder.
806
Nov. 3 (165) From the Vice Consul in Chargé at Canton
Social disturbances endangering missionaries; report by W. H. Dobson of his services in assisting negotiations between warring factions, and vice consul’s rebuke for interference in internal affairs (texts printed).
806
Nov. 4 (420) From the Minister in China
U. S. insistence on responsibility of local military commander for murder of Reimert; payment of solatium; escape of Chang to Japan; failure of Government formally and specifically to investigate case.
810
Nov. 10 (65) To the Minister in China
Instructions to urge upon China necessity of holding Chang and others to strict accounting for negligence in protecting foreign lives and property.
812
Dec. 13 (431) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Request for approval of proposed attempt to arrest Chang for trial by Mixed Court at Shanghai on charge of refusing protection in Reimert case.
813
Dec. 16 To the Consul in Chargé at Shanghai (tel.)
Instructions, if Chang is in Shanghai, to report fact to Legation with request that Chinese Government be asked to institute proceedings for his arrest and trial.
813

The Shantung Question: Continued Efforts by Japan toward Separate Negotiations with China

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Jan. 22 (21) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Japanese notice of desire for direct negotiations with China for settlement of Shantung question; China’s desire to refer matter to League of Nations if the United States is represented thereon.
814
Jan. 26 (26) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Japanese press statement (text printed) quoting note to China in respect to direct negotiations for retrocession of Kiaochow Bay and other reconstruction measures and protection of Shantung Railway.
814
[Page XCI]Apr. 8 (76) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions to investigate press report from Tokyo of conclusion of unofficial exchanges concerning Shantung in preparation for direct negotiations.
(Instructions to repeat to Tokyo for similar action.)
815
Apr. 14 (80) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Denial by Chinese that direct negotiations with Japan are proceeding or being contemplated.
815
Apr. 23 (197) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Indications that China is prepared to begin official negotiations; transfer at Berlin of title deeds and papers in regard to Shantung, and instructions to Japanese Minister to China to urge immediate conference on subject.
816
June 1 (3245) From the Chargé in China
Chinese note to Japan (text printed) declining to enter negotiations so long as Japan continues military occupation of Shantung.
816
June 17 (594) From the Chargé in Japan
Statement by Foreign Office covering note of June 14 to China, replying to Chinese note of May 22 (texts printed), and reiterating willingness to negotiate directly with China at any time on terms already set forth.
818

COLOMBIA

Treaty of April 6, 1914, with the United States

concern of the colombian government over delay in ratification by the united states

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Jan. 17 (9) From the Minister in Colombia (tel.)
Denial of Colombian statement that U. S. favorable action on treaty is contingent upon contracts between Colombian Government and U. S. nationals.
823
Jan. 24 (6) To the Minister in Colombia (tel.)
Approval of Minister’s denial of any such policy as withholding action on treaty to force Colombian concessions to U. S. nationals.
824
June 4 (28) To the Minister in Colombia (tel.)
Favorable Senate committee report on treaty, action upon which goes over to next Congress.
824
July 24 From the Minister in Colombia
Message of President on convening of Congress (excerpts printed).
824
[Page XCII]

Cable Concession

dispute between the all america cables company and the Colombian government

Date and number Subject Page
1920 Nov. 29 (498) From the Minister in Colombia
Account of dispute between All America Cables Co. and Colombia as to interpretation of contract for submarine cable uniting Cartagena and other Atlantic ports (text printed).
827

COSTA RICA

Recognition of the Government of Costa Rica by the United States

Date and number Subject Page
1920 May 9 (18) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
Inaugural address of President of Costa Rica (excerpt printed) expressing appreciation of U. S. recognition policy.
833
May 14 (779) From the Consul at San José
President Acosta’s letter to President Wilson (text printed) seeking to strengthen friendly relations between the two Governments.
833
Aug. 2 (16) To the Consul at San José (tel.)
U. S. recognition of Government of Costa Rica.
834
Aug. 6 (823) From the Consul at San José
Notification to Government of U. S. recognition and reply (texts printed).
834

Concessions

cancelation of the tinoco concessions by the costa rican congress—formal protest by great britain on behalf of the amory concession

Date and number Subject Page
1920 May 7 (772) From the Consul at San José
Introduction in Congress of bill providing for trial of Tinoco and adherents and declaring his public acts as null and void.
836
July 16 (39) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
British protest (excerpt printed) against projected legislation insofar as it affects Amory contract; desirability of U. S. recognition to strengthen Costa Rican Government.
836
July 21 (43) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
Passage by Congress of bill nullifying Tinoco acts, including Amory concession.
837
July 28 (44) From the Consul at San Jose (tel.)
President’s hesitation as to approval of bill in view of British representations regarding Amory concession and claim of Royal Bank of Canada.
837
Aug. 3 (46) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
President’s veto of bill.
838
[Page XCIII]Aug. 11 (52) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
Passage of bill by Congress over veto of President.
838
Sept. 4 (62) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
Enumeration of concessions to foreigners which are annulled by recent act of Congress.
838
Oct. 5 (69) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
Costa Rican reply to British representations denying right to diplomatic intervention and pointing out availability of Costa Rican courts.
839
Dec. 31 (25) From the Chargé in Costa Rica (tel.)
British formal protest against vote for cancelation of Amory concession; Costa Rican concern over British attitude.
839

efforts by the costa rican congress to cancel the pinto-greulich concession—apparent conflict between the terms of the concession and the rights of other american enterprises

Date and number Subject Page
1920 May 22 (22) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
Report to Congress that Pinto-Greulich oil concession is not a law of Costa Rica.
839
June 4 (8) To the Consul at San Jose (tel.)
Instructions to report proceedings aimed at rescission of Pinto-Greulich oil concession, claimed by U. S. company; U. S. concern regarding proposed cancelation.
840
June 9 (27) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
Desire of certain officials to comply with U. S. wishes regarding oil concessions.
840
July 19 (40) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
Congressional resolution (excerpt printed) urging Executive to demand annulment of Pinto-Greulich contract; declaration by attorneys of legality of contract.
841
Aug. 16 (56) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
Passage again by Congress of resolution after refusal of President to act upon it.
841
Aug. 17 (21) To the Consul at San José (tel.)
Representations and inquiries regarding maintenance of lawfully acquired subsoil rights in view of apparent conflict between terms of certain concessionary rights of U. S. enterprises.
841
Aug. 30 (59) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
Presidential veto on technical grounds of all acts of final session of Congress.
842
Oct. 8 (70) From the Consul at San José (tel.)
Costa Rican assertion that subsoil rights have always belonged to the state.
843
[Page XCIV]Nov. 10 (13) From the Chargé in Costa Rica
Compliance by Costa Rica Oil Corp. with demand for report as to fulfillment of terms of contract; probability of rival interests being responsible for agitation for discussion of subsoil rights; request for statement of U. S. policy.
843
Dec. 13 (7) To the Chargé in Costa Rica
U.S. disposition to consider claims for indemnity in case of unwarranted action against Costa Rica Oil Co.’s concession; recommendation for adjudication in Costa Rican courts of any case of invasion of rights of one U. S. company by another.
845