862i.01/158½

The Secretary of State to the Japanese Ambassador (Shidehara)

Referring to the Japanese Memorandum of December 2nd, the Secretary of State suggests that there would seem to be no occasion for a meeting of the Japanese and American Delegations with the British Delegation for the purpose of conferring upon matters heretofore dealt with directly between the American and Japanese Governments, and which there would appear to be no reason for bringing before the Conference at this time. The Secretary of State would have no objection to taking up these points with representatives of the British Government if this seemed to be advisable, but it would appear that the British Government has no interest in the matters relating to the islands in question which remain for consideration by the American and Japanese Governments and can easily be adjusted between them.

Before taking up the points in the Japanese Memorandum of December 2nd, the Secretary of State desires to state his understanding upon two matters which are not specifically mentioned, but as to which there would appear to be no difference of opinion: (1) the insertion in the proposed convention of a provision that vested American property rights will be maintained and respected, to which reference is made in the Secretary’s Memorandum of September 15th; and (2) the inclusion of the second and third paragraphs of Article 8 of the British “B” Mandate for East Africa, mentioned in the Secretary’s Memorandum of September 28th. It is assumed that the suggestions heretofore made by the Secretary of State regarding these items are acceptable.

Coming then to the two points presented in the Japanese Memorandum, the Secretary of State would make the following comments:

1. The situation of the islands south of the Equator is not analogous to that of the islands in question. The United States has no commercial treaties which apply to Australia and New Zealand, and the information in its possession leads it to the belief that Japan has none. There can be no question regarding the extension of any existing American or Japanese treaties to mandated islands south of the Equator. The sole issue between the United States and Japan, involved [Page 306] in the proposal to recognize in the mandated islands the treaties existing between the two countries, is whether the treaty obligations of the Japanese Government are to be deemed less binding in the islands in question, which are to be under the administration of Japan, than in the territories which it possesses in full sovereignty.

Assuming that American nationals and vessels may be assured of the usual comity in visiting the harbors and waters of the islands in question, the United States will not insist upon any special arrangement upon the matter, if the treaties of the United States with Japan are recognized as applicable to these islands. Should it be desired by the Japanese Government, the Secretary of State would be willing to give a note, at the time of the signing of the Convention, stating that if in the future the United States should have occasion to make any commercial treaties applicable to Australia and New Zealand, it would seek to obtain such an extension of them as would include the islands south of the Equator.

2. With respect to the annual report, there would seem to be no reason why the United States should not receive a duplicate, as proposed. While the United States is not a member of the League of Nations, it is to be hoped that the Japanese Government will recognize that this Government is no less entitled to consideration than are the members of the League.