793.94/1325½

Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Japanese Ambassador (Shidehara), March 23, 1922

[Extract]

3. Lansing–Ishii Notes. The Ambassador said that he had read very carefully the President’s message to the Senate with respect to the Lansing–Ishii notes; that he understood that the President had stated that if the notes were inconsistent with the treaties which had been signed, that they no longer would be effective. The Ambassador said that he did not wish to raise any formal question about the matter but that he would like to know whether the view was that the Lansing–Ishii agreement was dead even though it did not conflict with the treaties; that that would involve an important matter for consideration.

The Secretary said that he was wholly opposed to the exchange of notes or memoranda which had any ambiguity; that he had always [Page 594] regretted that the Lansing–Ishii notes had been exchanged because they were so expressed as to give rise to questions and indeed in anticipation of this, as the Ambassador knew, there were certain confidential memoranda made at the time the notes were exchanged. The Secretary said that he did not approve of that course, as he believed that the way to maintain friendly relations with another country was to have all the exchanges free from ambiguity and understood in the same sense in both countries.

The Secretary said that he understood that Japan did not claim any special interest in China in the sense that it had an interest different in kind from that of the other Powers; that the Lansing–Ishii notes could be construed to mean that special interests merely referred to a difference in degree in the sense that Japan was dependent for the importation of raw materials that it needed and upon certain trade; but not that Japan had any interest special in kind which was in derogation of the sovereignty and independence of China or inconsistent with the “open-door” policy.

The Secretary added that he was much gratified when the Ambassador, at the close of the Conference, had stated the position of Japan substantially in this way; that the Secretary had listened to his remarks, which doubtless he had noticed were quoted by the President in his recent message to the Senate, with the deepest interest, for the Secretary supposed that the Ambassador would not make such a statement at the close of the Conference except with the cognizance of his Government and that he was taking pains to remove from the American Government any apprehension as to an interpretation of the Lansing–Ishii notes which would be in the slightest degree inconsistent with the treaties which were under consideration and the principles which had been adopted at the Conference.

The Ambassador did not indicate any dissent from this but said that of course the Lansing–Ishii notes could not be effective if inconsistent with the treaties and that it would be a different thing to say that they were dead altogether even if they were not inconsistent with the treaties. The Ambassador intimated that it might be well to have an understanding upon this point.

The Secretary said that he understood that Japan and the United States had definitely agreed upon the principles to be enforced in China in order to avoid all possible misunderstanding; that so far as the Lansing–Ishii notes served any purpose inconsistent with these principles, they could not be regarded as effective; and that if it was desired to treat them as effective for any purpose consistently with the treaties, the Secretary would want to know very precisely what that was, as he did not intend to have any understandings or [Page 595] enter into any exchanges whatever which would permit any misunderstanding to arise between this Government and Japan in the future. He felt sure that this was the way to maintain cordial relations with Japan, which he was very desirous of having. The Ambassador apparently acquiesced in this view.