124.93/68: Telegram
The Chargé in Japan (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 16—2:05 p.m.]
186. Department’s telegram no. 121, July 12, 3 p.m. Yesterday afternoon I communicated orally the Department’s message to Baron Shidehara and he was plainly much concerned over it. He stated that Japan had not the least desire “to steal a march on the other powers” but that on the contrary she was only desirous of acting in harmony with them in this matter; that it seemed that the other powers had acted without waiting to hear Japan’s opinion on the subject; that he understood that the British reply, of the same tenor as ours, had been sent to Peking on the 11th instant. He asked me if I knew when our reply had been sent and I said that I did not, whereupon he remarked that if not considered indiscreet he would be interested in knowing. He then proceeded at length to recount the reasons why the Japanese Government felt it should raise the [Page 470] rank of its mission at Peking: that public opinion calls for it; that there had already been various interpellations in that connection in the Diet and there had been a good deal of criticism in the House of Peers against the Government for not acting sooner; that the vernacular press had been calling upon the Cabinet to demonstrate in some concrete way their friendship for China; that he could not now say to the Diet that the Government was unable to act, as the other great powers did not wish it; he emphasized the point that the Japanese Government had as yet made no reply to the Chinese Government in spite of the latter’s reiterated representations and had no intention of acting before receiving the replies of powers to his communication of Friday last. He asked me repeatedly, “Will Americans’ interests be injured if Japan pilots move? How would your Government construe it?”
I replied that I had no information as to the official attitude of the Department of State other than that in the Department’s telegram of July 12th; however that I personally believed any action of any power at Peking tending to break up the international solidarity there was to be deplored; that I believed that isolated action in this case on the part of the Japanese would tend in that direction.
During the past few weeks the British and French Ambassadors here both have had several conversations with Baron Shidehara on this subject and I understand that yesterday the British Ambassador took occasion to make some remarks to him in that connection similar to my own mentioned above.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .