List of Papers

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

GENERAL

Proposals for the Adherence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the Spitzbergen Treaty of February 9, 1920

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Mar. 20 From the Norwegian Minister
Inquiry whether the United States would raise any objection if Russia should be invited to adhere to the Spitzbergen Treaty at the same time as other nonsignatory powers. Information that other governments signatory to the treaty have also been approached.
1
Apr. 30 To the Norwegian Minister
Opinion that the question raised by Norway appears to be covered by provisions of article 10 of Spitzbergen Treaty.
(Footnote: Text of pertinent clauses of article 10 of treaty.)
2
Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the French Ambassador, June 21, 1924
Ambassador’s suggestion of a protocol providing for Russian adherence to Spitzbergen Treaty notwithstanding provisions of article 10 of the treaty. Secretary’s promise to consider whether the suggestion amounted to amendment of article 10, which could not be accomplished without consent of the Senate.
2
June 23 From the Norwegian Minister
Synopsis of replies received by Norway from France, Netherlands, Great Britain, Italy, Denmark, and Sweden in regard to Russian adherence to the treaty. Request for U. S. reconsideration.
(Footnote: Synopsis of Japanese reply to Norwegian inquiry.)
3
June 27 To the Norwegian Minister
Information that the United States would raise no objection should the powers signatory to the Spitzbergen Treaty desire to invite the adherence of Russia, provided such absence of objection is not construed as constituting recognition of the present regime in Russia.
4
Undated To the French Embassy
Proposed draft of agreement relative to adherence of regime of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to Spitzbergen Treaty.
5
[Page XXVI]

Remonstrance by Great Britain Against a Proposed Increase in Gun Elevation on American Capital Ships Retained Under the Washington Naval Treaty

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Feb. 14 (146) From the British Chargé
Representations against proposed increase in elevation of turret guns of U. S. capital ships as not permissible under terms of Washington naval treaty and as conducive to competition in armament. Proposal that the United States, Japan, and Great Britain undertake not to make, during the term of the treaty, any increase in gun elevation on their existing capital ships.
6
Undated [Rec’d Mar. 6] From the Secretary of the Navy
Statement of meaning and status of gun-elevation question for information of the President, presenting comparisons of gun ranges of U. S. and British ships, advocating unrestricted elevation of guns, and expressing hope that necessary legislation may be secured.
9
Aug. 8 (718) From the British Ambassador
Information that proposal has also been made to Japan regarding an undertaking concerning gun elevations, with a further suggestion for exchange of information as to increases in gun elevations already made.
12
Nov. 29 (443) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Opinion that the question is a practical one to be decided by Congress on economic grounds; statement that nothing was said at Washington Conference regarding gun elevation.
(Footnote: Information that no formal reply was made to the British notes, in view of the failure of Congress to provide for gun elevation.)
13
Dec. 30 From the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Naval Affairs
Resolution 387 of the House of Representatives, December 20 (text printed) requesting the Secretary of State to furnish the House with such data, information, or objections as he may have from foreign governments regarding the proposed elevation of turret guns.
14
1925 Jan. 6 To the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Naval Affairs
Information concerning British representations against proposed increases in gun elevation and Japanese view that changes in gun elevation would not violate naval treaty. Opinion that proposed changes would not violate the terms of the treaty but would tend to evoke competition.
15

Cooperation of the United States With the League of Nations in the Drafting of a Convention for the Control of the Traffic in Arms

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 22 (7) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Informal inquiry from Secretariat of the League of Nations whether the United States has decided to accept the Council’s invitation to appoint representatives to cooperate with the Temporary Mixed Commission, meeting at Geneva, February 4, for the preparation of a new convention relating to traffic in arms.
17
[Page XXVII]Feb. 1 (8) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Authorization to inform the Secretariat of his appointment to attend meeting of Commission on February 4 in order to be fully advised as to proposals, to receive information respecting draft convention, to explain U. S. position as previously expressed regarding the 1919 convention, and to refer proposals to the Department for consideration.
18
Feb. 2 (9) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Instructions regarding U. S. policy concerning regulation of traffic in arms; U. S. unwillingness to restrict its freedom to ship military supplies to Latin America; difficulties in administration of control of traffic in arms; and U. S. objections to the 1919 convention. Detailed information concerning U. S. sales of arms and munitions to territories covered by article 6 of the 1919 convention.
18
Feb. 4 (1) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Report on the opening session of the Commission: Speeches in honor of Woodrow Wilson and futile discussion over functions of Commission and the Permanent Advisory Commission. Minister’s intention to make it clear that he is not authorized to discuss any subject other than traffic in arms, if Commission moves to combine in one convention the control of traffic in arms and private manufacture of arms, as desired by the French. Impossibility of obtaining complete separation from the League of Nations of the supervision of the control of traffic in arms.
20
Feb. 5 (2) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Tacit agreement of Commission to discuss traffic in arms and private manufacture of arms simultaneously but to draft separate conventions to cover the two subjects; indications, however, that the French still hope for one convention. Cecil’s statement that the League should have supervision over control of arms traffic; his resolution (text printed) intended to cover nonconflicting general principles of 1919 convention; French opposition to resolution.
21
Feb. 6 (3) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Draft convention submitted to the Commission by Admiral Magaz (text printed). Information that it is the only draft submitted which tends to meet U. S. views.
22
Feb. 6 (5) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Minister’s statements reminding the Commission of his inability to discuss control of private manufacture of arms and explaining U. S. attitude toward intertwining of 1919 convention with League of Nations. Request for further instructions concerning U. S. position on private production. Commission’s discussion of Magaz draft convention.
25
Feb. 7 (6) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Adjournment of Commission; arrangement for subcommittee on arms traffic to meet at Paris March 24. Minister’s final remarks reserving decision regarding U. S. participation in subcommittee and replying to a specific request for U. S. objections to 1919 convention.
27
[Page XXVIII]Feb. 7 (1) To the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
For Grew: Explanation that the Department had no intention to make a distinction between manufacture of arms and traffic in arms; also that the Department’s chief objections to the 1919 treaty were not with respect to investment of administrative control in the League of Nations, but with respect to the freedom of parties to the convention to sell arms to each other and the prohibition against selling to others.
27
Feb. 8 (11) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Suggestion as to methods for conveying to the Commission the U. S. views on private production, received after adjournment of the Commission. His statement of February 6 reminding the Commission of his inability to discuss control of private manufacture of arms (text printed); belief that the Commission now understands that the administration of control of traffic in arms was not the all-important U. S. objection to the 1919 convention.
29
Mar. 7 (22) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Instructions to attend the Paris meeting of the subcommittee for the same purposes for which he attended the meeting of the Commission; but to refrain from participation in actual drafting of the convention. Information as to U. S. policy on certain points and reservations on others.
30
Mar. 25 (143) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Grew: Report on first session of subcommittee on traffic in arms: General discussion of new draft convention drawn up with a view to amending 1919 convention in order to secure U. S. adherence; statement indicating U. S. position made by Minister on basis of instructions of March 7.
31
Mar. 28 (158) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Grew: Adjournment of subcommittee, after eight meetings, convention having been substantially revised to meet U. S. views. Arrangements for draft convention to be considered by Temporary Mixed Commission, meeting at Geneva June 12, before its submission to Council of the League and eventually to an international conference. Reference of the separate draft convention for control of private production to a drafting committee.
32
May 12 (1504) From the Chargé in Switzerland
Draft convention of March 27, 1924 (text printed) amending the 1919 arms convention.
33
June 17 (16) To the Minister in Switzerland
Instructions concerning the Minister’s participation in meeting of Temporary Mixed Commission on July 7 in the same capacity and for the same purpose that earlier meetings of Commission and its subcommittee were attended by his predecessor; Department’s inability to give assurance that Congress will approve final convention; and Department’s position with respect to certain points in the draft convention, control of private manufacture of arms, and certain general considerations.
40
[Page XXIX]July 14 (58) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Adjournment of Commission on July 12, after approving draft convention which appears to be in harmony with U. S. views; plan to submit draft convention, as approved by Assembly of the League of Nations in September, to an international conference.
55
July 23 (79) From the Minister in Switzerland
Draft convention adopted by the Commission July 12 (text printed).
55
Aug. 29 (76) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Communication from the Secretary General of the League of Nations, August 18 (text printed) inviting the United States to be represented at the meetings of the third committee of the Assembly which will discuss the draft convention. Minister’s reply (text printed) conveying U. S. reasons for not attending third committee’s meetings, but indicating a favorable attitude toward participation in an international conference.
73
Oct. 14 (170) From the Minister in Switzerland
Communication from the Secretary General of the League of Nations, October 9 (text printed) enclosing letter dated October 7 to the Secretary of State (text printed) inquiring whether the United States would be prepared to participate in an international conference to be held in April or May 1925 to conclude a convention for the control of traffic in arms.
(Footnote: Information concerning U. S. favorable reply made on December 7.)
75
Oct. 25 From the Secretary of War
Opinion that it would be inadvisable for the United States to become a party to the draft convention in its present form.
77

Unfavorable Views of the United States Upon a Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance Submitted by the League of Nations

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 June 16 (14) To the Minister in Switzerland
Communication for the Secretary General of the League of Nations, June 16 (text printed) giving reasons why the United States would find it impossible to give its adherence to the draft treaty of mutual assistance proposed by the third committee of the Assembly and submitted to the United States in a communication from the Secretary General.
79

Acceptance by the United States of Certificates of Identity Issued by the League of Nations to Russian and Armenian Refugees in Lieu of Passports

Date and Number Subject Page
1922 Sept. 22 From the Russian Financial Attaché
Inquiry concerning U. S. attitude toward arrangement with regard to the issuance of certificates of identity to Russian refugees, adopted by the conference convened at Geneva by Dr. Nansen, July 3–5, 1922.
83
[Page XXX]Oct. 30 To the Russian Financial Attaché
Explanation of U. S. procedure regarding issuance of visas to persons holding no passports or passports of nonrecognized governments; presumption that proposed certificates of identity will improve the situation.
84
1924 [June 10] (C. L. 72.1924) From the Secretary General of the League of Nations
Nansen’s plan for issuing certificates of identification to Armenian refugees similar to certificates established for Russian refugees. Inquiry whether the United States is disposed to adopt the plan.
84
Aug. 5 (41) To the Minister in Switzerland
Communication for the Secretary General of the League of Nations, August 5 (text printed) explaining U. S. practice of accepting appropriate documents of identity from aliens in lieu of passports in connection with applications for visas; and the recognition of Nansen certificates issued to Russian refugees as falling within the category of documents in lieu of passports. Instructions to arrange for simultaneous release of communication to press.
87
Sept. 24 (142) From the Minister in Switzerland
Communication from the Secretary General of the League of Nations, September 12 (text printed) conveying Nansen’s appreciation of U. S. recognition of the certificates of identity for Russian refugees and assumption that the United States will recognize the certificates of identity for Armenians also. Information that U. S. communication will be released to the press on October 10.
88
Oct. 9 (75) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Instructions to inform the Secretary General that the Department will consider identity certificates for Armenian refugees as appropriate documents in lieu of passports.
89

American Participation in the International Conference for Control of the Traffic in Habit-Forming Drugs

Date and Number Subject Page
1923 Oct. 18 (C. L. 108(a). 1923. XI) The Secretary General of the League of Nations to the Netherland Minister of Foreign Affairs
Information concerning resolutions of the Assembly of the League of Nations (texts printed) requesting the calling of two conferences, the first to include countries with possessions where opium smoking is continued and the second to include all countries members of the League or parties to the 1912 Hague convention; also a resolution of the Council of the League, September 29, 1923 (text printed) setting July 1924 as provisional date for first conference, the second conference to follow immediately afterwards. Request that the Netherlands bring this information to the attention of the United States, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Mexico.
89
[Page XXXI]1924 Jan. 14 (C. L. 5. 1924. XI) From the Secretary General of the League of Nations
Resolutions of the Council of the League (texts printed) setting the first Monday in November as date of the first conference and the third Monday in November as date of the second conference, and instructing the Secretary General to invite to the second conference all members of the League and all parties to the 1912 convention. Invitation to the United States to be represented at the second conference and information concerning the setting up of a preparatory committee to draft the program, the committee to be nominated by the Advisory Committee and to consist of six members, including one U. S. representative.
91
Feb. 9 (12) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Personnel of the preparatory committee; necessity for immediate selection of American delegate and technical experts to accompany him.
92
Feb. 21 To the American Representative on the Preparatory Committee
Instructions to proceed to Geneva and attend meetings of preparatory committee in consultative capacity. Suggestions to be presented to committee (text printed).
93
May 13 (153) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to make informal representations to France concerning cooperation in measures to limit quantities of opium and coca leaves in international traffic and the manufacture of drugs therefrom, in view of the British request that the United States join in representations to France in regard to proposals made at meetings of the preparatory committee.
(Instructions to repeat to London.)
97
May 21 (271) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French renewal of assurances of cooperation with other powers, as result of the Ambassador’s informal representations.
97
Sept. 11 (41) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Instructions to express the hope that Peru will be represented at the international opium conference and that Peru will find it possible to restrict cultivation of the coca leaf plant.
(Instructions to repeat, mutatis mutandis, to Bolivia.)
98
Sept. 11 (163) To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.)
Note for Turkish Government (text printed), expressing the hope that Turkey will participate in the international opium conference and will cooperate in measures to restrict the production and transportation of raw opium.
(Footnote: Information received October 24 that Turkey had appointed a delegate to the conference.)
99
Sept. 15 (83) To the Chargé in Persia (tel.)
Note for Persian Government (text printed), expressing the hope that Persia will participate in the international opium conference and will cooperate in measures to restrict the production and transportation of raw opium.
99
Sept. 17 (28) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Information that Bolivia has appointed a delegate to the opium conference, but considers it impossible to restrict cultivation of the coca leaf plant.
100
[Page XXXII]Sept. 17 (120) From the Chargé in Persia (tel.)
Information that Persia has appointed a representative to the opium conference; that the Legation will submit a full report on opium situation in Persia.
100
Undated [Rec’d Oct. 15] From the Secretary General of the League of Nations (tel.)
Reminder that the United States has not accepted invitation to participate in opium conference.
101
Oct. 15 (78) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Instructions to inform the Secretary General of the League that the United States accepts the invitation to be represented at the opium conference.
101
Oct. 23 (300) From the Ambassador in Peru
Foreign Office note stating that the Peruvian Chargé at Prague will represent Peru at the opium conference and that the question of restricting cultivation of the coca leaf plant has been communicated to appropriate authorities.
101
Oct. 25 (84) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
List of American delegates to the opium conference; instructions to notify the Secretary General of the League and also appropriate Swiss authorities.
102
Nov. 19 (1118) From the British Ambassador
Information concerning the adjournment of the conference to November 21 and the danger of complete break-down because of the Japanese-British controversy over the transit of opium through Hongkong. Opinion that the matter is one for negotiation between the two Governments and not for submission to the conference. Suggested compromise. Desire for U. S. support at Tokyo and Geneva.
102
Nov. 25 To the British Ambassador
Information that the British note has been telegraphed to the U. S. delegation at Geneva and to the U. S. Ambassador at Tokyo with instructions to support the suggestion that the Japanese-British controversy be solved through negotiation between the two Governments rather than through submission to the conference.
103
Undated Suggestions of the United States Presented to the Second Opium Conference
A text of the international opium convention of 1912 so amended as to show all the additions and deletions desired by the United States.
104
Dec. 4 From the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
From Porter: Report that U. S. suggestions for carrying out chapter 2 of the 1912 convention had not so far been presented to second conference, as the first conference had not yet completed its labors or adopted an agreement; that the U. S. delegation had reserved its right to amend the agenda of the second conference if the first conference failed to reach a satisfactory agreement; that first conference had confessed itself unable to set date for eventual suppression of use of prepared opium; that British and Japanese had reached an agreement on transit of opium through Hongkong.
115
[Page XXXIII]Dec. 5 To the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
For Porter: British aide-mémoire, December 3 (text printed) holding as outside scope of conference the U. S. suggestions concerning restriction of production and distribution of raw opium to use for medical or scientific purposes only and progressive suppression of use of prepared opium; suggestion that the U. S. delegate support the British delegate in a proposal for a commission with an American chairman to investigate and report on further measures for repression. Department’s intention to refuse to acquiesce in the British suggestions and to intimate that questions should be determined by conference itself. Request for comments.
116
Dec. 8 From the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
From Porter: Opinion that the proposed U. S. reply to the British aide-mémoire would materially strengthen the U. S. position; concurrence in the hope that the conference will not be jeopardized, and willingness to accept any reasonable proposal.
118
Dec. 12 To the British Embassy
Inability of U. S. Government to acquiesce in the British suggestions; advisability of leaving question at issue entirely to the determination of the conference itself; assurance that the U. S. delegation will accord utmost consideration to any proposals made to the conference by the British delegation.
118
Dec. 17 From the Chairman of the American Delegation
Transmittal of copy of agreement reached at the first conference, but not yet signed, with comments by Bishop Brent and himself. Opinion that the agreement is not in strict compliance with intent of chapter 2 of the 1912 convention and that United States should adopt a determined attitude. Information that the British, Dutch, and Japanese were prepared to go further than the agreement indicates, but that the agreement represents all the French and Portuguese were prepared to accede to.
(Footnote: The agreement was signed at Geneva, February 11, 1925.)
119
1925 Feb. 1 From the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
From Porter: Conviction that the conference cannot reach an agreement satisfactory to the United States or which will be an improvement over the 1912 convention; recommendation that the U. S. delegation be withdrawn from the conference.
120
Feb. 2 To the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
For Porter: Authorization to withdraw the U. S. delegation. Press statement to be issued by the Department announcing the withdrawal (text printed). Instructions concerning statement to be made to the conference.
124
Undated [Rec’d Feb. 6] From the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Statement to be enclosed in letter to the president of the conference (text printed), announcing the withdrawal of the U. S. delegation, giving reasons for the withdrawal, and stating the intention of the United States to continue efforts to suppress traffic in habit-forming drugs on the basis of the Hague convention of 1912.
125
[Page XXXIV]

Refusal by the United States To Join Other Creditor Nations in Forming an International Commission To Liquidate Relief Loans Made to Certain European States

Date and Number Subject Page
1923 Sept. 26 From the French Chargé
Request for U. S. views respecting desirability of establishing a coordinating agency to deal with questions arising out of the liquidation of relief credits granted in 1920 and 1921 to governments in central and eastern Europe.
127
Dec. 14 To the French Ambassador
Inability to acquiesce in suggestion concerning establishment of a coordinating agency to deal with questions arising out of the liquidation of relief credits. Opinion that such questions are susceptible of adjustment through existing channels.
128
1924 Feb. 9 (129) From the British Chargé
Information that the British Government, in conjunction with the French Government, has had under consideration the advisability of establishing a coordinating agency to deal with the relief credits question and has suggested that a Relief Credits Committee be set up. Hope that the United States will delegate a representative of the World War Foreign Debt Commission to attend meetings of the Committee in London. Memorandum on relief credits (text printed).
129
Mar. 13 To the British Ambassador
Opinion that the establishment of a coordinating agency to deal with relief credits is unnecessary, as relief credit questions are susceptible of adjustment through existing channels. Information that the suggestion that a representative attend the meetings of the Relief Credits Committee has been referred to the World War Foreign Debt Commission.
132
May 3 (396) From the British Ambassador
Inquiry whether it is yet possible for the United States to express views concerning delegating a representative of the World War Foreign Debt Commission to attend meetings of the Relief Credits Committee.
133
June 3 To the British Ambassador
Information that it has been found impracticable to have a representative of the World War Foreign Debt Commission attend the meetings of the Relief Credits Committee, but that the U. S. Ambassador at London will be instructed to keep in close touch with work of the Committee.
133
June 17 (236) To the Ambassador in Great Britain
Transmittal of correspondence exchanged with the French and British representatives at Washington regarding coordinating agency for settling relief credits questions. Opinion that the United States should keep closely in touch with proceedings of the proposed Relief Credits Committee. Instructions to telegraph any significant developments in connection with the Committee.
134
July 18 (226) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to have representative of the Embassy attend meetings of the Relief Credits Committee when it meets July 29.
135
[Page XXXV]

Negotiations on Behalf of the World War Foreign Debt Commission for the Settlement of Debts Owed the United States by Foreign Governments

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 May 1 From the Lithuanian Chargé
Chargé’s authorization to enter into negotiations with the United States with regard to the settlement of the indebtedness of Lithuania to the United States. Request that the World War Foreign Debt Commission be informed.
135
May 12 To the Lithuanian Chargé
Acknowledgment of the Chargé’s note and information that its substance has been communicated to the Chairman of the Debt Commission, with whom it will be proper for the Chargé to enter into direct negotiations.
136
July 30 (118) From the Minister in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (tel.)
Lithuanian Government’s inquiry whether the United States would protest the ratification by the Lithuanian Assembly of the trade agreement with Germany which provides for mutual cancelation of all claims arising out of the war, German occupation, reparations, post-bellum supplies, etc.
136
Aug. 8 (38) To the Minister in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (tel.)
Memorandum for appropriate Lithuanian official (text printed) stating that the United States would not be disposed to raise any objection to ratification of the trade agreement with Germany, if assurance be given that an agreement will in fact be concluded providing for the refunding of the Lithuanian debt to the United States, similar to the agreement concluded between the United States and Finland. Treasury opinion that ratification of trade agreement with Germany seems to release security definitely provided for Lithuania’s obligations.
137
Sept. 11 (43) To the Minister in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (tel.)
Debt Commission’s denial of requests for inclusion of most-favored-nation clauses in negotiations with governments indebted to the United States. Instructions to report whether Latvia intends to designate representative to negotiate with Debt Commission.
138
Nov. 20 (183) From the Chargé in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (tel.)
Decision of Latvian Government to inaugurate funding negotiations through the Latvian consul at New York.
139
Dec. 6 (88) To the Minister in Greece (tel.)
Instructions to make representations to Greece, in connection with the flotation of the proposed refugee loan in the United States, regarding (1) exchange of notes in respect to most-favored-nation treatment, (2) loan agreement of 1918, and (3) funding of Greek indebtedness to United States. Department’s attitude that Greece has violated the agreement of 1918 through arrangement with Canada and that the United States, therefore, is no longer obligated to make advances to Greece.
139
Dec. 15 (116) From the Minister in Greece (tel.)
M. Roussos’ refusal to renounce Greek claim to remainder of 1918 credits, claiming that Canadian agreement did not affect these claims, as it covered materials purchased in Canada; his intention to go to Washington to discuss question of credits and refunding of debts.
141
[Page XXXVI]Dec. 31 (99) To the Minister in Greece (tel.)
View that the 1918 loan agreement was violated when Greece pledged additional revenues for service of an external loan without obtaining U. S. consent; that the United States is therefore relieved from further obligation in the matter; and that discussion with representative of Greek Government with respect to further advances under this agreement would serve no useful purpose.
142

Agreement Between the United States and Austria and Hungary for the Establishment of a Claims Commission, Signed November 26, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Feb. 1 (610) To the Minister in Austria
Transmittal of a draft tripartite agreement providing for the determination of amounts to be paid by Austria and Hungary in satisfaction of their obligations under treaties concluded by the United States with Austria on August 24, 1921, and with Hungary on August 29, 1921. Suggestion of Judge Edwin B. Parker as sole commissioner.
(Similar instructions sent to representative in Hungary.)
142
Feb. 23 (7) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Belief that there will be no objection to the tripartite agreement; and that Judge Parker will be acceptable.
144
Apr. 3 (17) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Austria’s acceptance in principle of the draft agreement; and Austria’s suggestions with regard to (1) national liability, (2) amendment of article 6 to provide for ratification, and (3) enlargement of the jurisdiction of the commissioner.
145
Apr. 9 (20) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Failure to understand significance of Austria’s first suggestion; agreement to the amendment of article 6 to include ratification; inability to perceive any purpose or necessity for enlarging the jurisdiction of the commissioner.
146
Apr. 18 (20) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Further explanation of Austria’s suggestions concerning national liability and enlargement of the jurisdiction of the commissioner.
147
May 5 (23) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Information that the Austrian Chargé at Washington is being instructed to sign the tripartite agreement as submitted by the United States with amendment of article 6; and simultaneously to address a note to the United States formulating the Austrian reservation regarding liability and division of responsibility and making concrete suggestions for enlarging the jurisdiction of the commissioner.
147
May 21 (27) From the Minister in Hungary (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s comments and proposals regarding the draft agreement.
148
[Page XXXVII]May 31 (25) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Department’s gratification at Austria’s disposition to sign the tripartite agreement in the form submitted by the United States with amendment of article 6; opinion that under the terms of the proposed agreement the commissioner would be competent to determine liability and division of responsibility between Austria and Hungary; desire that the Austrian note contain no reservations.
149
May 31 (25) To the Minister in Hungary (tel.)
Instructions as to categorical reply to be made to the Hungarian proposals, with request that the Hungarian Minister at Washington be instructed to discuss the subject with the Department.
150
Aug. 11 From the Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs, Department of State
Record of his interview with the Hungarian Chargé in which the Chargé stated that he had received authorization for signing the tripartite agreement.
151
Sept. 5 (52) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Information that on September 3 the Austrian Chargé at Washington was authorized to sign the tripartite agreement without any reservations.
151
Nov. 26 Agreement between the United States of America and Austria and Hungary
Providing for the determination of amounts to be paid by Austria and Hungary in satisfaction of their obligations under treaties concluded by the United States with Austria on August 24, 1921, and with Hungary on August 29, 1921.
152

Interest of the United States in the Disposition of the Proposed Liberation Bonds of the Austro-Hungarian Succession States

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Feb. 9 (64) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Logan: Problems with regard to the disposition of the proposed liberation bonds of the Austro-Hungarian succession states.
154
Feb. 29 (67) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Logan: Authorization to state that the United States would not object to the delivery of the liberation bonds to the Reparation Commission; request for opinion whether claim could be made under the Army Costs Agreement for share in cash realized from liberation bonds.
155
Mar. 6 (102) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Logan: Opinion that proceeds of the liberation bonds may not be claimed under the Army Costs Agreement.
156
[Page XXXVIII]

Conventions for the Prevention of Liquor Smuggling Into the United States

great britain, january 23, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Mar. 1 (77) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British note conveying information that the concurrence of Canada and other Dominions in the ratification of the liquor convention is being sought.
(Footnote: Information received on March 15 that Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa had concurred in ratification, and on April 10 that Canada and the Irish Free State had assented.)
157
Jan. 23 Convention between the United States of America and Great Britain
For the prevention of liquor smuggling into the United States.
158

germany, may 19, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Apr. 28 From the German Ambassador
Proposed changes in draft liquor convention, changes being in form only and to agree with the text of the U. S.-British convention.
161
May 1 To the German Ambassador
Acceptance of the proposed changes in the draft convention.
161
May 19 Convention between the United States of America and Germany
For the prevention of liquor smuggling into the United States.
162

sweden, may 22, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 3 (17) To the Minister in Sweden Request
Request for a report on Sweden’s views with respect to the negotiation of a liquor convention. Information as to status of conventions with Great Britain and the Netherlands.
165
Feb. 20 (135) From the Minister in Sweden
Foreign Minister’s disposition to enter into negotiations with the United States looking to the conclusion of a convention similar to the U. S.–British convention; desire for reciprocal arrangement concerning extent of territorial jurisdiction.
166
Mar. 28 (11) To the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Information that the convention with Great Britain was approved by the Senate, March 13; that a similar text had been submitted to representatives of the Netherlands, Japan, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and Norway; also that an alternative text for article 1 (text printed) appears in the draft given Italy, as Italy was unwilling to assent to the 3-mile limit.
168
May 3 From the Swedish Legation
Swedish desire to omit article 1 or insert provision that convention shall not be considered as establishing precedent with regard to territorial limits; desire also for reciprocal rights as to boarding vessels outside territorial waters.
168
[Page XXXIX]May 5 To the Swedish Legation
Unwillingness to omit article 1; proposed alternative article (text printed), the same as that suggested to Italy. Desire to have convention with Sweden conform to the convention already concluded with Great Britain.
169
May 22 Convention between the United States of America and Sweden
For the prevention of liquor smuggling into the United States.
170

norway, may 24, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Norwegian Minister, March 20, 1924
Secretary’s presentation to the Minister of a draft liquor convention identical with the one concluded with Great Britain; and offer of a substitute article 1 (text printed), in case Norway is unwilling to assent to the 3-mile limit.
173
May 8 From the Norwegian Legation
Willingness to negotiate a liquor convention on the basis of the U. S. draft with alternative article 1 and providing that the provisions of the convention be made reciprocal. Proposal that article 2 be so amended as to fix 10 miles as the distance from the coast within which vessels may be boarded; that article 4 providing for expenses of tribunal be amended; and that language of article 6 be changed slightly.
173
May 14 To the Norwegian Legation
Refusal to agree to amendment of articles 2 and 4 of draft; acceptance of slight change in article 6.
174
May 21 To the Norwegian Minister
Unwillingness to agree to Norwegian proposal that the provisions of the convention be made reciprocal.
175
May 22 From the Norwegian Minister
His authorization to sign a convention similar to the one concluded with Great Britain with alternative article 1. Norway’s maintenance of desire concerning reciprocity and 10 miles distance from shore as limit within which vessels may be boarded, and hope that the United States will meet Norway’s desires in a possible revision of the convention under article 5.
175
May 23 To the Norwegian Minister
Opinion that the liquor conventions should be of the same tenor and that the United States might find difficulty in accepting provisions differing from the convention with Great Britain.
176
May 24 Convention between the United States of America and Norway
For the prevention of liquor smuggling into the United States.
176
[Page XL]

denmark, may 29, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 May 26 (99) From the Danish Chargé
Denmark’s readiness to sign liquor convention similar to the one concluded with Great Britain, subject, however, to certain modifications.
180
May 28 To the Danish Chargé
Acceptance of Denmark’s suggested modifications; arrangements for signature of the convention.
180
May 29 Convention between the United States of America and Denmark
For the prevention of liquor smuggling into the United States.
181

italy, june 3, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Italian Ambassador, March 20, 1924
Secretary’s presentation to the Ambassador of a draft liquor convention similar to the one concluded with Great Britain, with the exception of articles 1 and 4.
184
June 3 Convention between the United States of America and Italy
For the prevention of liquor smuggling into the United States.
185

great britain in respect of canada, june 6, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 June 4 To the British Ambassador
Acceptance of Canadian draft of the proposed convention for suppression of illicit liquor traffic across the international boundary, etc., with minor exceptions capable of adjustment. Desire that plenipotentiary come to Washington for concluding convention before Congress adjourns.
188
June 6 Convention between the United States of America and Great Britain in respect of Canada
For the suppression of smuggling along boundary between the United States and Canada.
189

panama, june 6, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 May 28 From the Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs, Department of State
Record of a telephone conversation with the Panaman Minister, who stated that he was authorized to sign the liquor convention, but that his Government desired an exchange of notes making reservations as to special conditions existing between Canal Zone and Panama and the question of the 3–mile limit and stating that signing of liquor convention will in no manner prejudice the article concerning enforcement of Volstead law in the Canal Zone, agreed upon for inclusion in treaty to replace the Taft Agreement.
192
[Page XLI]June 6 Convention between the United States of America and Panama
For the prevention of liquor smuggling into the United States.
192
June 6 To the Panaman Minister
Confirmation of understanding that the signing of the convention will in no wise affect the inclusion of the article concerning enforcement of the Volstead law in the Canal Zone in the treaty under negotiation to replace the Taft Agreement.
196
July 7 (D. 360) From the Panaman Minister
Acknowledgment of U. S. confirmation of understanding regarding article to be inserted in treaty to replace the Taft Agreement.
196

france, june 30, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the French Ambassador, June 21, 1924
Submission of a draft liquor convention by the Ambassador; his Government’s preference for the alternative article 1, as in treaties with Norway, Sweden, and Italy, and proposed modification of article 4.
(Footnote: Information that proposed modification of article 4 was incorporated in the convention.)
197
June 30 Convention between the United States of America and France
For the prevention of liquor smuggling into the United States.
197

the netherlands, august 21, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 June 12 (1595) From the Netherland Minister
Suggested modifications of text of draft liquor convention submitted by the United States; and proposed exchange of notes regarding substitution of the Permanent Court of Arbitration by the Permanent Court of International Justice in case the United States adheres to the Court protocol.
200
June 20 To the Netherland Minister
Refusal to agree to proposed modifications of draft convention, save with respect to the matter of languages.
203
July 10 (1939) From the Netherland Minister
His authorization to sign convention in conformity with U. S. draft; importance of suggested exchange of notes.
204
July 29 To the Netherland Minister
Accession to request for exchange of notes.
205
Aug. 6 From the Netherland Minister
Netherlands’ desire that the convention become effective immediately upon signature, to avoid loss of benefits pending ratification by U. S. Senate.
206
[Page XLII]Aug. 21 To the Netherland Minister
Inability of U. S. Government to give application to the convention prior to the exchange of ratifications and proclamation thereof.
206
Aug. 21 Convention between the United States of America and the Netherlands
For the prevention of liquor smuggling into the United States.
207
Aug. 21 (2330) From the Netherland Minister
Understanding that in the event of U. S. adherence to the Court protocol claims which cannot be settled under provisions of first paragraph of article 4 of the liquor convention shall be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice instead of to the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
210
Aug. 21 To the Netherland Minister
Confirmation of Netherland Government’s understanding.
211

Representations by Salvador, Cuba, Rumania, Norway, and Italy Regarding Proposed Legislation To Restrict Immigration Into the United States

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 4 (DE–2) From the Salvadoran Chargé
Representations against an amendment to the immigration bill, suggested by the Secretary of Labor, which would extend the quota arrangement to include Salvador.
212
Jan. 14 From the Cuban Ambassador
Representations against an amendment to the immigration bill, suggested by the Secretary of Labor, which would extend the quota arrangement to include Cuba.
(Footnote: Information that the amendment advocated application of quota arrangement to Canada, Mexico, and South and Central America.)
212
Feb. 2 (535/1) From the Rumanian Chargé
Protest against the new immigration bill introduced in Congress February 1 by Representative Johnson, especially with respect to the selection of the 1890 census as a basis for the quotas.
213
Feb. 8 To the Chairman of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives
Comments and recommendations concerning the new immigration bill (H. R. 6540): Approval of restricted immigration; objections to provisions excluding the Japanese and to quotas based on 1890 census; opinion that proposed act will conflict with existing treaties; hope for some nondiscriminatory basis for restriction; suggestion of certain amendments; endorsement of proposal to issue immigration certificates.
214
Feb. 19 To the Rumanian Chargé
Information that the Rumanian protest has been referred to the appropriate authorities.
222
[Page XLIII]Feb. 19 To the Salvadoran Chargé
Information that the immigration bill as reported to the House of Representatives does not contain a provision which would extend the quota arrangement to Salvador.
223
Feb. 20 From the Norwegian Minister
Representations against the new immigration bill as being in conflict with certain provisions of the treaty of 1827 between Norway and the United States.
223
Feb. 21 To the Cuban Ambassador
Assurance that the new immigration bill as reported to the House of Representatives does not contain a provision extending the quota arrangement to include Cuba.
224
Mar. 19 To the Norwegian Minister
Assurance that all questions relating to appropriate recognition of treaty provisions are having proper consideration.
224
Apr. 5 From the Italian Embassy
Representations regarding the two bills on restrictive and selective immigration pending in Congress, especially with respect to the proposal to issue consular immigration certificates, which is considered an invalidation of Italian sovereign rights.
224

Arrangements With Foreign Governments for a Flight Around the World by United States Army Airplanes

Date and Number Subject Page
1923 July 17 (20) To the Minister in Denmark (tel.)
Instructions to inquire whether Denmark would grant permission for a U. S. Army officer to investigate conditions in Iceland in order to secure data for a projected round-the-world flight of U. S. Army airplanes in the spring of 1924, the itinerary to include Iceland.
227
July 18 To the Chargé in Japan
Instructions to request permission for two U. S. Army officers, detailed to make a pathfinding expedition, to investigate conditions and secure data for a projected round-the-world flight of U. S. Army airplanes in the spring of 1924.
(Sent also to representatives in France, Great Britain, and Italy.)
227
Aug. 1 (26) From the Minister in Denmark (tel.)
Information that Iceland has granted permission for proposed investigation.
228
Aug. 30 (102) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Inquiry whether proposed flight over Japanese territory can be arranged under present law and without antagonizing the Japanese.
228
Sept. 18 (118) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Foreign Office statement that Italy will be glad to furnish U. S. officer with all information and data necessary for round-the-world flight.
228
[Page XLIV]Sept. 19 (3490) From the Chargé in France
Foreign Office note, September 15, 1923, stating that French air service and hydrographic service will give U. S. Army officers all possible information and data.
228
Oct. 9 (430) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the British Admiralty will give the U. S. air attaché all desired information and that the Air Ministry is expected to take the same attitude; also that Canada will assist the pathfinding officer in every way.
229
Nov. 27 (258) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to take up at once matter of permission for flight over Japanese territory, all other governments having replied to request.
229
Nov. 30 (179) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Japanese War Department’s unfavorable attitude toward flight.
230
Dec. 14 (134–E) From the Chargé in Japan
Japanese memorandum stating the conditions under which Japan would raise no objections to the projected flight over Japanese territory.
230
Dec. 19 To the British Chargé
Information concerning arrangements for projected flight and the tentative itinerary.
231
Dec. 19 (385) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the five airplanes on the round-the-world flight will leave April 1; that flight will be divided into five divisions, with one advance officer to each division and a sixth advance officer for coordination. Instructions to request permission for advance officers and flight to cross British territory and for flight to land at agreed-upon points; to request waiver of aerial photographic restrictions; and to convey information as to itinerary across British territory.
(Sent, mutatis mutandis, to diplomatic representatives in Austria, Bulgaria, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Persia, Rumania, Siam, Turkey, and Yugoslavia.)
232
1924 Jan. 10 (34) From the British Chargé
Information that Canada has no objection to projected visit of U. S. officer over proposed route of the flight through British Columbia; also that Royal Canadian Air Force will render every possible assistance.
233
Jan. 10 (8) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Explanation of the object of the advance officer’s visit; and assertion that any specific request made by Japan for a similar flight over U. S. territory would be gladly recommended to the executives of the states and territories over which the flight was contemplated.
234
Jan. 12 (10) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Information that the Japanese authorities now have no objection to the visit of the officer to discuss details but do object to the pathfinding expedition.
234
[Page XLV]Jan. 17 (13) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Japan’s informal consent to landing at Bettobu and willingness to receive advance officer at Tokyo to discuss details; disposition to send war vessel to Kurile Islands for “protection purposes” during flight.
235
Jan. 18 (13) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to express gratitude for informal consent, and to telegraph when written confirmation is received. Information that Lieutenant Nutt, advance officer, has left the Philippines for Tokyo and that the War Department would be glad if a Japanese officer would accompany him on pathfinding expedition.
(Footnote: Information that, on January 25, the Chargé reported he had received written confirmation of the Japanese consent.)
235
Jan. 21 (4) From the Minister in Persia (tel.)
Persian Government’s consent to the flight.
235
Jan. 21 (3) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Austria’s permission for the flight.
236
Jan. 21 (1) From the Minister in Siam (tel.)
Siam’s permission for the flight.
236
Jan. 21 (6) From the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (tel.)
Yugoslavia’s permission for the flight.
236
Jan. 22 (5) From the Minister in Bulgaria (tel.)
Bulgaria’s permission for the flight.
236
Jan. 23 (6) From the Minister in Denmark (tel.)
Denmark’s permission for the flight.
237
Jan. 23 (5) From the Minister in Hungary (tel.)
Hungary’s permission for the flight.
237
Jan. 26 (46) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese objections to the flight.
237
Jan. 28 (30) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Foreign Office note granting permission for the flight under certain conditions.
238
Jan. 28 (28) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to inform proper authorities of the scientific and experimental purposes of the projected flight, as set forth in War Department letter (extract printed); also of the favorable replies received from the majority of governments from whom permission was requested.
238
Jan. 30 (22) From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.)
Telegram from Consul Treat at Angora, January 29 (text printed) reporting Turkey’s objections to the flight and refusal of a British request of a similar nature.
239
Feb. 5 (51) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Canada’s permission for the flight.
239
[Page XLVI]Feb. 7 (59) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Foreign Office note granting permission for the flight.
240
Feb. 9 (7) From the Chargé in Rumania (tel.)
Rumanian note granting permission for the flight.
240
Feb. 9 (26) To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.)
Instructions to inform Turkish authorities of the scientific and experimental purposes of the flight, as set forth in War Department letter (extract printed). Information concerning proposed itinerary; favorable replies received from other governments; and embarrassment to United States if itinerary must be changed.
240
Feb. 14 (57) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s note, received February 11, granting permission for the flight under certain conditions.
241
Feb. 15 (61) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Foreign Office note expressing willingness to facilitate flight and afford any assistance or advice; and conveying information that Canada will give every assistance, that Iraq has no objections, and that waiver of photographic restrictions is under consideration.
242
Mar. 3 (33) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
War Department information that Japanese destroyers will transport gasoline and oil to Kurile Islands but will not permit Lieutenant Nutt to go as passenger; necessity that he proceed to islands to arrange fueling and landing details; hope that he may be permitted to proceed on Japanese destroyer or on U. S. destroyer.
242
Mar. 6 (39) From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.)
Turkey’s permission for the flight under certain conditions.
243
Mar. 6 (46) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Lieutenant Nutt’s difficulties in arranging for transportation of gasoline to Kurile Islands. Japan’s unwillingness to consent to his proceeding to the Kuriles, as the Japanese air service will look after fueling and landing details.
243
Mar. 6 (87) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British agreement to waive usual restrictions on aerial photography, provided airplanes do not fly over or photograph certain prohibited areas.
244
Mar. 8 (37) To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to request permission for Lieutenant Nutt to proceed on a Japanese destroyer, but to state that as an alternative course he might proceed along route on U. S. destroyer. Information that it is essential that fueling and landing details be handled by a U. S. officer familiar with the flight.
244
[Page XLVII]Mar. 22 (54) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Consent of Japanese military and naval authorities to allow one U. S. destroyer to proceed to Bettobu and another to Kashiwabara on condition that the expedition be solely for the purpose of taking supplies and that the destroyers’stop at Hongkong to take on board one Japanese Army officer and one Japanese Navy officer to remain during the trip to the Kurile Islands.
245
Apr. 3 (84) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to obtain permission for the flight to pass through Hongkong.
(Footnote: Information that, on April 25, the Ambassador reported that permission had been granted.)
245

Representations by the United States Against the Exclusion of American Mormon Missionaries From Certain European Countries

Date and Number Subject Page
1921 Mar. 24 From Senator Reed Smoot
Request that steps be taken to secure the removal of restrictions imposed upon Mormon missionaries from entering Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and South Africa. Information that work of the Mormon Church necessitates presence of missionaries in these countries to look after church property, as well as to direct missionary work.
246
Apr. 2 (38) From the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Swedish Government’s unfriendly attitude toward Mormon missionaries; the Crown Council’s decision to expel them, the vice president of the Church in Sweden being permitted to remain a month to wind up Church affairs.
247
Apr. 2 (17) To the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Instructions to request that nothing drastic be done until matter of expelling Mormon missionaries from Sweden can be fully investigated.
247
Apr. 4 (40) From the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s regret at inability to alter Government’s attitude toward expulsion of Mormon missionaries. Status of property of Mormon Church in Sweden.
247
Apr. 5 To the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that British diplomatic and consular officers are refusing visas to Mormon missionaries going to South Africa. Instructions to investigate and report.
(Instructions to repeat, mutatis mutandis, to Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland.)
248
Apr. 7 (20) To the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Instructions to telegraph the Swedish Government’s reasons for expelling Mormons, and to repeat request that action be delayed.
248
Apr. 9 (43) From the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Crown Council’s maintenance of its decisions concerning expulsion of Mormon missionaries, after consideration of a petition of all Swedish Mormons. Reasons for expulsion.
248
[Page XLVIII]Apr. 9 (11) From the Minister in Norway (tel.)
Norwegian reasons for refusing visas to Mormon missionaries; intimation that an official request by the United States would result in careful reconsideration of matter.
250
Apr. 9. (14) To the Minister in Norway (tel.)
Instructions to request reconsideration of matter and to ask that no drastic action be taken until case can be fully investigated.
250
Apr. 9 (21) To the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Instructions to state that the Mormon Church invites investigation by the Swedish Government and offers to pay expenses of investigator.
250
Apr. 28 (46) From the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Report that there is no change in the situation. Foreign Office note (text printed) refusing invitation of Mormon Church to send an investigator to Utah.
250
Apr. 30 (54) From the Minister in the Netherlands (tel.)
Information that Netherlands has no objection in principle to the entrance of Mormon missionaries; that recent refusals of admission were because of housing shortage.
251
May 3 (36) From the Minister in Denmark (tel.)
Information that the Government has no definite policy on granting of visas to Mormon missionaries; that, upon request of Senator Smoot the previous summer, it was decided to grant visas to a limited number of Mormon missionaries to proceed to Denmark to look after property interests; that the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs is opposed in principle to their admission.
251
May 28 (1845) From the Minister in Norway
Minister’s formal representations, April 12; and the Foreign Minister’s reply, May 24, that no general instructions had been issued to diplomatic and consular officers to refuse visas to Mormon missionaries but that the Central Passport Bureau, to which such matters must be submitted, would very likely refuse all or a majority of such requests.
252
May 28 (440) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Report that South African Government does not desire to encourage entry of Mormon missionaries into that country.
253
1922 Dec. 26 (162) To the Chargé in Switzerland
Inadvisability of making representations to Swiss Government on behalf of Mormon missionaries denied residence in Swiss cantons on ground that article 1 of convention of 1850 entitles them to privileges of residence in Switzerland. Authorization, however, to inform the Political Department that polygamy is forbidden by the Mormon Church and by the laws of the United States and to express the hope that Swiss authorities would not discriminate against Mormon missionaries.
253
[Page XLIX]1923 Jan. 22 To Senator Reed Smoot
Report from the consulate general at Cape Town that, as result of representations, elders of Mormon Church are now entitled to usual travel concessions granted ministers of the Gospel and missionaries under regulations effective January 1, 1923.
254
Oct. 19 (286) From the Minister in Norway
Information that, at the instance of Senator Smoot during his visit in Norway in the summer of 1923, representations had again been made with the result that the Norwegian Government had reversed its previous decision.
254
1924 Jan. 3 (101) From the Minister in Sweden
Minister’s representations on behalf of Mormon missionaries. Information that the Swedish Legation at Washington and the consulate at San Francisco have been instructed to make a new investigation of the activities and standing of the Mormon Church. Request that Senator Smoot be informed.
255
Feb. 6 (666) From the Minister in Denmark
Danish assurance that leniency will be exercised with regard to admission of Mormon preachers; probability that all visa restrictions between Denmark and the United States will soon be abolished.
257
June 7 (19) From the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Report that hereafter visas for Mormons will be subject to same regulations as are applied to all foreigners in Sweden.
257
Oct. 7 To the Consul at Zurich
Opinion that the consul can take no action in the matter of Swiss opposition to continued presence of Mormon missionaries, other than to see that they are accorded the protection to which they may be entitled under the laws of Switzerland.
257
Oct. 7 (166) From the Minister in Switzerland
Request for instructions with regard to cases of Mormon missionaries resident in Switzerland who have been refused renewal of residence permits by certain cantonal authorities.
258
Oct. 27 (85) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Authorization to exercise good offices to prevent undue hardships in individual cases of expulsion; and to make representations should it become clear that the cantonal authorities of Zurich intend gradually to refuse renewal of residence permits in all cases of Mormon missionaries as a class.
260
Nov. 5 (206) From the Minister in Switzerland
Memorandum of the Political Department, October 31, 1924, explaining that the cantons alone are capable of deciding questions of residence and that the refusals to prolong residence permits of certain missionaries have been necessitated by their proselytizing methods. Information that measures taken by cantonal authorities do not apply to Mormon missionaries as a class; and opinion that Legation has no grounds for further representations.
261
[Page L]1925 Apr. 27 (3839) To the Chargé in Germany
Instructions to make representations regarding American Mormon missionary expelled from East Prussia without opportunity of defense, on ground that such action constitutes an arbitrary exercise of authority.
263

Statements by the Secretary of State That the Question of Philippine Independence Is Exclusively a Domestic Problem of the United States

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Mar. 25 From the Chairman of the Committee on Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives
Inquiry whether the granting of independence to the Philippine Islands would be contrary to any provisions of the Four-Power Pact.
264
Apr. 3 To the Chairman of the Committee on Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives
Opinion that neither the Four-Power Treaty, nor the declaration accompanying it, nor the treaty supplementary thereto in any manner affect the exclusive right of the United States to withhold or grant independence to the Philippine Islands.
265
May 7 From the Secretary of War
Request for opinion as to the desirability of consulting foreign governments relative to granting independence to the Philippine Islands.
265
May 8 To the Secretary of War
Opinion that no suggestions from foreign powers should be invited as to what the United States should do with its own possessions.
266

Sanitary Convention Between the United States and Other American Republics, Signed November 14, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Nov. 14 Convention between the United States of America and Other American Republics
For promoting and protecting the public health of the respective nations by cooperation in international measures for prevention of the spread of communicable infections.
266

Boundary Disputes

bolivia and paraguay

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 July 25 (247) To the Chargé in Paraguay
Information, in reply to the Chargé’s report concerning Bolivia’s protest to Paraguay against a Paraguayan grant of land in the Chaco to Canadian Mennonites and Bolivia’s inquiry as to possible U. S. intervention, that the United States would be unwilling to intervene in the boundary dispute unless requested to do so by both countries.
282
[Page LI]Aug. 20 From the Ambassador in Argentina
Draft of an agreement between Paraguay and Bolivia to ask the Government of the United States to act as arbitrator (text printed), handed to the Ambassador by the Paraguayan Foreign Minister with the request that it be forwarded to Washington.
(Footnote: Information that the Ambassador was temporarily at Asuncién, Paraguay.)
282
Sept. 4 (1422) From the Chargé in Paraguay
Information as to the origin of the draft agreement sent to the Department by the U. S. Ambassador to Argentina; the Paraguayan reply to the Bolivian protest against grants of land in the Chaco to Canadian Mennonites; the Paraguayan desire that question be arbitrated by the United States.
283
Oct. 13 (258) To the Chargé in Paraguay
Instructions to restate the U. S. position regarding intervention as described in Department’s instruction no. 247 of July 25.
285
Nov. 26 (596) From the Chargé in Bolivia
Information that the divergence of views of Bolivia and Paraguay has no connection with the choice of arbitrator, but is a question of what the arbitrator shall be called upon to decide and the form in which the protocol is to be drawn up.
286

colombia and panama

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Colombian Minister, March 13, 1924
Minister’s desire that the Secretary examine into the situation to see if something could be done to secure the resumption of relations between Colombia and Panama. Secretary’s promise to look into the matter.
287
Undated Procès-Verbal of a Meeting between the Secretary of State, the Colombian Minister, and the Panaman Minister, May 8, 1924
Arrangement between the Ministers, with the Secretary as mediator, for the resumption of diplomatic relations between Panama and Colombia, for the appointment of minister of each country to be accredited to the other, for the negotiation of a boundary convention and treaty of peace and friendship, and for the adjustment of all questions of pecuniary liability between the two countries.
287
May 8 (253) From the Panaman Minister
Information that the Panaman representative accredited to Colombia will be instructed to sign, as soon as may be agreeable to Colombia, a special boundary convention establishing in a final manner the existing de facto boundary line (description printed).
290
May 8 To the Panaman Minister
Expression of satisfaction at Panama’s desire for settlement of the boundary dispute, and information that a copy of the Panaman note of May 8 is being transmitted to the Colombian Minister.
291
[Page LII]May 8 To the Colombian Minister
Transmittal of copies of the procès-verbal and of the Panaman Minister’s note of May 8.
291
Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Colombian Minister, September 18, 1924
Minister’s statement that the signed treaty would be submitted at once to the Colombian Congress; his expression of hope that it would likewise be submitted promptly to Panaman Congress; Secretary’s assurance of good offices in expediting matter.
292

colombia and peru

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 15 (107) From the Ambassador in Peru
President’s failure to submit Peruvian-Colombian boundary treaty to Congress for ratification, notwithstanding his assurances to the Ambassador. Brazil’s opposition to ratification of the treaty.
293
Feb. 1 (355) From the Minister in Colombia
Conversation with the President in which the Minister informed the President of certain informal good offices of the United States in pressing for the ratification of the treaty by Peru and suggested that the relatively inexperienced Colombian Chargé at Asunción have recourse to the advice of the U. S. Ambassador there; the President’s expression of profound gratitude for the interest of the United States.
294
Mar. 28 (657) To the Minister in Colombia
Trust that Colombia realizes U. S. attitude of strict impartiality in matter and that the President has not been led by Minister’s suggestion to believe that U. S. efforts might extend beyond the informal and friendly acts already performed. Instructions to avoid such suggestions in the future.
295
Oct. 7 (127) To the Ambassador in Peru
Instructions to express again, orally and informally, the friendly interest and hope of the United States that the Peruvian-Colombian boundary treaty, when presented to Congress during forthcoming session, will be favorably acted upon.
295
Nov. 17 (312) From the Ambassador in Peru
Conversation with Foreign Minister in which Minister had shown him British memorandum expressing opposition to the boundary treaty; conclusion that the Peruvian Congress is not likely to ratify the boundary treaty.
296
Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Colombian Minister, November 26, 1924
Minister’s presentation of a confidential memorandum dated November 26, which he explained by saying that if Brazil would withdraw its memorandum in opposition to the ratification of the treaty, Colombia would be glad to take up the questions with Brazil. The Secretary’s desire to study the memorandum before making suggestions.
300
[Page LIII]Nov. 28 From the Colombian Legation
An exposition, supplementary to the memorandum of November 26, of the great value which would result from the friendly cooperation of the United States on behalf of a treaty which would not only fix the boundary line between Colombia and Peru but would also open the way for the fixation of the boundary line between Colombia and Brazil.
300
Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Colombian Minister, December 4, 1924
Secretary’s suggestion that Colombia agree to accept the line specified in the treaty of 1851 between Peru and Brazil as the future boundary between Colombia and Brazil, provided Brazil should withdraw its objections to the Colombian-Peruvian treaty and the treaty should be ratified by Peru.
302
Dec. 11 (955) To the Ambassador in Brazil
Transmittal of a copy of Brazil’s memorandum to Peru expressing objections to the Peruvian-Colombian boundary treaty, left at the Department, November 14, by the Brazilian Chargé. Request for comments.
303
Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Peruvian Ambassador, December 12, 1924, 3 p.m.
Ambassador’s request that the Secretary look into the boundary difficulties and see if some suggestion could be made which would provide a harmonious solution. The Secretary’s promise to look into the matter.
303
Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Brazilian Chargé, December 12, 1924, 3:30 p.m.
Chargé’s memorandum requesting the United States to consider the boundary difficulties and see if some helpful suggestion in the direction of settlement of the difficulties could be made. The Secretary’s promise to give memorandum further consideration.
304

ecuador and peru

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 June 24 (35) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Protocol signed June 21 between Peru and Ecuador at Quito providing for submission of boundary settlement to arbitration at Washington.
304
June 24 (7) From the Minister in Ecuador (tel.)
Ecuadoran-Peruvian protocol (excerpt printed) providing for submission of boundary settlement to arbitral award of the President of the United States, if prior friendly discussions at Washington fail to fix definite line.
305
[Page LIV]

ALBANIA

Maintenance by the United States of Unofficial Relations With the Revolutionary Government in Albania

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 May 4 (40) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Report of agitation launched by the opposition which may result in revolution.
306
May 18 (43) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Report that arms are being distributed to reserves; that movement on Scutari is planned; that portion of Tirana garrison is of doubtful loyalty. Recommendation that a destroyer be sent to Durazzo for communication purposes.
306
May 19 (44) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Report that officers of Tirana garrison objected to precipitating civil war by moving on Scutari; that the Assembly has sent a delegation to confer with recalcitrant members at Scutari. Recommendation that the Embassy at Rome be instructed to communicate direct with the admiral in case a destroyer is needed.
307
May 20 (31) To the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Arrangements for a destroyer to be dispatched to Durazzo upon receipt of request to that effect from the Minister or from the Embassy at Rome, the Embassy at Rome having been advised in the premises.
307
June 2 (104) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Dispatch of an Italian destroyer to Durazzo, communications having been interrupted. Relay to the naval attaché at Athens of the request of the U. S. Minister at Tirana for a destroyer.
307
June 5 (105) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Evidence that the Albanian revolution is succeeding.
308
June 6 (49) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Declaration of armistice, evening of the 4th of June, at the instance of the Government; flight of the majority of officials to Durazzo; measures to insure public safety; arrival of the destroyer Bulmer.
308
June 7 (111) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Report that Italy and Yugoslavia have no intention of interfering in internal affairs of Albania.
308
June 11 (114) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Telegram from the Minister to Albania, June 8 (text printed), reporting the flight of the Prime Minister and other officials to Durazzo; expectation that insurgent forces would enter Tirana the next day.
309
June 19 (56) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Formal written announcement of the appointment of a new Cabinet received by foreign representatives. Questionable legal authority of the remaining regent to form a Cabinet. Attitude of other foreign representatives toward the new regime. Minister’s intention to refrain from any act which could be construed as recognition, pending instructions from the Department.
309
[Page LV]June 21 (58) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Information that both Italy and Yugoslavia have replied to communications from the Albanian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in terms usual after there has been a normal change of ministry and that recognition was not mentioned.
310
June 22 (59) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Conversation with the Prime Minister in which the Prime Minister made a plea for U. S. recognition in the same terms as transmitted through the Albanian consul at New York; and the Minister referred to U. S. policy of avoiding hasty recognition, especially in Europe, and reminded the Prime Minister of the failure of the late regime to fulfill its promises as to equality of opportunity and bringing the murderers of the two Americans to justice.
310
June 24 (39) To the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Authorization to continue relations with the present Government, if in his opinion the Government is properly constituted, stable, and in control of the country.
311
June 25 (41) To the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Information that the Department has no record of any message from the Prime Minister, either through the Albanian consul at New York or any other source. Approval of suggestion that the present regime be impressed with the importance of prompt action for the punishment of those responsible for the murder of the two Americans.
311
July 2 (62) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Information concerning the attitude of other governments toward recognition of the new regime, Greece alone having given unconditional recognition; new regime’s lack of legal status under the constitution; Minister’s intention not to address any formal communications to the Foreign Minister.
312
Sept. 16 (71) From the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Report of a growing dissatisfaction with present regime; British Minister’s belief revolution will occur within 2 weeks.
312
Oct. 10 (78) From the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Report that there is no improvement in the weakened position of the Government. Belief that it will not serve U. S. interests to take up formal relations with the present regime.
313
Nov. 20 (355) From the Minister in Albania
Decree issued November 13 calling for elections for a legislative body, to be held December 20–January 20. Probability that one of the first acts of the new Parliament will be to overthrow the present Prime Minister.
313
Dec. 12 (91) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Report of threats of incursion by refugees from Yugoslav territory, increasing as election approaches.
314
Dec. 16 (93) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Report of incursions of armed bands from Greece; strategic points to the east occupied by Ahmed Bey Zogu’s forces; fighting along Yugoslav border; public demonstrations at Tirana and Durazzo.
314
Dec. 25 (100) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Report of Ahmed Bey Zogu’s entrance into Tirana.
315
[Page LVI]

Postponement of Negotiations for a Treaty Between the United States and Albania

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Mar. 25 (83) To the Minister in Albania
Request for opinion as to the advisability of undertaking the negotiation of a treaty to define and regularize relations between the United States and Albania; for views on points to be covered in such a treaty; and for a copy of the Albanian-Italian treaty of commerce and navigation, signed January 23.
315
June 2 (274) From the Minister in Albania
Opinion that the exchange of notes dated June 23 and 25, 1922, and the U. S. declaration of March 2, 1923, in support of the principle of the open door, afford the United States a sufficient basis for carrying on relations between the two countries until the question of oil concessions has been settled. Note to Foreign Minister, April 17, 1924 (text printed) making representations in behalf of the Standard Oil Co. of New York; also copy of Albanian-Italian treaty given to the Minister by his Italian colleague.
316

BOLIVIA

Disinclination of the Secretary of State To Offer the Good Offices Requested by Bolivia for Modification of the Bolivian–Chilean Treaty of 1904

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 May 5 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs, Department of State
Conversation between the Secretary of State and the Bolivian Minister concerning the Minister’s note requesting the United States to use its good offices to bring about a modification of the treaty of 1904 between Bolivia and Chile in order that Bolivia might obtain an outlet to the sea; the Secretary’s refusal to take the action requested, since the other party to the treaty had not yet requested the United States to intervene.
320

BRAZIL

Expression of Concern by the Department of State at Brazil’s Naval Building Program

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 June 6 (24) From the Chargé in Brazil (tel.)
Naval building program submitted to the Brazilian Minister of Marine by Rear Admiral Vogelgesang, head of the U. S. Naval Mission to Brazil.
323
June 11 (18) To the Chargé in Brazil (tel.)
Instructions to convey to Admiral Vogelgesang the Department’s grave concern over the proposed naval building program and the Secretary’s view that to carry out the program on the scale proposed would afford ample justification for the criticism which has already been directed against the Naval Mission; instructions also to request Vogelgesang to submit a full explanation and, if possible, to stop action in the matter, pending the Department’s consideration.
323
[Page LVII]June 15 (27) From the Chargé in Brazil (tel.)
Vogelgesang’s explanation of his recommendations to the Minister of Marine for a 10–year replacement program; information that Ambassador Morgan, now in the United States, has a copy of the recommendation.
324
June 26 (27) To the Chargé in Brazil (tel.)
Danger that the proposed naval building program for Brazil will start a competition in naval building for Argentina and Chile. Instructions to request Vogelgesang to revise the naval program on the principle of no new construction or replacement greater than the maximum of Argentina, Brazil, or Chile.
325
July 1 (38) From the Chargé in Brazil (tel.)
Information that the recommendations for the naval program made by the Naval Mission have been withdrawn for revision.
326
Dec. 9 (77) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Instructions to cable facts concerning press report that Naval Committee of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies had adopted a resolution recommending the construction of 12 warships.
326
Dec. 10 (103) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Confirmation of press report concerning resolution adopted by Naval Committee of the Chamber of Deputies. Information that the Naval Mission was in no wise responsible.
326

BULGARIA

Extradition Treaty Between the United States and Bulgaria, Signed March 19, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Mar. 19 Treaty between the United States of America and Bulgaria
For the extradition of fugitives from justice.
328

CANADA

Ratification of the Fisheries Convention Signed on March 2, 1923, Between the United States and Great Britain

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 10 To the Canadian Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries
Information that the halibut fisheries convention has been referred to the Senate for further consideration, but that provisions of section 9 of the halibut fisheries act passed in June 1923 by the Canadian Parliament will make it difficult to obtain Senate approval of the convention without reservations. Suggestion that the act be amended so as to eliminate section 9.
335
Jan. 30 From the Prime Minister of Canada
Agreement with view that section 9 of the halibut fisheries act should be eliminated and intention to introduce necessary legislation to that end in the forthcoming session of Parliament. Desire that U. S. ratification of the convention in its present form be expedited.
336
[Page LVIII]Jan. 31 (721-19-8) From the Canadian Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries
Confirmation of telegram of January 21 (text printed) stating that an amending act will be submitted to Parliament for repeal of section 9 and amendment of section 6 of the halibut fisheries act.
337
Feb. 26 To the Prime Minister of Canada
Assertion that it will not be possible for the United States to proceed to the ratification of the convention until Canada has enacted legislation repealing section 9 of the halibut fisheries act.
338
May 8 (408) From the British Ambassador
Inquiry whether the convention has been resubmitted to the Senate and whether the Senate has agreed to its ratification without reservation.
338
May 12 To the British Ambassador
Information that the President resubmitted the convention to the Senate on December 11, 1923, and that the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations proposes to bring the matter up for consideration as soon as he is advised that legislation under consideration by Canadian Government has become law.
339
May 16 (439) From the British Ambassador
Information that the legislation in question has been passed by both Houses of Parliament and needs only Royal assent to become law. Assumption that the passage of the bill meets the Senate requirements.
339
May 21 To the British Ambassador
Inaccuracy of British assumption. Reference of British statement of situation to attention of Chairman of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
340
May 27 To the British Ambassador
Statement by the Chairman of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that the Committee cannot be expected to act on the convention until Royal assent has been given to the Canadian legislation. Urgency of expediting matter before adjournment of Congress.
340
May 28 (479) From the British Ambassador
Information that the halibut fishery amendment act, recently passed by Parliament, has received Royal assent and is therefore law.
341
June 4 To the British Ambassador
Adoption of Senate resolution, May 31, giving advice and consent to ratification of the convention. Arrangements for exchange of ratifications.
(Footnote: Ratifications exchanged at Washington, October 21; proclaimed by the President, October 22.)
341
[Page LIX]

Renewed Consideration of a Joint Project for the Improvement of the St. Lawrence Waterway

Date and Number Subject Page
1923 Nov. 17 To the British Chargé
Inquiry whether the Canadian Government would now be inclined to give consideration to a joint project for the improvement of the St. Lawrence Waterway and to enter into negotiations along the lines suggested by the United States in its note of May 17, 1922.
342
1924 Jan. 30 (97) From the British Chargé
Canada’s desire to give further consideration to U. S. suggestions of May 17, 1922; disposition, however, to act without delay upon the International Joint Committee’s proposal to enlarge the Joint Engineering Board with a view to its preparing a final report on the project, including costs; intention to form a national committee to inquire into wide questions involved; inquiry as to U. S. views on the number of engineers to be appointed by each Government to the Board; readiness to nominate technical officers to discuss with U. S. technical officers form of instructions to the enlarged Board; suggestion concerning simultaneous publication of proposals.
342
Feb. 27 To the British Chargé
Intention to appoint a national committee also. Assent to proposal that Joint Engineering Board be enlarged and suggestion that two engineers be added to the Board by each country, thus increasing Board to six members. Proposal that the two national committees be empowered to meet in joint sessions to formulate instructions for Board, etc.; and that the Board’s first instructions include certain fundamental questions which the Board presented in its 1921 report; suggestions concerning publication of proposals.
343
Mar. 12 (228) From the British Ambassador
Canada’s concurrence in U. S. suggestion that two engineers be appointed by each Government to the Joint Engineering Board; preference that instructions, etc., for Board be formulated by technical officers rather than by the two national committees, since suggested duties would be inconsistent with Canada’s purpose in constituting her national committee; agreement with suggestion concerning questions to be included in first instructions to the Board; suggestion concerning publication of correspondence.
346
Apr. 28 To the British Ambassador
Appointment of a national committee with Herbert Hoover as chairman; acceptance of proposal that technical officers be appointed by each Government to formulate instructions for the Joint Engineering Board, such instructions to be subject to review and approval by the Governments; names of U. S. representatives on the Board and of U. S. technical officers.
347
[Page LX]

Protests by the Canadian Government Against Further Diversion of the Waters of the Great Lakes

Date and Number Subject Page
1923 Dec. 29 (1111) From the British Chargé
Canada’s maintenance of attitude of opposition to further diversion of waters from Lake Michigan and inquiry as to present status of legal proceedings instituted by the U. S. Government against the Sanitary District of Chicago to prevent unauthorized diversion of water from Lake Michigan.
349
1924 Feb. 13 (144) From the British Chargé
Canada’s protest against legislation being considered by U. S. Congress providing for a waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and for the diversion of water from Lake Michigan for the sewage disposal system of Chicago.
350
Feb. 16 To the British Chargé
Information that the suit for injunction instituted by the U. S. Government against the Sanitary District of Chicago is still pending on appeal in the Supreme Court of the United States and that an attempt will be made to advance the case for early argument.
351
Mar. 21 (256) From the British Ambassador
Canada’s maintenance of attitude of opposition to pending U. S. legislation, with intimation of its possible unfortunate effect upon St. Lawrence Waterway negotiations. Inquiry as to attitude of U. S. authorities; also whether W. J. Stewart, chief hydrographer of Canada, will be permitted to attend the hearings of the special committee of the Senate on the proposed waterway from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico.
352
Apr. 2 To the British Ambassador
Information that the special committee of the Senate is not holding hearings, but that the House Committee on Rivers and Harbors will resume its hearings on April 15 on bills dealing with diversion of water from Lake Michigan and that the committee will be glad to have Mr. Stewart attend its hearings.
353
June 13 (533) From the British Ambassador
Canada’s renewed protest and request for comprehensive statement of views of U. S. Government; also Canada’s intention to publish note no. 256 of March 21.
353
June 28 To the British Ambassador
Inability of U. S. Government to formulate a comprehensive statement of views concerning diversion of water from Lake Michigan because questions involved are under consideration by Congress and the Supreme Court, both of which are in recess. Willingness to include subject among questions to be referred to the Joint Engineering Board appointed for further investigation of the proposed St. Lawrence Waterway.
355
[Page LXI]

CHILE

Resignation of President Alessandri and the Exercise of Informal Relations Between the United States Embassy and the New Administration at Santiago

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Sept. 9 (53) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Information that President Alessandri has resigned rather than accede to the demands of the military junta and that he and members of his family have sought asylum at the Embassy. Ambassador’s press statement (text printed) that Alessandri requested and was granted hospitality of the Embassy.
357
Sept. 9 (55) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Report on gratitude of Chileans for hospitality extended to Alessandri; and that calm and order prevail.
357
Sept. 10 (56) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Departure of Alessandri for Buenos Aires and Europe; Minister of Interior’s assumption of power as Acting President, observing, however, all constitutional forms; probability of new Congress and Cabinet. Request for instructions as to recognition.
358
Sept. 12 (40) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions to avoid discussion of question of recognition and to let relations continue as at present without making uncalled-for public statements.
359
Sept. 13 (42) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Press reports that Alessandri’s resignation has been accepted by the junta and that Alessandri claims he was banished and that there is no constitutional government in Chile. Instructions to avoid formal relations with new regime until situation clears.
359
Sept. 15 (43) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions to maintain frank, friendly, but informal relations, as the Department does not feel that the new regime is sufficiently established to warrant formal relations.
359
Oct. 9 To the Chilean Ambassador
Statement that the Department’s action in continuing to deal with the Ambassador must not be construed as recognition of the new regime in Chile as other than de facto authorities in control of the administration of Chile.
360
Oct. 9 (52) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Authorization to legalize documents issued by officials of new regime and authenticate their signatures indicating that the officials in question are de facto authorities now functioning in Chile.
360
[Page LXII]

CHINA

Civil War in Northern China Resulting in the Overthrow of President tsao kun and the establishment of a provisional government

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Aug. 26 (304) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Rumors of the possibility of a conflict involving Wu Pei-fu, Chi Hsieh-yuan, Lu Yung-hsiang, and ultimately Chang Tsolin; reports of mobilization in Chekiang and Kiangsu Provinces; and apprehension that clash will bring on a Chihli–Fengtien war.
361
Aug. 28 (312) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Shanghai, August 27 (text printed) reporting disruption of rail service and suggesting immediate dispatch of destroyers. Telegram from the consul at Nanking (text printed) reporting mobilization of Kiangsu troops at border of Chekiang near Soochow. Press reports of interruption of Nanking-Shanghai railroad service and of fighting between troops of Chi and Ho Feng-lin.
361
Aug. 29 (313) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Note addressed to the Chinese Foreign Minister, August 28, by the American, British, French, and Japanese representatives (text printed) reminding the Chinese Government of its obligations to prevent loss of life and property of members of the foreign community in and around Shanghai.
362
Aug. 30 (314) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram dated August 28 from the consul general at Shanghai (text printed) reporting imminence of an attack on Woosung forts by naval forces from Nanking and Foochow, and requesting that the U. S. commander in chief be informed so that he may protect U. S. shipping at Woosung and on the lower Yangtze.
363
Aug. 30 (315) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Oral representations by American, British, French, and Japanese representatives to the Chinese Foreign Minister against the impending battle between Woosung forts and Nanking navy, with intimation of purpose to enforce neutrality in respect of the river and its mouth if the Chinese fail to make a declaration of neutrality with respect to the same.
363
Sept. 2 (318) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from Shanghai, September 1, from the military attaché (text printed) reporting expected opening of hostilities on September 4. Excerpts from a press interview given August 27 by Chi. Belief that Chi, Wu, and the Peking Government intend to eliminate Lu. Fear that Chang will attack Wu and all of China will become embroiled.
364
Sept. 3 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
The breaking out of hostilities near Shanghai between the forces of Chi and Ho; arrangements by foreign naval contingent to land forces to protect the foreign settlement, if necessary.
366
Sept. 6 (324) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Orders issued by opposing Chinese admirals restricting traffic on the Yangtze; foreign representatives’ inquiry of their governments whether to use force to prevent such restriction; opinion of the American commander in chief that he should use force only to protect American lives and property.
366
[Page LXIII]Sept. 6 (325) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Return of the naval attaché from inspection trip to Harbin and Mukden and his report that there was no evidence that Chang intended to move in the immediate future.
366
Sept. 6 (213) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions that use of American naval forces on Yangtze and Whangpoo should be confined to protection of American lives and property, but that exigencies of situation demand an appropriate cooperation and that the Whangpoo should be kept open from Shanghai to the sea. Assumption that the naval authorities of the powers in those waters will use proper means to that end.
367
Sept. 7 (329) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Request for elucidation of the Department’s position regarding use of American naval forces on the Whangpoo, as instructions appear somewhat contradictory.
367
Sept. 8 (330) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram, September 7, from the consul at Mukden (text printed) reporting Chang’s announcement to foreign consuls of his intention to order mobilization in the Three Eastern Provinces in self-defense.
368
Sept. 8 (331) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Report that the Chekiang and Nanking naval forces will observe the notification that no firing on Whangpoo will be permitted.
368
Sept. 8 (332) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Presidential mandate, issued September 7 at the request of Chi and Wu, depriving Lu and Ho of offices, ranks, and decorations for defying the Central Government and attacking Kiangsu on September 4; also ordering Chi to mobilize forces to cope with the situation. Chang’s alleged letter of August 30 to President Tsao, published September 3, sharply critical of the Peking administration and threatening armed intervention.
368
Sept. 8 (334) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Chinese oral reply, September 3, to the representations of August 30, conveying assurances of protection for foreign lives and property but omitting any reference to neutralization of the Whangpoo. Memorandum, in reply, by the American, British, French, Italian, and Japanese representatives, regretting the Chinese failure to mention neutralization of the Whangpoo and intimating the possibility that they might have to use forcible measures to prevent fighting on the Whangpoo.
370
Sept. 8 (214) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions that exigencies of situation on the Whangpoo seem to require appropriate cooperation with other naval powers represented in those waters for suitable protection of American lives and property; also that should restrictions imposed by the Chinese regarding the Yangtze endanger American lives and property naval authorities would be expected to afford protection.
371
Sept. 9 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Report on indecisive fighting near Shanghai by Kiangsu and Chekiang forces; inactivity of Nanking and Fukien naval forces; precautionary measures taken by foreign naval contingents.
371
[Page LXIV]Sept. 10 (151) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
The Department’s attitude of strict neutrality in Chinese disturbance, its chief concern being protection of American lives and property; denial that there has been an exchange of views with any of the interested powers. Text of the Department’s telegram no. 214, September 8, to Peking, transmitted for the Chargé’s information.
372
Sept. 10 (227) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s assertion of neutral attitude of Japan toward struggle in China, and reference to press reports alleging that Wu was being backed by the United States and Chang by Japan and that Great Britain and United States were exchanging views on Chinese situation.
373
Sept. 11 (339) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Report that both sides in conflict have agreed to neutralization of the Whangpoo and to revocation of regulations regarding the navigation of the lower Yangtze and the Whangpoo.
373
Sept. 12 (154) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to communicate orally to Shidehara the first part of the Department’s telegram no. 151 of September 10.
(Instructions to repeat to Peking for information the same portion of telegram no. 151.)
373
Sept. 12 (342) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Disagreement of foreign diplomatic representatives with proposal of the senior foreign naval officers at Shanghai to occupy Woosung forts and hoist foreign flags.
374
Sept. 13 (343) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Foreign Office reply to note of August 28, giving assurance that every effort will be made to protect foreign lives and property in the vicinity of Shanghai, and requesting that a warning be issued to foreign nationals not to become involved in hostilities. Legation’s circular instructions to consuls to this effect.
374
Sept. 13 (216) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Approval of action taken regarding proposal of senior naval officers at Shanghai to occupy Woosung forts. Letter of September 12 to the Secretary of the Navy (text printed), disapproving, as unneutral and unwarranted, the action of senior foreign naval officers at Shanghai in notifying the Chekiang gunboats that the Nanking navy, representing the Kiangsu forces, will not be permitted to enter the Whangpoo.
375
Sept. 14 From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Report of heavy troop movements from Mukden southward.
376
Sept. 15 (217) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Approval of action in circularizing consuls as indicated in the Chargé’s telegram no. 343 of September 13.
376
Sept. 17 (352) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram dated September 16 from the consul at Mukden (text printed) reporting the invasion of Chihli by Fengtien forces on September 15. Confirmation of reported invasion; of heavy troop movements north from Peking; and of Wu’s arrival in Peking.
376
[Page LXV]Sept. 17 (353) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Hope that the action of the senior foreign naval officer at Shanghai in notifying the Chekiang admiral that vessels of his fleet must not leave the Whangpoo and the Nanking admiral that his vessels must not enter the Whangpoo, meets with the Department’s views as to neutrality.
377
Sept. 17 (354) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s memorandum reiterating the charge that Chekiang started the fighting, taking exception to intimation of representatives of interested powers that they might have to use forcible measures to prevent fighting on the Whangpoo, renewing assurances concerning protection of foreign lives and property, and expressing desire to restrict area of military operations by neutralization of certain areas of Shanghai and Woosung.
Memorandum, in reply, by American, British, French, Italian, and Japanese representatives (text printed) refusing to express an opinion on the neutralization scheme.
377
Sept. 18 (356) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Presidential mandates of September 17, ordering all commanders of troops to proceed against Chang and the advancing Fengtien troops, appointing Wu Pei-fu commander in chief to suppress rebellion, and making other appointments.
378
Sept. 26 (364) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Memorandum of the diplomatic body at Peking sent September 25 to the Chinese Government and to Chang (text printed) expressing concern over use of airplanes for bombing of undefended towns, and declaring that authority ordering airplane attack on Peking or any treaty port would be held strictly accountable for loss of foreign lives or property.
379
Oct. 9 (381) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that Chekiang vessels left the Whangpoo September 21 and have gone over to the Government; that Chargé and British Minister on October 8 refused to consent to the request of the Chinese Government that Admiral Lu’s vessels be permitted to enter the Whangpoo in view of the changed circumstances.
380
Oct. 11 (383) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Wu’s departure from Peking to direct operations at northern front.
381
Oct. 13 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Report that Generals Lu and Ho have deserted.
381
Oct. 13 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Confirmation of report that Generals Lu and Ho have deserted and have sailed for Japan.
381
Oct. 13 (386) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Interruption of train service between Tientsin and Shanhaikwan. Decision of foreign commandants to set up a limited international train service.
382
[Page LXVI]Oct. 13 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Probable reasons for the desertion of Generals Lu and Ho. Appointment of new commissioner of police for Shanghai and Woosung to replace Ho’s appointee. Precautionary measures to prevent retreating Chekiang forces from seeking shelter in concessions.
382
Oct. 15 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Occupation of Lunghua arsenal and yamen by Kiangsu troops October 14; Chi’s expected arrival at Shanghai; appointment of new officials. Efforts of Hsu to reorganize the Chekiang forces.
382
Oct. 23 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Chi’s return to Nanking without visiting Shanghai. Improvement in local conditions.
383
Oct. 23 From the Consul General at Tientsin (tel.)
Radio message from the Chargé at Peking (text printed) reporting General Feng’s return to Peking and his peaceful occupation of the city.
383
Oct. 24 From the Consul General at Tientsin (tel.)
Radio message, October 23, from the Chargé at Peking (text printed) reporting C. T. Wang’s statement that he and Huang Fu, Minister of Education, participated in Feng’s coup d’état; that other members of the Cabinet have been arrested or are under surveillance; that there will be a government by a committee which will invite Chang, Sun, Tuan, and others to a conference.
384
Oct. 24 (405) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Tuan’s message announcing his intended arrival at Peking on October 26 as commander in chief of the National People’s Army and requesting moral support of the U. S. Government. Presidential mandates, issued under pressure, ordering cessation of hostilities, relieving Wu of offices, etc. Note of treaty powers insisting upon restoration of means of communication. Measures to increase Legation Guard.
384
Oct. 26 (410) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Wu’s arrival at Tientsin, with the evident intention of trying to reestablish himself in Peking.
386
Oct. 29 (416) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Report that Tuan has replaced Feng as commander of National People’s Army, and that friction and jealousy exist, causing difficulty in agreeing upon appointments; question whether Wu or Feng will receive support of provincial leaders. Arrival of additional marines.
386
Oct. 31 (418) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Recommendations to the commander in chief of Asiatic Fleet to send U. S. naval vessel to Tientsin as additional protection to American lives and property.
387
[Page LXVII]Nov. 1 (425) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Mandate, issued October 31, announcing the resignation of all members of the Cabinet except Huang Fu and the appointment of a new Cabinet with Huang Fu as Premier and C. T. Wang as Foreign Minister. Noncommittal attitude of provincial leaders toward Feng and lack of public optimism in regard to Feng’s plan for national conference.
387
Nov. 3 (427) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Report that Wu’s position at Yangtsun has collapsed and his forces are disorganized; that Chang Tso-lin has captured several towns and controls railroad to Peitang; that President Tsao Kun resigned November 2 and the Cabinet will perform the President’s duties; that Tuan and Sun are expected soon at Peking; and that C. T. Wang assumed duties as Foreign Minister on November 1.
388
Nov. 5 (429) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Official notification of the President’s resignation on November 2 and the Cabinet’s assumption of his duties. Wu’s departure from Tangku November 3, leaving Feng’s troops in complete control. Sun’s intended departure from Canton for Peking November 6. Resumption of daily international train service to Tientsin.
389
Nov. 5 (269) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Report that the American consul at Tsingtau has agreed with his British and Japanese colleagues to advise Wu not to land at Tsingtau. Instructions to inform the consul of the Department’s disapproval of such intervention in Chinese internal affairs.
(Instructions to repeat to Tokyo.)
389
Nov. 6 (434) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Eviction of Manchu ex-Emperor and entourage from the Forbidden City and their removal to Prince Chun’s palace. Call paid by British, Netherland, and Japanese Ministers upon Foreign Minister to be assured of the safety of the ex-Emperor. Belief of credible persons that the action against the ex-Emperor was Bolshevik inspired.
390
Nov. 7 (435) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Excerpt from Foreign Minister’s press statement, November 6 (text printed) implying intention to take up question of treaty revision.
391
Nov. 7 (436) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Correspondence with naval officers and consuls at Tsingtau and Chefoo (texts printed) regarding arrangements to prevent Wu from landing, Department’s disapproval of such interference in China’s internal affairs, and withdrawal by the consul at Tsingtau of his sanction of arrangements.
391
Nov. 12 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Telegram, November 11, from the consul at Nanking (text printed) reporting that Chi and Lu have dispatched a vessel to meet Wu, who is expected to arrive on the 13th for a conference; that Chi will accept leadership of Tuan but not that of Feng or Chang; that representatives of eight governors are assembling to decide upon course of action.
393
[Page LXVIII]Nov. 11 [12?] (142) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that Chang and Feng are in Tientsin conferring with Tuan and others; that Wu has sailed from Chefoo, destination unknown; that Sun will leave for the north November 13. Concern over Soviet influence in present Peking Government.
393
Nov. 13 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Information that on November 12 a Chinese man-of-war and four troop transports arrived at Woosung and were joined by other naval vessels and a transport; and that some of the vessels proceeded up the Yangtze. Rumor that Wu is on board one of the vessels.
395
Nov. 18 (448) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Reports that Chang, Feng, and followers have appealed by circular telegram to provinces to support Tuan as Provisional Chief Executive of the Chinese Republic. Telegram from the consul general at Hankow (text printed) reporting Wu’s arrival; his manifesto proclaiming the setting up of a Yangtze military government; and his invitation to Tuan to come to Wuchang to head military government. Sun’s arrival at Shanghai November 17 and his statement (text printed) expressing his usual attitude toward foreigners and concessions.
395
Nov. 20 (451) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram, November 19, from the consul general at Hankow (text printed) reporting Wu’s departure for Chengchow and failure to carry out plan for military government.
397
Nov. 21 (452) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Official information that Tuan will come to Peking within 5 days and that the Cabinet will hand over to him the powers of Premier and President. Chargé’s intention not to enter into formal relations with Tuan or his representatives pending Department’s instructions.
397
Nov. 22 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Telegram, November 22, from the consul at Nanking (text printed) reporting Chi’s endorsement of Tuan while assisting Wu defensively.
398
Nov. 24 (455) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Assumption of office by Tuan as Chief Executive of the Republic of China; indecision of the Cabinet whether to continue to function or turn over its powers to Tuan or to a new Cabinet. Arrival of Chang at Peking with about a thousand troops.
398
Nov. 25 (456) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s note, November 24 (text printed) containing the official notice of Tuan’s assumption of office. Mandates published November 24, promulgating the Provisional Government and appointing a Cabinet. The Chargé’s recommendation that he be instructed to associate himself with other Heads of Legations in paying respects to Tuan as head of the provisional de facto government.
399
Nov. 26 (295) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Authorization to act in association with other heads of missions, making it clear that action does not imply formal recognition.
401
[Page LXIX]Nov. 29 (459) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Chargé’s exchange of calls with Chang. Individual calls of diplomatic representatives upon Tuan. Comments on Cabinet appointments and Feng’s efforts to resign his commands.
401
Dec. 1 (465) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Report on views expressed by Chang, during call on November 29, regarding Bolshevik activities in China.
403
Dec. 2 (466) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Chang’s sudden departure from Peking, taking headquarters’ staff and bodyguard.
405
Dec. 3 (468) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Apprehension that Chang’s sudden departure from Peking, the ex-Emperor’s unexpected refuge, November 29, in the Japanese Legation, Feng’s presence in vicinity of Peking, and Sun’s imminent arrival, indicate that extreme Kuomintang and Soviet influence dominate Peking. British Minister’s suggestion of an informal meeting of Washington Conference powers.
405
Dec. 3 (300) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Approval of observation that Bolshevik activity in China is primarily question for domestic Chinese administration.
407
Dec. 5 (473) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram, December 4, from the consul general at Hankow (text printed) reporting Wu’s flight from Loyang on December 2, his troops refusing support at Chengchow; and a popular feeling against Wu which will prevent him from recovering control of troops and recruiting new army.
408
Dec. 13 (480) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Mandate issued December 11 dismissing Chi from office as Military Governor of Kiangsu. Question whether Chi will vacate post or make armed resistance.
(Footnote: Information that Chi retired to private life; but resumed military activities in January 1925.)
408
Dec. 22 (500) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram sent to the commander in chief of the Asiatic Fleet (text printed) agreeing to withdrawal of destroyers from North China waters.
409

Maintenance of a United Front by the Powers in Opposition to the Threatened Seizure of Customs at Canton by Sun Yat-sen

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Mar. 26 (280) From the British Ambassador
View that it is no longer necessary to maintain a joint naval demonstration at Canton in consequence of Sun Yat-sen’s threat to seize customs, provided an arrangement can be made for its renewal in case of necessity. Inquiry whether the United States is in agreement with this view and would be prepared to cooperate in arranging for a renewal of the naval demonstration in case of necessity.
409
[Page LXX]Mar. 31 To the British Ambassador
Assertion that the United States, without committing itself to any definite engagement with respect to eventual action in regard to situation at Canton, is aware of no circumstances which would cause it to alter its previous attitude of cooperation in the event of a similar emergency occurring in the future.
410
Apr. 12 To the British Ambassador
Information that the American Minister at Peking has reported that there is no real reason for continuing the naval demonstration and that he and his colleagues are of the opinion that at the time of the withdrawal of extra vessels, the consuls should make it known in private conversation that the ships will return if Sun indicates any intention to seize customs.
410
Apr. 25 (109) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram, April 24, from the consul general at Canton (text printed) expressing opinion that the American destroyer should be withdrawn. Telegram from the commander in chief of the Asiatic Fleet (text printed) concurring in this opinion and stating his intention to withdraw destroyer in near future.
411
Oct. 20 (397) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram, October 19, from the consul general at Canton (text printed) reporting rumor that Sun will attempt to seize the customs on the 20th and requesting instructions. Telegram, October 20, to the consul general at Canton and the commander in chief of the Asiatic Fleet (text printed), instructing them that American vessels should not take forcible measures to prevent seizure of customs until further instructed and unless British, French, and Japanese ships cooperate in the action. Request for instructions.
411
Oct. 22 (243) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Department’s instructions to London, Paris, and Tokyo to ascertain the views of the respective Governments regarding maintenance of the integrity of the Canton customs (excerpt printed). Approval of telegrams dispatched to the consul general at Canton and the commander in chief of the Asiatic Fleet.
413
Oct. 22 (398) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram, October 21, from the consul at Canton (text printed) reporting presence of American, British, and French vessels in port and transference of everything essential in the customhouse to Shameen, from which the commissioner could cany on even if Sun seized the customs building.
413
Oct. 25 (1006) From the British Ambassador
Hope that the U. S. representative at Peking will be authorized to concert with the British representative in arranging for a renewal of the naval demonstration, in view of the new threat of the Canton Government to seize the customhouse and declare Canton a free port.
414
[Page LXXI]Oct. 25 (274) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s statement that Japan attaches great importance to maintenance of integrity of Canton customs but would be inclined to join in a naval demonstration only as a last resort; his belief that the consular corps at Canton should address a vigorous protest to the Canton Government and that the powers should take positive measures only if the protest is disregarded; his opinion that because of the changed situation at Peking, Sun will probably not carry out his threat to seize the customs.
414
Oct. 26 (463) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Information that the French attitude regarding maintenance of integrity of Canton customs had in no way been modified; that the French Government was prepared to oppose seizure and considered instructions given admiral last December would apply automatically at any recurrence of the situation.
415
Nov. 8 To the British Ambassador
Information from the British Foreign Office that Sun is threatening seizure only of the native Canton customs, and that naval authorities consider there is no need for naval action at present.
415
Nov. 12 (1092) From the British Ambassador
Information that the British representatives at Paris, Rome, Tokyo, and Lisbon, have been instructed to inform the Governments that, as the Canton Government apparently means to seize only the native customs, it is considered that joint naval action would have no value, and that the British representative at Peking is of the opinion that the Canton Government will await developments in North China before interfering with customs.
416

Recognition by the United States and Other Powers of the Provisional Government as the “de Facto” Government of China

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Nov. 6 (272) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Request for comments upon the French suggestion, to which Belgium has assented, that the powers withhold recognition of the new Chinese Government with a view to forcing it to give satisfactory assurances of its readiness to fulfill its treaty obligations to the powers.
(Instructions to repeat to Tokyo.)
416
Nov. 11 (439) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Proposal, made at meeting of diplomatic body on November 5, by the French and Belgian Chargés, and concurred in by the Italian Minister, that chiefs of missions at their initial call upon the new Foreign Minister make reserves in respect of the new regime and that the powers obtain a guarantee from China to carry out its treaty obligations before recognizing the new President when elected. Statement of several Ministers, concurred in by U. S. Chargé, that they considered the present situation a Cabinet change and hence there was no need for raising the question of recognition. Chargé’s opinion that the proposal of the French and Belgian Chargés was primarily a bid for diplomatic body’s support in the gold franc case.
417
[Page LXXII]Nov. 11 (277) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Department’s desire to avoid any commitment as to status of the new regime at Peking, in view of the indeterminate situation; and preference that the Legation’s de facto relations with the regime be as informal and infrequent as compatible with protection of U. S. interests.
419
Nov. 11 (291) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Information that, in reply to the French suggestion concerning withholding recognition of new regime in China, the Japanese Foreign Minister expressed the opinion that the regime was legally constituted and therefore the question of recognition did not arise.
419
Undated [Rec’d Nov. 11] From the French Embassy
Suggestion that recognition of new regime in China be withheld with a view to forcing China to give satisfactory assurances of its readiness to fulfill its treaty obligations to the powers.
419
Nov. 12 (279) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that on November 8 the French Ambassador confirmed the French suggestion and that the Secretary, in reply, had expressed the opinion that it was not wise to lay down a program to cover eventualities and that it seemed necessary to await developments; and that the same opinion had been expressed to the Italian Ambassador.
(Instructions to repeat to Tokyo.)
420
Nov. 13 (445) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that the Foreign Minister’s notice of his assumption of duties received the customary replies from the diplomatic body; that the Foreign Minister’s call was returned by all of them but they refrained from calling at the Foreign Office on the regular diplomatic day; that the diplomatic body generally considered the situation merely a Cabinet change; that the Acting Premier’s reception, however, was canceled because the diplomatic body decided not to attend.
421
Nov. 15 (294) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Aide-mémoire from the Japanese Foreign Office to the French Ambassador (text printed) acquiescing in the French opinion regarding recognition of the new Government in China and in the importance of obtaining assurance of the fulfillment of international obligations.
422
Nov. 18 (479) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Foreign Office statement that the British reply to the French representations was in substance identical with the U. S. reply.
423
Nov. 24 (434) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to discuss with Foreign Minister the Secretary’s views on the Chinese situation as set forth in Department’s memorandum to the French Embassy which is to be repeated from Paris; also to explain that, in the Secretary’s judgment, there should be no foreign intervention, encouragement should be given any government likely to become stable, and the new regime should be influenced to observe treaty obligations.
(Instructions to repeat to France for information.)
423
[Page LXXIII]Nov. 25 To the French Embassy
Disposition of the United States to associate itself with other treaty powers in adopting an attitude of reserve until a regime is constituted in China likely to be stable and to fulfill China’s treaty obligations. Suggestion that reciprocal assurances should be offered China that powers will put into action the provisions of Washington Conference resolution on extraterritoriality; and that France contribute toward amelioration of the situation by ratifying the two treaties concerning China concluded at the Washington Conference.
426
Dec. 1 (502) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the Foreign Minister is in absolute accord with the Secretary’s views on the Chinese situation; that the Foreign Office intends to express similar views to the French in the near future; and that the British Minister at Peking has been instructed to urge upon the Chinese an early compromise with France on the gold franc controversy.
428
Dec. 4 (314) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Japanese statement of views on the Chinese situation prepared at the request of the British Ambassador (text printed).
429
Dec. 4 (199) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Authorization to inform Foreign Minister orally of Department’s communications with the British and French Governments on the Chinese situation and to discuss the subject informally.
(Instructions to repeat to Peking.)
430
Dec. 4 (472) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Draft statement of representatives of the treaty powers (text printed) offering full support to the Provisional Government at Peking on understanding that the Government is legally constituted and intends to respect China’s treaty obligations; also, offering reciprocal assurances that their Governments will proceed with carrying out of the Washington treaties and resolutions. Recommendation that the statement receive immediate approval. Possibility of another coup d’état with the purpose of establishing a Soviet government in China.
431
Dec. 5 From the Netherland Minister
Foreign Minister’s opinion that the proposed statement of the representatives of the treaty powers will be considered as proof of weakness and will lead to no desirable result. Request for the Secretary’s views.
433
Dec. 5 (302) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Approval of proposed statement; and authorization to sign if all colleagues sign. Instructions to notify Department if any of his colleagues fail to sign, in order that the Department may take up the subject with appropriate governments.
434
Dec. 6 To the Netherland Minister
Views on the Chinese situation. Hope that the Netherland Government will join in signing the proposed statement of the representatives of the treaty powers.
434
[Page LXXIV]Dec. 6 (474) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
British Minister’s authorization to sign the statement even without French concurrence. Chargé’s request for similar authorization. Urgency for taking action prior to any hostile declaration by Sun Yat-sen urging cancelation or revision of treaties.
436
Dec. 6 (303) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that the representatives at Paris, Brussels, The Hague, Rome, and Lisbon are being informed of the proposed statement and the Department’s views and are being instructed to discuss the matter informally and orally with the various Foreign Ministers.
437
Dec. 6 (440) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to send certain appropriate correspondence to missions at Brussels, The Hague, Lisbon, and Rome, and direct them to discuss the Chinese situation with the Foreign Ministers in the several countries, in the hope that they will instruct their representatives at Peking to join in signing the proposed statement.
437
Dec. 8 From the Netherland Minister
Information that the Netherland Minister at Peking has been authorized to sign the statement.
438
Dec. 9 (307) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Authorization to join the British and Japanese representatives and those of any of the other powers concerned, in case they are instructed to take like action, in sending the statement to the Chinese Government.
(Instructions to repeat to Embassy at Tokyo.)
438
Dec. 9 (478) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Amendment of the statement and its signature by representatives of all the treaty powers except Portugal. Plan to deliver the statement on December 9 and release it to the press on December 10.
439
Dec. 10 From the French Ambassador
Justification of refusal to ratify treaties concerning China signed at Washington or to carry out resolution relative to extraterritoriality, as long as China fails to meet its obligations to France regarding resumption of service of Boxer indemnity in gold. Desire that American influence be brought to bear upon China to meet its engagements.
440
Dec. 10 (309) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Approval of the Chargé’s action regarding amendment of the statement of December 9 and of its delivery to China.
(Instructions to repeat to Tokyo.)
442
Jan. 5 (2696) From the Minister in China
Foreign Minister’s note, December 23 (text printed) expressing appreciation of joint statement of December 9 and giving assurance that the Chinese Government will continue to respect its obligations.
442
[Page LXXV]

Negotiations Leading to the Occupation of the Russian Legation at Peking by the Newly Accredited Soviet Ambassador to China

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 June 11 (170) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s note, June 9, to the Netherland Minister as dean of the diplomatic corps (text printed) referring to the note of the diplomatic corps, January 11, 1921, by which custody of the former Russian Legation was entrusted to the dean of the diplomatic corps until the arrival at Peking of a representative of a recognized Russian Government; and requesting that the Legation premises be returned to the representative of the Soviet Government in China. Dean’s reply June 11, stating that a duly accredited representative of Russia should apply to the dean of the diplomatic corps for possession of the property.
443
June 30 (209) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s note, June 27 (substance printed) expressing the hope that the dean will comply with his request for the return of the Russian Legation premises, as any other course would not only embarrass the Chinese Government but would also prejudice the right of foreign powers to establish Legations on Chinese territory free from any condition other than consent of Chinese Government.
444
July 9 (145) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Feeling that the Russian Legation premises should be turned over to the Russian representative upon his request for possession; approval of stand of the diplomatic corps in refusing to transfer the property at the request of the Chinese authorities; and opinion that the Chinese Government can claim no voice in the disposition of the property beyond determining whom to recognize as representative of Russia in China. Instructions to inform the Foreign Office.
446
July 12 (230) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Dean’s note, July 12, to the Chinese Government expressing obligation not to return the Russian Legation premises except to a representative of the Russian Government who will give preliminary assurances of maintenance of arrangements constituting conventional statute of the diplomatic quarter; and requesting that the Ministers be informed of the name of the duly accredited Soviet representative and that he be asked to address them directly. Information that as yet neither Karakhan nor anyone else has presented credentials as Soviet Ambassador or Minister to China; that Karakhan’s credentials were for the special purpose of concluding an agreement.
446
July 25 (258) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Minister’s conversation, in his capacity as senior representative of protocol powers in absence of Netherland Minister, with Karakhan, the newly appointed Soviet Ambassador to China, who stated that his Government contemplated the abandonment in the near future of its rights and interests under the protocol but that he desired on entering the Legation Quarter to maintain good neighborly relations and to observe municipal regulations, agreed to submit a written record of his observations on the understanding that they were not to be regarded as a fulfillment of preliminary conditions but as a voluntary expression of his views, and said he would make a formal demand of the powers for the return of the Legation premises.
448
[Page LXXVI]July 29 (175) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that the United States would not feel justified in authorizing the Minister to associate himself with any effort to stipulate conditions precedent to the transfer of the Legation property to Karakhan; and that the necessities of case would be satisfactorily met if Karakhan’s written statement contains definite assurances concerning defense, taxation, and municipal regulations in Legation Quarter, not only in present circumstances but also in the event that the Soviet regime abandons its rights and interests under the protocol.
449
Aug. 1 (270) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Receipt of Karakhan’s note requesting return of the Legation premises and his written statement of conversation with the U. S. Minister, which failed to mention defense of Legation Quarter. Request for approval of draft reply (text printed) conveying consent of protocol powers to the return of the Legation premises, but reserving full liberty of action in respect to the effect the Soviet renunciation of the protocol might have upon the protocol powers’ rights, privileges, etc.
450
Aug. 6 (183) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Suggestion that the draft reply to Karakhan be amended to include a reservation that the note should not be construed as constituting recognition of the Soviet regime by the powers which have not recognized that regime; and that the reply be signed after the Minister’s departure from Peking by some other representative of the diplomatic corps, so that it might not be construed as U. S. recognition.
451
Aug. 9 (277) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Recommendation that the Legation be authorized to omit the presentation to representatives of protocol powers of Department’s suggested reservation, provided such reservation is not raised by any other power. Arrangements for the Italian Minister to sign the reply to Karakhan, since the U. S. Minister is departing from Peking on August 13.
452
Aug. 11 (191) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions, in case suggested reservation is not deemed expedient by the other powers, that reservation regarding recognition be made on behalf of the United States; desire also that the U. S. Minister’s title of “dean of the protocol powers” be used in the note when referring to the U. S. Minister’s conversation of July 24.
453
Aug. 18 (292) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that the note to Karakhan was delivered in its original form with such verbal changes as were made necessary by the absence of the U. S. Minister and its signature by the Japanese Minister; also that the Japanese Minister delivered a separate note to Karakhan containing the U. S. reservation. Reports that prior to his conversation with the U. S. Minister, Karakhan had exchanged notes with the Chinese Foreign Minister, giving up Russia’s extraterritorial rights.
453
[Page LXXVII]Aug. 20 (296) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Karakhan’s note to the Japanese Minister, August 19 (text printed) refusing to accept his note of August 18 conveying the U. S. reservation and regretting that Japan accepted such a commission at a time when Japan and the Soviet Government were engaged in negotiations to restore normal relations. Statement issued by Bolshevik news agency (text printed) commenting on the affair in offensive language. Japanese Minister’s telegram to Japan for instructions whether to return the note to Karakhan.
454
Aug. 25 (303) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that Karakhan’s note of August 19 has not yet been returned; that Karakhan has not replied to the note of August 18 offering to return the Legation premises; that the Russo-Japanese negotiations have made no advance.
457
Aug. 26 (305) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Japanese Minister’s negotiations with Karakhan for the withdrawal of Karakhan’s note of August 19 and the substitution of another note of the same date omitting statements objectionable to the Japanese Government; probability that the new note will return the Japanese note of August 18 containing the U. S. reservation. Request for instructions.
457
Aug. 26 (306) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Excerpt from Karakhan’s note, August 25, to the British Minister as dean of the diplomatic corps, acknowledging the offer to return the Legation premises and suggesting a modus vivendi between the Soviet Embassy and the other Legations in the diplomatic quarter. British Minister’s opinion that this reply is satisfactory. U. S. Minister’s opinion that the reply is unsatisfactory but is the best that can be hoped for.
458
Aug. 28 (204) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Advice that the Department perceives no objection to Karakhan’s note as the basis of concluding a modus vivendi; and believes it unwise to engage in further negotiations.
459
Aug. 28 (205) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions to receive a copy of Karakhan’s note of August 19 if Japanese Minister transmits it and to file it as unworthy of further notice.
459
Aug. 31 (316) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that the negotiations looking to the withdrawal of the note of August 19 by Karakhan failed; and the Japanese Minister addressed a note to Karakhan dated August 20 (text printed) declining to receive back his note of August 18 containing the U. S. reservation.
460
Sept. 3 (321) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Karakhan’s note, August 30, to the Japanese Minister (text printed) again refusing to accept his note of August 18 containing the U. S. reservation. Japanese Minister’s reply, September 2 (text printed) stating that the note and its enclosure have been transmitted to the Netherland Minister, the senior representative of the protocol powers. Japanese Minister’s decision to take no further action.
461
[Page LXXVIII]Sept. 8 (333) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Karakhan’s offer to write a note, to be dated August 26, supplementing his note of August 25 and confirming his statement that the Soviet Government considers itself a cosignatory power to the 1901 protocol. Delay in acceptance caused by the French Chargé’s desire to incorporate a restatement of the powers’ reservation of rights under protocol should the Soviet Government renounce its rights in the future.
462
Sept. 12 (340) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that Karakhan’s note of August 26 has been accepted and acknowledged; that Karakhan enters into possession of the Legation September 12 but will not occupy it for several weeks.
462

Efforts To Obtain Unanimity Among the Powers Regarding the Proposal To Raise the Diplomatic Rank of Their Representatives in China

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 June 14 (163) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Advice that the Chinese Chargé has inquired regarding intentions of U. S. Government concerning the raising of its Peking Legation to an Embassy, in view of the fact that the Soviet Government is appointing an Ambassador to China. Instructions to make a discreet effort to learn the Government’s intentions in the matter.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris. Sent also to Japan, with instructions to repeat to Peking for information.)
463
June 17 (155) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s statement that he had received no information from Peking with respect to the possibility that any of the principal powers would raise their Peking Legations to Embassies; that it would present obvious difficulties for Japan since the question would have to be presented to the Diet and next year’s budget had already been voted; that he would inform the U. S. Minister if any change in the status of the Peking Legation was contemplated by his Government.
464
June 19 (308) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French Government’s opposition to changing its Legation in China to an Embassy.
464
July 2 (299) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Foreign Office note requesting U. S. views on a draft reply to the Chinese Chargé’s inquiries (text printed) informing him that Great Britain sees no reason why the appointment of a Soviet Ambassador at Peking should occasion their considering any proposal to change the status of their representative at Peking. Request for instructions.
464
[Page LXXIX]July 7 (188) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to express the Secretary’s appreciation of the action of the Foreign Office in consulting him and to state that the Secretary shares the views of the British Government and proposes to inform the Chinese Chargé that there is no occasion for alteration of the diplomatic representation between the United States and China.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris for information.)
465
July 7 (189) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to discuss with Foreign Office the situation which would be created by China’s receiving a Soviet Ambassador, his status within the diplomatic body and probable refusal to cooperate, since the Soviet regime has renounced treaty rights and concessions in China.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris for information.)
466
July 10 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Chinese Chargé
Under Secretary’s informal intimation that the U. S. Government did not feel that there was occasion for any alteration in the status of U. S. diplomatic representation at Peking.
467
July 11 (184) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Statement received from the Foreign Minister (text printed) announcing Japan’s intention to exchange Ambassadors with China on or about April 1, 1925, and proposing that other powers, if so disposed, arrange to raise their Peking Legations simultaneously. Information that the British, French, and Italian Governments are also being informed.
468
July 12 (248) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Foreign Office note (excerpt printed) conveying the information that the British reply has been sent to the Chinese Government and the expectation that the United States will reply to the Chinese Government in a similar sense.
468
July 12 (121) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to advise the Foreign Minister that the U. S. Government has indicated to China that it sees no occasion for any change in the status of its diplomatic representation; and to express the hope that, if the Japanese decision is open to reconsideration, the question be examined from the viewpoint of the interests of international solidarity in China.
(Instructions to repeat to Peking for information.)
469
July 16 (186) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s denial that he desired “to steal a march on the other powers”; his feeling that the United States and Great Britain acted without waiting to hear Japan’s opinion; his enumeration of reasons for raising rank of the mission; and his emphasis of the point that Japan had not yet replied to China, in spite of China’s reiterated representations, and had no intention of acting before receiving the replies of the powers to his communication of July 11.
469
[Page LXXX]July 18 (126) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to explain to the Foreign Minister the Department’s understanding that Japan, as well as Great Britain and France, had no predilection for the Chinese proposal to raise the status of the Peking Legations and hence the Department felt it was acting with due consideration for the views of the other interested powers in refusing the Chinese proposal.
470
July 22 (253) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that Japan regards favorably the idea of raising the Peking Legation to an Embassy and the Italian Government is giving the matter careful consideration; also that Karakhan has been appointed Ambassador to China and will be received by the President in a few days.
471
July 22 (192) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s suggestion that the powers who have already notified China of their decision, say further to China that they do not believe the matter should be taken up so long as the present unsatisfactory conditions prevail in China; his intention to inform China that Japan could not allow her action to be influenced by that of Russia and was still studying the matter.
472
July 26 (130) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Information that the Embassy at London has been instructed to discuss with the British Foreign Office the Japanese suggestion and has been informed that the Department is not averse to acting concurrently with Great Britain, France, and Japan in communicating to China an unreadiness to raise the status of the Peking Legations while disunion and disorder prevail in China.
(Instructions to repeat to Peking.)
472
July 31 Memorandum by the Acting Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs, Department of State
Italy’s decision not to raise its Legation at Peking to the rank of an Embassy for reasons of economy.
473
Aug. 1 (302) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that Great Britain is suggesting that Japan join in the proposed communication to China and hopes that the United States will also make a similar suggestion to Japan.
473
Aug. 6 (135) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to inform his British colleague that the Department is disposed not to press for further consideration, if Japan appears unwilling to act concurrently with United States, Great Britain, and France in the proposed communication to China. Authorization to consult with his British and French colleagues with a view to making representations to Japan urging the further postponement of the sending of an Ambassador to Peking.
(Instructions to repeat to Peking. Sent also to Great Britain for information, with instructions to repeat to Paris.)
474
[Page LXXXI]Aug. 12 (293) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Telegram, August 9, from Tokyo (text printed) reporting the Japanese decision to postpone making a definite reply to the Chinese proposal until the beginning of 1925, letting note of July 25 stand; and the Japanese intention to propose during December to the interested powers a reconsideration of the question. Uselessness of attempting to urge Japan to change its decision. Instructions to inform the Foreign Office.
(Instructions to repeat to Paris.)
475
Dec. 3 From the British Embassy
Proposal that, with a view to the postponement of the execution of the Japanese decision to raise its Peking Legation to an Embassy, the United States join Great Britain in approaching Japan with the suggestion that, if the situation in China shows a definite improvement, the powers might use the proposal to raise the status of the Peking Legations as an inducement to persuade China to press on with reorganization and to afford effective protection to foreign interests.
477
Dec. 17 To the British Embassy
Belief that the present moment is somewhat premature to approach the Japanese Government regarding the British proposal, in view of the present indeterminate status of the matter and the unlikelihood that Japan will proceed further without consulting the interested powers.
478

Reservations by the United States and Other Powers Regarding Disposal To Be Made of the Chinese Eastern Railway Under the Sino Soviet Agreement

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Feb. 28 (66) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Progress of the Karakhan–Wang negotiations on the basis of a new formula that the establishment of principles for settlement of national differences should come first, then Chinese recognition of Soviet Government, and finally adjustment of difficulties between the two countries, the chief obstacle being Chinese Eastern Railway.
479
Mar. 11 [12?] (76) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Cabinet’s approval, in substance, of Wang’s long report on his negotiations with Karakhan, submitted March 8. Preliminary nature of the Karakhan-Wang agreement which merely lays down general lines for final settlement after recognition. General lines agreed upon for settlement of problems concerning the Chinese Eastern Railway.
479
Mar. 13 (78) From the Minister in China (tel.)
French Minister’s warning to the Chinese Foreign Minister, March 12, against endangering French rights and interests in the Russo-Asiatic Bank in respect of the Chinese Eastern Railway by recognition of the Soviet Government. Intimation received by U. S. Minister that the French Minister will approach him to sign, along with the Japanese Minister, a joint note to the Chinese Government for the protection of the Russo-Asiatic Bank. Request for instructions.
481
[Page LXXXII]Mar. 17 (81) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Delay in the Cabinet’s adoption of the Karakhan-Wang agreement, probably due to personal rivalries in the Chinese Government. Time limit on negotiations set by Karakhan.
482
Mar. 21 (87) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Refusal of the Chinese Government to respect Karakhan’s time limit; press report of Karakhan’s letter, March 19, to Wang (excerpt printed) charging China with subserviency to imperialistic powers, recounting Soviet concessions to China, and refusing further negotiations until diplomatic relations have been established.
482
Mar. 21 (88) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Presidential mandate, March 20 (text printed) placing the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in full charge of the Sino-Russian negotiations.
484
Mar. 24 (91) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Publication of the Karakhan-Wang agreement; its provisions regarding the Chinese Eastern Railway. Cabinet’s circular letter stating that the only matters still in dispute concern Mongolia and the Russian church properties and immovable property.
484
Undated [Rec’d Apr.2] From the French Embassy
Evidence of the legal status of Russo-Asiatic Bank as legal successor of Russo-Chinese Bank and U. S. acknowledgment of the Russo-Asiatic Bank as possessing the status of a stockholder of the Chinese Eastern Railway. Intention not to oppose the conclusion of a Sino-Russian agreement but to induce China to refuse to deal in the matter without having made a reservation of the rights of foreign stockholders and creditors of the railway. Citation of Washington Conference resolution XIII as having for its very object the protection of these rights.
485
Apr. 26 (81) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions not to join representatives of France or other countries in protests to China against recent negotiations with Russia; but to send a separate note reminding China that her trusteeship under Washington Conference resolution XIII is an obligation not to be ignored or unilaterally invalidated by China in any negotiations with other parties regarding the Chinese Eastern Railway, and making it clear that the United States stands for the protection of all interests, including Russian, and is not endeavoring to prevent the conclusion of the Sino-Russian agreement.
486
May 5 (2242) From the Minister in China
Note sent to Foreign Minister, May 3 (text printed) making reservation of U. S. rights in reference to the Chinese Eastern Railway.
487
[Page LXXXIII]May 6 To the French Embassy
View that the United States is not warranted in taking action expressly in behalf of the Russo-Asiatic Bank in the absence of any proof as to its legal identity with the original bank of the same name. Advice, however, that a note is being sent to the Chinese Government pointing out the inability of the United States to accept any settlement of the Chinese Eastern Railway question which does not afford adequate protection to foreign creditors and other interested parties, as contemplated by Washington Conference resolution XIII.
488
May 14 (128) From the Minister in China (tel.)
French Minister’s note, May 7, to the Chinese Foreign Minister, similar to the U. S. note of May 3; British Minister’s intention to express the same views orally. Publicity given the French and U. S. notes, due to Foreign Office leak. Karakhan’s public statement charging the United States and France with interference in Sino-Russian negotiations.
489
May 15 (129) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Distribution by the United Press of a message (text printed) reporting that the State Department admits interference in the Sino-Russian negotiations in behalf of U. S. interests in the Chinese Eastern Railway. Chinese insistence that interruption of negotiations was not due to the intervention of any foreign power. Request for authority to deny the allegations and to make public the U. S. note of May 3. Suggestion that the United Press be approached in regard to their handling of news.
490
May 15 (95) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Authorization to make public the U. S. note of May 3 and to issue a public statement that the note embodies the whole relationship of the United States to the matter of the Sino-Russian negotiations. Information that the action of its correspondents will be taken up with United Press.
491
June 4 (156) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Desire of Italian Minister to be informed of the American policy and attitude, in view of China’s recognition of Soviet Russia. Request for instructions.
492
June 12 (121) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Information, for Italian Minister, that this Government’s position remains as expressed in the Department’s telegram no. 81 of April 26, pending results of the proposed Sino-Russian conference. Instructions to keep the Department informed of negotiations.
492
June 13 (175) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Japanese Minister’s note of June 7 to Chinese Government and to Karakhan (text printed) declaring that Japan’s rights and interests in regard to the Chinese Eastern Railway shall not in any way be affected by Sino-Russian agreement.
493
[Page LXXXIV]June 13 (176) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram, June 12, from the consul at Harbin (text printed) reporting plan, agreed upon with his British, French, and Japanese colleagues, to remove the seals placed July 31, 1923, on document cabinets of the land department of the Chinese Eastern Railway only when the present Russian officials are actually replaced by Soviet Russian appointees. Minister’s fear that if removal is deferred until new regime is established, the consuls’ action may be construed as tacit recognition.
493
June 17 (184) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s note, June 16 (text printed) stating that the agreement between China and Russia in regard to the Chinese Eastern Railway deals with problems that concern the two parties alone and which it is indisputably within their rights to settle between themselves. Information that similar replies have been received by the French and Japanese Ministers.
494
June 17 (185) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Decision of interested colleagues to approve proposal of the consuls at Harbin with understanding that, should occasion require, the seals would be ordered removed at once.
495
June 18 (2324) From the Minister in China
Transmittal of a pamphlet containing Sino-Russian agreements, declarations, and exchange of notes, signed May 31, 1924. Agreements (texts printed) concerning the general principles for the settlement of questions between the Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and for the provisional management of the Chinese Eastern Railway.
495
June 24 (199) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Japanese Chargé’s note to the Chinese Foreign Minister (text printed) acknowledging the Chinese note of June 16 which refused to recognize the Japanese reservation regarding the Chinese Eastern Railway, and asserting that Japan deems it advisable, nevertheless, to invite China’s attention to the matter to avoid possible difficulties in the future.
502
June 26 (204) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Press interview with Karakhan (text printed) who condemns attitude of the U. S. Secretary of State toward China and declares that China and Russia will not allow other countries to interfere in affairs of Chinese Eastern Railway.
502
June 30 From the Chinese Legation
Explanation that the Chinese Government in recent agreements with the Soviet Government regarding the Chinese Eastern Railway does not contemplate that any legitimate claims of the other powers or their nationals shall be jeopardized.
503
July 11 To the Chinese Legation
Renewal of reservation of rights with respect to the responsibility of the Chinese Government, as trustee for the Chinese Eastern Railway, as regards the obligations toward that railway’s foreign bondholders, stockholders, and creditors.
504
[Page LXXXV]July 11 (151) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Note for Foreign Minister (text printed) renewing reservation of rights with respect to the responsibility of the Chinese Government, as trustee for the Chinese Eastern Railway, as regards the obligations toward that railway’s foreign bondholders, stockholders, and creditors.
505
July 15 (156) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to agree with his colleagues upon an early date for removal of seals on archives of railway by the consuls at Harbin, the situation no longer calling for their protection; suggestion that public announcement thereof be made.
506
July 22 (254) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram sent by the British, French, Japanese, and U. S. representatives to the consuls at Harbin (text printed) directing them to remove seals from cabinets containing documents of land department of railway.
506
July 26 (170) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Authorization to take part in the proposed conference of representatives of powers participating in Washington Conference resolution XIII, with a view to recommending steps for the protection of foreign rights in the Chinese Eastern Railway, and to be guided by the views expressed in the Department’s telegram no. 151 of July 11.
507
July 30 (268) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram sent by the four Ministers to the consuls at Harbin (text printed) accepting the consuls’ conclusion that the present time is not opportune for removal of seals, urging, however, their removal at the earliest practicable date.
507
July 31 (266) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Draft joint note to China (text printed) emphasizing the obligations which the Washington Conference resolutions impose upon the Chinese Government and calling special attention to the serious consequences should any change in the economic and legal status of the Chinese Eastern Railway impair the administrative integrity of China and the principle of equal opportunity. Information that Japan will probably not unite in the joint note. Request for instructions.
508
Aug. 7 (184) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Opinion that the draft joint note to China is not calculated to improve the situation; authorization, however, to join in the proposed note should there be unanimous agreement to dispatch it; suggested verbal change in draft.
509
Sept. 27 (368) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Press confirmation of the conclusion of a Manchurian-Soviet agreement concerning the Chinese Eastern Railway similar to Sino-Russian agreement of May 31. Chinese Foreign Office protest to the Soviet Government, September 25. Telegram from the consul at Harbin (text printed) reporting rumor that under the agreement Russian officials of the railway will be replaced soon by Soviet appointees.
509
[Page LXXXVI]Sept. 29 From the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Information that the consular seals have been removed from cabinets in land department of the Chinese Eastern Railway.
510
Oct. 3 From the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Arrest and imprisonment of General Manager Ostroumoff by the Chinese police.
510
Oct. 4 (377) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Receipt of text of the Manchurian-Soviet agreement; summary of its principal provisions.
510
Oct. 8 From the Consul at Harbin (tel.)
Details of the arrest and imprisonment of railway officials before they could legally turn over offices to Soviet successors. Opinion that the matter should be investigated by an international commission or that foreign consular officers should be present at trials. Suggestion that press correspondents be detailed to Harbin to report Bolshevik activities.
511
Oct. 10 (382) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Decision of the diplomatic body that they could take no action in the matter of the arrest of railway officials. Informal representations to Chang by the U. S., British, French, and Japanese representatives.
512
Oct. 13 (237) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions to advise the consuls at Mukden and Harbin that no further action in the matter of arrests would be warranted.
513
Dec. 9 (476) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Joint informal note to Chang expressing the hope that the prisoners will be brought to speedy trial and that Ostroumoff will be permitted to reside at his house in Harbin while awaiting trial.
513

Proposal by the Chinese Government To Convene a Preliminary Customs Conference, and the Rejection of the Proposal by the Powers

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Mar. 13 (77) From the Minister in China (tel.)
China’s identic note, March 10, to the powers, expressing the hope that a preliminary conference may be held to make preparations for the Special Conference on Chinese Customs Tariff, which has been delayed by the failure of certain of the powers to ratify the Washington Conference treaties. Opinion that the object of this suggestion is to obtain some specific promise from the foreign powers relative to the imposition of surtax.
513
Mar. 18 (55) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions not to indicate or commit in any way the position of the U. S. Government with respect to the proposal for a preliminary conference, pending further instructions.
514
[Page LXXXVII]Mar. 18 (83) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Agreement of representatives of powers signatory to the Washington Conference treaties that the Chinese proposal was inspired by need for money and was contemplated preeminently to determine purposes of surtax; their identic telegram to their governments (text printed) recommending that they be authorized to examine China’s financial situation and purposes of surtax, upon condition that China submit plan for abolition of likin.
514
Mar. 19 (84) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Opinion of diplomatic representatives that any plan the Chinese Government may present for the abolition of likin will have no practical results, as the Chinese Government is powerless to assert its will in the provinces.
515
Mar. 20 (86) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Minister’s maintenance of noncommittal attitude on proposal for preliminary conference; his private opinion that the proposal is impossible of acceptance.
515
Mar. 22 (60) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that the Embassy at London has been instructed to inquire concerning the British attitude toward the proposed preliminary conference and to explain that, in view of widespread disregard of treaty rights in the Chinese provinces and the growing attitude of irresponsibility on the part of the Peking Government, the United States questions whether it is not now inopportune or even dangerous to assume a responsive attitude toward Chinese proposal.
516
Mar. 31 (63) To the Minister in China (tel.)
British and Japanese inclination to agree in principle with the Department’s views regarding the proposed preliminary conference.
517
Apr. 24 (80) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from London (text printed) reporting the British decision to join with United States in a reply to China and the suggestion that the reply include a statement that the powers intend to confer concerning the best means of giving practical effect to the Washington agreements, since it would be impolitic to give a flat refusal to China’s proposal. Department’s concurrence in the British suggestion; and instructions for joint action.
517
May 1 (84) To the Minister in China (tel.)
British Foreign Office instructions to the British Minister at Peking to act with the American Minister in regard to the reply to China’s request for a preliminary conference.
518
May 7 (123) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Draft reply to China (text printed) stating that the signatory powers are unable to accept the suggestion for a preliminary conference but are alive to the importance of the situation and will confer as to the best means of giving effect to the Washington agreements. Request for instructions, in view of the difficulties anticipated in securing assent of certain powers to consultations contemplated in the draft reply.
518
[Page LXXXVIII]May 9 (91) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Proposed substitute for paragraph regarding consultations in the draft reply; view that replies should be made separately, though in identic language.
519
June 6 (163) From the Minister in China (tel.)
British desire to omit paragraph regarding consultations which was originally drafted in accordance with their instructions. Decision to address individual notes to China, since the Belgian, French, Italian, and Japanese representatives had already communicated their refusals orally to the Foreign Office. Note to Foreign Office (text printed).
520

Further Postponement of the Meeting of the Commission on Extraterritoriality in China

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Feb. 16 (60) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s request that the U. S. Government approach the powers signatory to resolution V of the Washington Conference, with a view to the dispatch of the Commission on Extraterritoriality to China in November next.
521
Mar. 27 From the Chinese Legation
Request that the U. S. Government approach the powers participating in or adhering to resolution V of the Washington Conference, with a view to obtaining their unanimous consent to the convening of the Commission on Extraterritoriality on a definite date.
522
Apr. 10 To the Chinese Minister
Opinion that the time is not opportune for making the representations in question; assurance, however, that fixing of definite date for convening of the Commission will be urged as soon as such action is likely to bring about a favorable result.
523

Consent by the United States To Join Other Powers in Negotiations To Restore the Shanghai Mixed Court to the Chinese

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Mar. 11 (75) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Foreign Office note, January 26, to the dean of the diplomatic corps, pressing for a reply to its note of October 26, 1922, asking for the rendition of the Mixed Court at Shanghai. Opinion of the diplomatic corps that, owing to the uncertainty of the date of convening of the Commission on Extraterritoriality, no strong reason remains for further postponing negotiations. Dean’s proposed reply to the Foreign Office, indicating readiness to negotiate but requiring certain guarantees and an assurance that China will enter into early negotiations for satisfactory settlement of other outstanding questions with respect to Shanghai. Request for instructions.
524
[Page LXXXIX]Mar. 18 (56) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Inability to understand present willingness of the diplomatic corps to enter into negotiations for the rendition of the Mixed Court at Shanghai, in view of the fact that actual conditions in China confirm the 1923 position of the diplomatic corps that the Peking Government lacks sufficient control in the vicinity of Shanghai to fulfill any agreement for rendition of the court or settlement of other matters concerning Shanghai. Unwillingness to admit that the outlook for the meeting of the Commission on Extraterritoriality is dubious. Request for comments and for more information.
525
Mar. 22 (89) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that the powerlessness of the Peking Government does not affect the Mixed Court, which functions in the International Settlement and through the municipal police; that present proposal does not necessarily imply rendition; that rendition and extraterritoriality are not associated in public mind. View that U. S. opposition to rendition of Mixed Court may prove embarrassing, as Great Britain, Japan, and Soviet Russia have adopted a conciliatory attitude toward China.
526
Apr. 5 (69) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Authorization to join colleagues in negotiations for rendition of Mixed Court, subject to the understanding that negotiations are to be limited to the one question and that rendition is not conditional upon obtaining from the Chinese any benefits or concessions upon extraneous subjects.
527
May 23 (108) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese Minister’s informal inquiry concerning U. S. attitude with respect to making resumption of rendition negotiations conditional upon discussion of other extraneous questions at Shanghai, as inferred from the dean’s note of April 10. Secretary’s reply that the Department adheres to its position that the question of the Mixed Court should be kept free from extraneous matters. Instructions to inform his colleagues and the Foreign Office of the U. S. position.
528
May 30 (145) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese reply, May 9, to the dean of the diplomatic corps, expressing opinion that after rendition of Mixed Court the guarantees could be agreed to, and indicating the Government’s willingness to prepare for negotiations on other subjects. Concurrence with the dean’s opinion that guarantees should be given before rendition takes place.
(Footnote: Information that an agreement for the rendition of the Shanghai Mixed Court was signed, December 31, 1926, after prolonged negotiation.)
529
[Page XC]

Failure of Efforts To Secure From the Interested Powers a General Acceptance of the Arms Embargo Resolution Proposed at the Washington Conference

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Sept. 15 (896) From the Chargé in Portugal
Foreign Office note, September 12, stating that the Portuguese Government approves of the terms of the embargo and the interpretative note and has instructed its representative at Peking to accord formal assent if there is unanimity of action by interested powers.
530
Oct. 24 (997) From the British Ambassador
Request that proper authorities be informed of London Times report, October 17, that the French steamer Chantilly was diverted from her course to carry military airplanes and machine guns to Dairen. View that this act constitutes a grave breach of the spirit of the embargo agreement. Inquiry whether the United States will join Great Britain in strong representations to France.
530
Oct. 29 (1014) From the British Ambassador
Inquiry whether U. S. Government would be disposed to make formal proposals to the various governments concerned for the adoption from January 1, 1925, of the Washington resolution and at least as much of the interpretative note as Great Britain is able to enforce, since Great Britain feels that the time is ripe for such action.
531
Nov. 11 To the British Ambassador
Concurrence with British views that, if reports concerning the Chantilly are based upon fact, a serious contravention of the arms embargo agreement has occurred. Information that the Chargé at Paris has been instructed to confer with his British colleague.
533
Nov. 14 (502) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Opinion, concurred in by British colleague, that the French have not broken the letter of the agreement and hence no purpose would be served by further representations. Suggestion that the situation be met by a general agreement embargoing shipment of airplanes of any kind to China until political conditions there clear up or by pointing out to France that airplane purchases are obviously for military reasons, as commercial aviation does not exist in China.
533
Nov. 17 (796) From the Chargé in Denmark
Foreign Minister’s note, November 6 (text printed) stating that Denmark is disposed to adopt the Washington resolution without interpretation, but with the reservation that airplanes be excluded insofar as the regulations in force governing the prohibition of exportation in Denmark are concerned.
534
Nov. 20 (1127) From the British Ambassador
Readiness to cooperate with the United States in approaching the French Government with a view to concluding a gentleman’s agreement, as suggested by the U. S. Chargé at Paris, prohibiting the export of all aircraft to China during the present revolutionary disturbances there. Suggestion that other governments, such as Japan and Italy, be included.
536
[Page XCI]Nov. 20 (367) From the Chargé in the Netherlands
Foreign Minister’s note, November 18 (text printed) conveying information that Netherland legislation does not permit an embargo to other countries of articles mentioned in the interpretative note and that the Netherland Government doubts whether the present moment is opportune for extending the scope of the Washington resolution.
537
Dec. 1 (319) From the Chargé in Sweden
Foreign Minister’s note, November 26 (text printed) stating that Sweden will not refuse to adhere to the Washington resolution and recommendation adopted February 9, 1923, by the diplomatic corps at Peking, on condition that all the interested powers do likewise, but that Sweden cannot acquiesce in the interpretative note as this would not be in accordance with Swedish law; and suggesting that the question under discussion be submitted to the conference to meet at Geneva during 1925.
538
Dec. 10 (1205) From the British Ambassador
Desire to know at an early date whether the United States will adopt the proposal for a gentleman’s agreement with France and Great Britain and whether it is willing to include other aircraft-producing powers, irrespective as to whether or not such powers are parties to the existing agreement.
539
Dec. 20 To the British Ambassador
Willingness to approach France with the suggestion that the interested powers agree to restrain their citizens and subjects from exporting any kind of aircraft to China insofar as their respective laws and regulations permit. Request for British views on such a proposal.
540
Dec. 24 To the British Ambassador
Doubt as to practical benefits which would be derived from attempting to secure the adoption of the Washington resolution and certain portions of the interpretative note until more complete unanimity can be had among the interested powers.
541

Decision by the Consortium Council To Continue Unmodified the Consortium Agreement of October 15, 1920, After Its Expiration on October 15, 1925

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 June 12 From the American Group
Letter, May 23, from the chairman of the British group to the London representative of the American group (text printed) reminding him that the Consortium Agreement will expire in October 1925 and that it may be expedient at the meeting of the Council to discuss steps for its renewal; and enclosing a memorandum, prepared May 12, by Mr. Mayers, of the British group, and Mr. Nathan, chairman of the British and Chinese Corporation, Ltd. (text printed) containing certain proposals in modification of the Consortium. Agenda for the meeting of the Council to be held at London, July 14.
544
[Page XCII]June 26 To the American Group
Information that the Secretary approves of the continued application to the field of Chinese finance of the principles which the Consortium Agreement embodies and would welcome the making of arrangements to continue that policy unmodified; that to the Secretary the proposals contained in the memorandum prepared by Mr. Mayers and Mr. Nathan seem tantamount to abandoning the Consortium principles entirely.
548
July 29 From the American Group
Minutes of a meeting of the Consortium Council at London, July 14 (excerpt printed) containing recommendation that Consortium Agreement remain in force on and after October 15, 1925; decision to leave for further consideration the memorandum prepared by Mr. Mayers and Mr. Nathan; authorization of conversations looking toward the formation of a representative Chinese banking group to cooperate with the Consortium.
550

Joint Resolution of Congress Authorizing the President at His Discretion To Remit to China Further Payments on the Boxer Indemnity

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 18 (18) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that a resolution was introduced in Congress December 6, 1923, in language identical with that of the resolution introduced in 1921, authorizing the President in his discretion to remit the balance of the Boxer indemnity, such remission to begin as from October 1, 1917. Request for views as to possible effect its passage might have upon the minds of the Chinese and of Americans in China and upon American interests in China.
551
Jan. 21 (40) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Reasons for recommending that for the present the matter of remitting the Boxer indemnity be left in statu quo and that American guardianship of the funds be continued unimpaired.
552
Apr. 22 (638) To the Minister in China
Explanation of the Secretary’s action in supporting the resolution.
553
June 14 To the Chinese Minister
Transmission of joint declaration of Congress, approved May 21 (text printed) authorizing the President in his discretion to remit to China the balance of the Boxer indemnity, such remission to begin as from October 1, 1917, the intent of Congress being further to develop the educational and other cultural activities of China.
554
June 14 From the Chinese Minister
Expression of appreciation for remission of indemnity; purpose of the Chinese Government to devote the funds to educational purposes, especially scientific requirements of China, intrusting administration of the funds to a board composed of Americans and Chinese.
555
[Page XCIII]June 14 From the Chinese Minister
Message from the President of China to President Coolidge (text printed) expressing appreciation of generosity shown in the remission of the balance of the Boxer indemnity.
556
Dec. 15 To President Coolidge
Information that a Presidential mandate was issued September 17 creating a China Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Culture and appointing nine Chinese and five Americans as members of the Foundation and trustees of the funds to be realized from the remission of the balance of the Boxer indemnity. Draft resolution for the Board of Trustees of the Foundation (text printed) stating general purposes to which fund is to be devoted. Proposal that attention of Chinese Government be invited to claims of U. S. citizens against the Chinese Government.
557

Concurrence by the United States in the Contention by Certain Powers That the Boxer Indemnity Payments Should Be Made in Gold Currency

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 25 (44) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Draft note from the dean of the diplomatic corps to the Chinese Foreign Minister, concerning the execution by the Chinese Government of the Sino-Belgian understanding of February 5, 1918, respecting Boxer indemnity payments (excerpt printed). Request for instructions whether to support the Belgian Government.
559
Jan. 31 (30) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions not to cooperate in any representations in connection with Boxer indemnity payment until the Department has been informed of full details, in view of the fact that the United States was not apprised of the separate arrangements made by other protocol powers for the resumption of the payments.
561
Feb. 2 (51) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Failure of Legation files to reveal any indication that the Department was informed of the Allied joint memorandum presented to the Chinese Government in 1917, providing for the individual arrangements for resumption of Boxer indemnity payments. Minister’s intention to decline to support the Belgian arrangement on the ground that the United States was not a signatory to the 1917 memorandum nor apprised of the 1918 Belgian arrangement.
561
Feb. 3 (52) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Request for authorization to sign the diplomatic corps’ reply to the Chinese note of December 26, 1923, in which refusal to accept the views of the diplomatic body was based upon the assumption that the protocol fixes the gold equivalent of the indemnity in respective currencies, not in gold specie. Expectation that the Chinese Cabinet and Parliament will ask that the issue be arbitrated.
562
[Page XCIV]Feb. 5 (32) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Approval of Minister’s action in declining to support the Belgian arrangement. Authorization to sign the proposed reply of the diplomatic body to the Chinese Foreign Minister.
563
Feb. 28 (65) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s informal suggestion that if the gold franc case were arbitrated it might be referred to The Hague or League Court or to an individual, and his assumption that the United States would be one of the parties to the arbitration.
563
Feb. 29 (2108) From the Minister in China
Note, February 11, from the dean of the diplomatic corps to the Chinese Foreign Minister (text printed) supporting conclusions drawn in notes of February 24 and November 3, 1923, and definitely affirming that China must pay the indemnity in gold, or its equivalent.
563
Mar. 1 (46) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to inform the Foreign Minister, should occasion require, that the U. S. Government does not have any such direct interest in the gold franc controversy as would lead it to offer any suggestion for its settlement. Information that if the issue should be referred to the World Court while the U. S. relation to the Court continues as at present, the United States probably would not desire to be one of the parties to the arbitration.
569

Continued Support by the United States to the Federal Telegraph Company in Efforts To Obtain Execution of Its Contract With the Chinese Government

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 4 (5) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese unofficial inquiry whether some compromise could be suggested by the Legation to induce the Japanese to abandon their diplomatic pressure in opposition to the Federal Telegraph Co.’s contract and in favor of the Mitsui Co., possibly by a joint operation of the Mitsui station at Peking.
570
Jan. 24 (25) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Opinion of Schwerin, president of the Federal Telegraph Co. of Delaware, that it would be impracticable to take over the Mitsui station at Peking.
571
Jan. 29 (87) From the British Chargé
Conclusion that Japan’s refusal to accept the experts’ recommendations signed at Washington has placed Great Britain under the necessity of maintaining the existing rights of the cable companies, pending the conclusion of an agreement based on the experts’ recommendations. Assurance that this action has been taken in no spirit of hostility to U. S. interests concerned, but as the only course to protect the existing rights of Eastern Extension Telegraph Co.
571
[Page XCV]Feb. 16 To the British Chargé
Statement that, while frankly disappointed by what appears to be the abrupt abandonment by Great Britain of its position, the Secretary is happy to note the British assurance that this action has been taken in no spirit of hostility to U. S. interests concerned and trusts that this means that Great Britain will not renew pressure upon the Chinese Government to prevent the carrying out of Federal Telegraph Co. contract.
572
Apr. 3 (67) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Authorization to transmit to China the assurance of the Federal Telegraph Co. and of the Radio Corporation of America that they will fulfill their part of the contract; instructions to make plain, at the same time, that the Department assumes no responsibility in the matter.
573
Apr. 18 From the President of the Radio Corporation of America
Resolution of board of directors (text printed) to cancel contracts with China if the integrity of such contracts is questioned by the Department or if China claims to have been misinformed on the subject, charges to this effect having been brought by the director of the Federal Telegraph Co. of California and contracts having been assumed by the Federal Telegraph Co. of Delaware by arrangements with the Radio Corporation of America in good faith. Request that the corporation be advised on the subject.
574
Apr. 26 To the President of the Radio Corporation of America
Reassurances regarding the integrity of the contracts in question and statement that they were negotiated with cognizance of the Department and in consultation with the American Legation at Peking; exposition of the terms of the contract, which has not been the subject of any complaint by China.
576
May 15 (434) From the British Ambassador
Denial that the British Government has abandoned its position. Explanation that since the experts’ recommendations have been obstructed by difference of view which concerns United States and Japan, the British Government feels justified in drawing the attention of both the United States and Japan to the fact that the cable companies have rights which, in the absence of a general agreement based on the recommendations, cannot be ignored.
577
Aug. 21 To the President of the Radio Corporation of America
Explanation, in view of the claim that the Washington authorities approved certain contract arrangements regarding remuneration, that it is not within the province of the Department to negotiate contracts between foreign governments and U. S. interests and that the Department’s activities in contracts between the Federal Telegraph Co. of California and the Chinese Government were in support of the principle of the open door in China and to assist U. S. interests in establishing a circuit of communication advantageous to relations between the United States and China.
578
Nov. 29 (457) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Indications that negotiations will soon be reopened with a view to executing the contract; suggestion that a representative of the Federal Telegraph Co. with full powers should come to Peking.
579
[Page XCVI]Dec. 9 (308) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that the Federal Telegraph Co. contemplates sending an agent to China in the near future to conduct negotiations.
580

Explanations of Policy by the Department of State Respecting Questions of Treaty Rights Raised by Americans in China

Date and Number Subject Page
1923 Undated Report of the Annual Meeting of the Associated American Chambers of Commerce of China, at Shanghai, October 16 and 17, 1923
Resolutions adopted criticizing the conduct of the foreign relations of the United States with respect to China; and making recommendations concerning the calling of the Special Customs Tariff Conference, the increasing of the naval force on the Yangtze River and other navigable streams, the need for U. S. owned consular property and improvement of diplomatic and consular services, the postponement of the meeting of the Commission on Extraterritoriality, the revision of regulations concerning tonnage dues, the support of the contract of the Federal Telegraph Co. of California, the payment of claims, the remission of the Boxer indemnity, etc.
580
1924 Mar. 15 (600) To the Minister in China
Regret that the report adopted at the annual meeting of the American Chambers of Commerce of China does not offer more definite and more helpful suggestions as to measures that might prove practical for the better safeguarding of American interests in China; and that publicity was given to the resolutions. Information concerning discussions with repretatives of foreign missions.
594
Mar. 18 From the Foreign Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions
Information that there exists among U. S. missionaries in China a growing spirit of opposition to extraterritorial conditions and to Government protection of missionaries thereunder. Request for a ruling with regard to the right of American citizens to waive such privileges, if they so desire.
601
Apr. 1 To the Foreign Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions
Opinion that American citizens are not entitled to waive extraterritorial rights, irrespective of the wishes of particular individuals who may be influenced by religious or other beliefs; and that the surrender of such rights by a portion of the U. S. community in China would seriously impair the whole treaty system for the protection of U. S. citizens in China.
602
Apr. 3 From the Foreign Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions
Expression of appreciation for the reply to his inquiry concerning the surrender by American missionaries of extraterritorial rights in China. Citation of Secretary Blaine’s ruling in a somewhat similar case.
603
[Page XCVII]

Protest by the United States Against Pardon and Restoration to Command of the Chinese General Held Responsible for the Murder of an American Missionary

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 4 (3) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that a Presidential mandate, issued December 27, 1923, authorizes the cancelation of the mandate ordering the trial and punishment of Chang Ching-yao for the murder of the Rev. William A. Reimert. Request for authority to lodge a strong protest against it as a violation of the assurance given in the Chinese Foreign Office note of October 7, 1920, and as a discourtesy to the United States.
604
Jan. 14 (14) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Authorization to lodge a protest with the Chinese Government and to make public the terms or substance of the protest.
605
Jan. 24 (43) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Note addressed to Foreign Minister, January 18. Interview with Foreign Minister, January 23.
605
Oct. 16 (390) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Presidential mandate, October 11, appointing Chang one of the vice commanders of the rear guard army. Minister’s oral protest to the Foreign Minister, who denied knowledge of the mandate. Minister’s intention to address a strong note to the Foreign Minister.
606
Nov. 22 (2624) From the Chargé in China
Foreign Minister’s note stating that on October 24 a Presidential mandate was issued canceling Chang’s appointment as vice commander of reinforcements. Information that the mandate merely abolished the posts of commander in chief and vice commanders.
606

CUBA

Passage of an Amnesty Bill by the Cuban Congress

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 June 2 (730) From the Ambassador in Cuba
Passage of an amnesty bill, May 26, 1924, by both Houses of Congress by large majority; Ambassador’s note to President Zayas, May 30, expressing his views on the subject, previous notes of protest having already been sent.
(Footnote: Information that President Zayas signed the bill on June 5.)
609
June 6 (735) From the Ambassador in Cuba
President Zayas’ reply of June 2 (text printed) seeking to justify his signature of amnesty bill after delay of 3 years, recalling that the Ambassador’s objections were inspired by temporary circumstances, and giving assurance that the number of cases benefiting by execution of the law would be materially reduced.
610
[Page XCVIII]

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Exchange of Notes Between the United States and Czechoslovakia Prolonging the Customs Agreement of October 29, 1923

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Dec. 9 (746) From the Chargé in Czechoslovakia
Exchange of notes between the Chargé and the Foreign Minister, December 5 (texts printed) prolonging the commercial arrangement between the United States and Czechoslovakia, which was made October 29, 1923, until conclusion of a definitive treaty of commerce.
615
1925 Jan. 12 (1) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Inquiry whether the exchange of notes of December 5, 1924, requires legislative and Presidential approval and publication. Department’s wish to publish the agreement as soon as Czechoslovak formalities are completed.
617
Jan. 13 (1) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Information that Presidential and legislative approval are required to complete the formalities; but that the agreement was published December 31, 1924, and, under a special law designed to meet legislative delay, became effective January 1, 1925.
617

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

The Election of Horacio Vasquez to the Presidency and the Evacuation of the Forces of the United States

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 5 (2) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Published statement of General Vasquez and Señor Peynado, the two Presidential candidates, declaring that, if elected, they would maintain the Policia Nacional upon the same basis as it now exists. View that this is a definite guarantee that public order will be maintained after occupation is terminated.
618
Jan. 17 (4) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Request for authorization to issue a brief statement in refutation of propaganda to the effect that the United States is supporting the candidacy of one or the other of the two Presidential candidates.
(Footnote: Information that on January 21 the Commissioner was authorized to issue the statement.)
618
Feb. 4 (6) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Peynado’s threat to resign as Coalition candidate for the Presidency. Efforts of the Coalition Party to reach an agreement with the Alliance Party for representation in the Senate and Congress in return for Coalition support of Alliance candidates as the sole national candidates for Presidency and Vice Presidency. Commissioner’s views.
619
Feb. 9 (9) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Widespread defections from the ranks of the Coalition Party caused by Peynado’s threatened resignation. Commissioner’s refusal to grant Peynado’s request that he exert his influence to force Vasquez to resign in favor of a candidate favorable to both parties or that he postpone the elections to enable the Coalition Party to raise additional campaign funds. Commissioner’s opinion that elements in Coalition Party will attempt to obstruct the election and will protest election results.
621
[Page XCIX]Feb. 13 (10) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Failure of Peynado’s threatened resignation to bring about postponement of elections or cause the Alliance Party to enter into a political deal. Peynado’s advice to the national assembly of his party that he would continue as Presidential candidate.
622
Feb. 26 (15) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Electoral Commission’s adoption of the Commissioner’s proposal to grant an extension of 2 days for the completion of the electoral registers of three communes which had failed to complete their registers within the legal time limit. Promulgation of a decree embodying the decision.
622
Mar. 17 (17) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Election, March 15, of Vasquez and other Alliance candidates, giving the party a majority in both Houses of Congress and in municipal offices.
623
Mar. 25 (23) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Recommendation, in view of advice that the present Military Governor, General Lee, is to be replaced before April 15 by General Cole, that the Navy Department be requested not to make any change in the Military Government during the short period that remains before U. S. withdrawal.
624
Mar. 27 (25) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Request for authorization to inform the President-elect that, should he visit the United States for reasons of health as he now proposes, he will be invited to come to Washington for a few days as the guest of the U. S. Government.
625
Apr. 1 (10) To the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Authorization to inform the President-elect that, should he desire to come to the United States and visit Washington, the President will be most happy to receive him. Advice that it is not the practice of the Federal Government to invite chiefs of states or presidents-elect to visit the United States as guests of the Government.
625
Apr. 7 (13) To the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Revocation of the order for relief of General Lee as Military Governor and decision to retain him until July 1 in the Dominican Republic.
626
May 16 (30) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Satisfactory situation in the Dominican Republic with the appointment of a Cabinet composed of men of great ability, and possibility of early legislative action on the proposed reforms. Intention of the President-elect to visit the United States in June; his desire to reach an agreement with the Department of State on refunding of the foreign debt through flotation of a loan in the United States, and to discuss the possibility of a new commercial treaty. Commissioner’s request for permission to return to Washington without delay, in order to be there during visit of President-elect.
626
May 25 (16) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Appointment of plenipotentiaries for negotiating the convention of ratification provided for in the Plan of Evacuation.
628
[Page C]June 4 From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic, Temporarily in the United States
Request that necessary instructions be sent the Minister in the Dominican Republic to sign the convention without delay, since the President-elect, as one of the plenipotentiaries, is not inclined to leave for his visit to the United States until the convention has been signed.
628
June 4 To the Secretary of the Navy
Request that instructions be sent the Military Governor to expedite arrangements for evacuation immediately after inauguration of the Constitutional President.
629
June 4 (12) To the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Welles to Vasquez: Request to be advised as to the date of his departure for the United States in order that appropriate arrangements may be made; suggestions as to the most desirable time for his visit and the importance of reaching an agreement at Washington on certain points.
629
June 7 (16) To the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Authorization to meet the Dominican plenipotentiaries and sign the convention of ratification as contained in the Agreement of Evacuation of June 30, 1922, in the form published on September 23, 1922; information that full powers are being forwarded by mail.
630
June 12 (1009) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Transmittal of convention of ratification, signed June 12.
630
June 12 Convention between the United States of America and the Dominican Republic
Providing for the validation by the Dominican Republic of certain orders, resolutions, regulations, and contracts promulgated by the Military Government.
631
July 3 (30) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Electoral college’s election of Vasquez as President and Velasquez as Vice President. Setting of July 12 as the date of inauguration.
643
Sept. 18 (55) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Completion of provisions of the Plan of Evacuation and the withdrawal of the forces of occupation.
643

Approval by the United States of the Issue of $2,500,000 of Two-Year Notes by the Dominican Republic

Date and Number Subject Page
1923 Nov. 24 (909) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Foreign Office note requesting U. S. approval for the issuance of bonds to the amount of $2,000,000 of the balance of the $10,000,000 loan authorized by Executive Order No. 735, March 28, 1922. Statement showing the application of funds derived from the $6,700,000 bond issue in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No. 735.
643
[Page CI]1924 Jan. 7 (1) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Preparation by the Provisional Government of a new decree, similar to Executive Order No. 735, providing for the $2,000,000 bond issue. Provisional Government’s inquiry whether the United States will agree to this issue so that everything may be in readiness to comply with the contract of the Water, Light and Power Co.
644
Jan. 12 (1) To the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Request for views on possible effect of the proposed bond issue on the political situation, in view of the approaching elections.
644
Jan. 17 (3) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Opinion that the proposed bond issue will not have any prejudicial effect upon the political situation, since the proceeds, except for the amount required for the contract of the Water, Light and Power Co., are destined for the completion of the Government’s road construction program, of which the entire Republic is enthusiastically in favor. Recommendation that the Department authorize the bond issue.
644
Feb. 27 (550) To the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic
Letter, February 4, from the Secretary of the Navy, calling attention to the Dominican deficit caused by alleged excessive expenditures of the Provisional Government and suggesting that some plan be developed to meet the situation. Desire to have the Commissioner’s comments before replying to the letter.
645
Mar. 21 (5) To the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic
Letter, March 8, from Mr. Denby, the former Secretary of the Navy, calling attention to the increasingly critical condition of Dominican finances and stating that an American financial adviser to the Dominican Government is imperatively needed. Request for views whether the Provisional President should be approached.
646
Mar. 29 (26) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Facts relating to governmental receipts and expenditures for the year 1923, showing a balance instead of a deficit and proving that the Provisional Government has been eminently successful; opinion that the appointment of a financial adviser is neither necessary nor advisable.
647
May 15 (15) To the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Suggestion that it would probably be advantageous to the Dominican Government to submit consideration of the $2,000,000 loan to Lee, Higginson & Co. before Blair, the member of the firm especially conversant with Dominican affairs, leaves for Europe at the end of May.
649
May 17 (31) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Opinion that the Water, Light and Power case and the $2,000,000 bond issue could be agreed upon in advance of the installation of the Constitutional Government during Vasquez’s intended visit to Washington and that it would be desirable if Blair would postpone his departure for Europe until after the arrival in Washington of Vasquez.
650
[Page CII]July 11 (28) To the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Welles to Vasquez: Expression of hope that authorization by Congress will be given before July 17 to conclude negotiations for the projected short-term loan, and that the appointment of Ariza as Minister will be confirmed in order that he may act for his Government in the matter.
650
July 16 (41) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Senate confirmation of the appointment of Ariza as Minister; other formalities; presentation to Congress of a bill authorizing short-term loan of $2,500,000.
651
Aug. 8 From the Dominican Chargé
Information that the Government has decided to contract a short-term loan of $2,500,000 to be secured by $3,300,000 of the Dominican 5½ percent bonds of 1922 not issued; that Congress has already approved the loan; and that negotiations for the loan have been entered into with Lee, Higginson & Co. Request to be informed whether this loan would meet with the approval of the U. S. Government.
651
Aug. 15 To the Dominican Chargé
Request for details of the proposed contract for the $2,500,000 loan.
652
Aug. 16 From the Dominican Chargé
Transmittal of draft of contract submitted by Lee, Higginson & Co. Inquiry whether the President of the United States would give his consent to this loan in accordance with provisions of 1907 convention and would agree to let the $3,300,000 bonds given as security enjoy the assurances granted by Executive Order No. 735 to the $6,700,000 bonds issued in 1922.
652
Sept. 9 From Lee, Higginson & Company
Request for a written statement that assurances set forth in the two-year note and bond concerning cooperation of the U. S. Government in future collection of customs revenues and their application, can be made with the Secretary’s consent.
653
Sept. 25 To the Dominican Minister
Consent to issuance by the Dominican Government of proposed $2,500,000 two-year notes, according to contract and with assurances similar to those extended in connection with bonds issued in 1922 by Executive Order No. 735.
654
Sept. 25 To Lee, Higginson & Company
Authorization for inserting on proposed notes the statement (text printed) that they are issued with the consent of the United States and that the Government’s cooperation will be accorded in servicing the loan in accordance with the convention of 1907.
655
Oct. 30 From Lee, Higginson & Company
Transmission of the loan contract and agreement of fiscal agency between the Dominican Republic and Lee, Higginson & Co. (text printed).
657
[Page CIII]

Convention Between the United States and the Dominican Republic, Signed on December 27, 1924, To Replace the Convention of February 8, 1907

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Dec. 27 Convention between the United States of America and the Dominican Republic
To replace the convention of February 8, 1907, in order to provide for refunding of certain of the Dominican bond issues under terms more advantageous to the Republic.
662

Exchange of Notes Between the United States and the Dominican Republic According Mutual Unconditional Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Customs Matters

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 June 20 To President Coolidge
Suggestion that the approaching visit to Washington of the President-elect of the Dominican Republic will offer a favorable opportunity for discussing the possibility of an exchange of notes between the United States and the Dominican Republic according mutual unconditional most-favored-nation customs treatment.
666
Sept. 25 To the Dominican Minister
Understanding of agreement reached through recent conversations at Washington between representatives of the United States and Dominican Governments with reference to the treatment each shall accord to the commerce of the other.
667
Sept. 25 From the Dominican Minister
Confirmation of understanding regarding unconditional most-favored-nation customs treatment.
669

Purchase of the Properties of the Santo Domingo Water, Light and Power Company by the Dominican Government

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 26 (1) To the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
View that proposed $2,000,000 bond issue should cover provision for issuance of bonds to the Santo Domingo Water, Light and Power Co. pursuant to the obligations of the Dominican Government under the contract of June 15, 1923. Intention of Hunt, the company’s representative, to recommend to his principals that they furnish sum to rehabilitate the property provided the Dominican Government shall put in escrow with the fiscal agent under the proposed loan issue, $951,000 par value of the bonds. Instructions to ascertain the intentions of the Dominican Government.
670
Jan. 28 (5) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Government’s lack of preparation for the expert’s estimate of $324,000 as the cost of repairs for rehabilitation of the company’s plant, in view of Hunt’s insistence that the amount could never exceed $50,000 and in view of his letter to the Dominican Secretary of the Interior agreeing to induce his company to advance for this purpose an amount not to exceed $75,000. Government’s understanding that the entire amount for settlement in bonds, including estimated value of the plant, would be about $500,000.
671
[Page CIV]Feb. 1 (6) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
President’s opinion that the $2,000,000 loan should not be subordinated to the matter of bonds for the delivery of the Water, Light and Power Co.; intimation that all public works will have to be shut down, as the loan is not authorized; disposition to make arrangements with the company for a reasonable settlement in some other way.
671
Feb. 6 (2) To the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Information that Hunt’s letter does not appear to contain any limitation on the amount for repairs. Department’s disposition, in view of the Dominican Government’s apparent disinclination to carry out its obligations under the contract of June 15, 1923, to recommend that the company accept $450,000 gold or its equivalent in bonds of 90 percent par value in full payment of the properties which shall thereupon be transferred to the Dominican Government in their present condition. Instructions to inquire whether the Government will agree to settlement on this basis.
672
Feb. 8 (8) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
President’s intimation that he would commence careful study of the expert’s report; that he could not definitely state what he would do in regard to issuing bonds for the value of the company’s property for $450,000; that the question of cost of repairs would have to be considered carefully.
672
Feb. 8 (8) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
For Francis White: Refusal to concur in the Department’s conclusion that the Dominican Government is apparently disinclined to carry out its obligations under the contract of June 15, 1923. Suggestion that the company send Hunt to Santo Domingo immediately to negotiate directly with the Government; also that the proposed $2,000,000 loan be authorized at once without being made contingent on settlement of the controversy with the Water, Light and Power Co., as all public works will cease next April unless authorization is granted.
673
Feb. 18 (4) To the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Facts concerning negotiations tending to show that, while the company has lived up to its agreement scrupulously, the Dominican Government has apparently endeavored to find a technicality in the $60,000 provision for not living up to its agreement. Futility of sending Hunt to Santo Domingo again. Feeling that the two alternative propositions of the company offer a basis for a fair and equitable settlement. Intimation that U. S. approval of the proposed bond issue is dependent upon the Dominican Government’s acceptance of one of the company’s propositions.
674
Feb. 23 (14) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Commissioner’s defense of the Dominican Government’s position; criticism of the Department’s intention to force the Dominican Government to accept one of the two propositions offered by the company; recommendation that authorization be granted for the proposed bond issue.
676
[Page CV]Mar. 5 (4) To the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Authorization for the $2,000,000 bond issue, provided $951,000 of the bonds are held in escrow by the fiscal agent of the Dominican Government pending an agreement between the Government and the Water, Light and Power Co.
680
Mar. 5 (6) To the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Further suggestions for the settlement of the controversy. Denial that it is the Department’s policy to force the Dominican Government to accept one of the company’s proposals.
680
Mar. 21 (19) From the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
President’s unwillingness to issue $2,000,000 of bonds under conditions of the Department’s authorization. Commissioner’s expectation that the Dominican Government will be in a position very shortly to make a counterproposal for the company’s properties in their present condition.
683
Sept. 26 (56) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Congressional authorization for the purchase by the Government of the properties of the Santo Domingo Water, Light and Power Co. for $400,000, of which $100,000 is to be in cash and the remainder to be paid in 2 years.
684
Sept. 29 (37) To the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Signature, September 25, by Hunt and the Dominican Minister of the contract of sale of the properties of the Santo Domingo Water, Light and Power Co. to the Dominican Government.
684
Oct. 1 To the Dominican Minister
Acknowledgment of note of September 25 transmitting a copy of the contract signed September 25 and requesting that the U. S. Government give its consent to the increase of the public debt of the Dominican Republic to the extent of $300,000, necessitated by the contract of sale. Authorization for the issuance of 2–year notes to the amount of $300,000.
685

Rejection of Claim by a British Subject Against the United States for Injuries at the Hands of Dominican Bandits

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Apr. 1 (290) From the British Ambassador
Memorial prepared by the legal representatives of D. McPhail, a British subject, setting forth his claim for indemnity from the U. S. Government on account of personal injuries and financial losses suffered by him in the Dominican Republic from an attack made upon him by bandits, September 27, 1921.
686
July 7 To the British Chargé
Assertion that McPhail’s alleged claim is against the Dominican Government; that he is not in a position to assert the claim diplomatically, since the legal remedies in that country have not been exhausted. Refutation of the implication that bandit activities did not exist prior to the time when U. S. troops entered the Republic, attention being called to work of U. S. Marines in stamping out banditry in that country.
686
[Page CVI]

ECUADOR

Resumption of Interest Payments by Ecuador on the Bonds of the Guayaquil and Quito Railway Company

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 June 13 (377) To the Minister in Ecuador
Letter, April 17, from the Guayaquil and Quito Railway Co., stating that the Government of Ecuador has failed to live up to its contractual obligations and that the bondholders of the railway request the Government’s good offices in protecting their right to the full amount of the customs pledged to them. Instructions to report on disposition being made of revenues pledged to the bondholders and on views as to the desirability of making representations at the present time.
692
Aug. 15 (373) From the Minister in Ecuador
Reasons for believing the time inopportune for calling the Ecuadoran Government’s attention to its obligations as to interest and sinking fund due on the outstanding bonded indebtedness in connection with the Guayaquil and Quito Railway Co. Request for instructions authorizing him to make representations should it become advisable to do so later.
692
Sept. 26 (396) To the Minister in Ecuador
Acquiescence in the Minister’s view that the present is not a desirable time to make representations; instructions to report the facts, together with recommendations, if a situation arises which calls for action.
695
Sept. 29 (394) From the Minister in Ecuador
Vigorous representations made to the Minister of Hacienda regarding failure of Congress to make provision for payment of the bonded indebtedness of the railway; means found by authorities for beginning interest payments, with arrangements for future regular funding of indebtedness.
695
Nov. 6 (402) To the Minister in Ecuador
Commendation of Minister’s action in bringing about resumption of payments on the Guayaquil and Quito Railway bonds.
699
Dec. 30 (449) From the Minister in Ecuador
Transfer of funds to the London bank for resumption of interest payments on railway bonds by Ecuador; failure of the railway to make contribution according to contract, placing entire burden on Government.
700

Claim of the Mercantile Bank of the Americas Against Ecuador for the Debt of the Cacao Growers Association

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Aug. 30 (14) To the Minister in Ecuador (tel.)
Information received from the Mercantile Bank of the Americas that an article in the budget bill presented to the Ecuadoran Congress authorizes the Executive to liquidate the Association of Agriculturists and that this is contrary to the President’s promises. Authorization to bring matter to the President’s attention.
701
[Page CVII]Sept. 16 (16) To the Minister in Ecuador (tel.)
Instructions to disregard Department’s telegram no. 14, August 30, as the report received by the Mercantile Bank on the budget bill was misconstrued and the article in the bill actually provides for the denial of Ecuador’s obligation after December 31, 1925. Authorization to bring matter to the President’s attention, suggesting that the bank favors last year’s bill which provides for the liquidation of the association and the extension of the 2-sucre tax until debts are paid.
701
Sept. 22 (14) From the Minister in Ecuador (tel.)
President’s assurance that the Mercantile Bank matter will be arranged satisfactorily; that he favors last year’s bill providing for liquidation of the association and continuation of the tax and is opposed to the budget article providing for denial of Ecuador’s obligation after December 31, 1925.
702
Oct. 1 (17) To the Minister in Ecuador (tel.)
Information received from the Mercantile Bank that the President, despite his assurances, has definitely instructed his advisers not to have the bill passed extending the tax, as he fears the responsibility of obligating the Government. Instructions to remind the President of his assurances and to state that the Department expects he will not delay in having the matter arranged satisfactorily.
702
Oct. 7 (15) From the Minister in Ecuador (tel.)
President’s written reply which absolutely ignores promises. Recommendation for immediate instructions calling for fulfillment of promises without evasion.
703
Oct. 14 (18) To the Minister in Ecuador (tel.)
Instructions to inform the President that the Department relies on the 1922 assurances and recent assurances and confidently expects that he will use his influence to have the bill passed extending the tax; also to point out the adverse effect upon Ecuador’s credit should Ecuador fail to provide for payment of its debts.
703
Nov. 26 (19) To the Minister in Ecuador (tel.)
Instructions to endeavor to confirm reports that the Association of Agriculturists has made full payment on its debts to local banks and holders of vales and that article 4 of the law of centralization of revenues provides that fiscal officials collect all revenues not directly provided for in the budget.
704
Nov. 29 (433) From the Minister in Ecuador
Transmission of a copy of the law of centralization of revenues; opinion that the law is not applicable to the Association of Agriculturists, as the association is a private institution. Information that the 3–sucre tax is being collected and deposited for the benefit of the association as usual; that the budget as finally adopted makes no provision whatever regarding amount to be collected by this tax nor as to its disposal.
704
Dec. 2 (19) From the Minister in Ecuador (tel.)
Report, based upon reliable information, that all debts to local banks and vale holders have been paid, except one vale in litigation.
705
[Page CVIII]Dec. 18 (21) To the Minister in Ecuador (tel.)
Note for the Ecuadoran Government (text printed) holding the Government responsible for discriminations against the Mercantile Bank in favor of Ecuadoran nationals, as evidenced by the payment by the Agricultural Association of all its debts to local banks and to all holders of vales except one in litigation; and insisting upon a prompt settlement of the matter of the debt to the bank. Information that the Ecuadoran Minister at Washington has also been informed.
705

EGYPT

Refusal by the United States To Assent to the Collection of the Gaffir Tax From American Nationals

Date and Number Subject Page
1923 Nov. 3 (415) From the Minister in Egypt
Note on the Gaffir tax prepared by the Egyptian Ministry of Finance (text printed) maintaining that abolition of martial law has no effect upon the legality of the tax which continues to be due from all inhabitants of the territory.
708
1924 Jan. 23 (141) To the Minister in Egypt
Refusal to admit the application of the Gaffir tax to American nationals, since U. S. consent to its collection has never been requested and in view of the fact that other capitulatory powers in Egypt have not given their consent to the collection of the tax from their nationals.
710
Mar. 20 (48.2/1–2572) The Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the American Minister
Transmission of decree of February 16 on the payment of Gaffir tax throughout whole territory of Egypt, and request that the U. S. Government assent to the application of the decree’s provisions to American citizens from the date of the decree.
711
May 5 (156) To the Minister in Egypt
Instructions to inform the Egyptian Government that the U. S. Government does not object to the collection of Gaffir tax from its nationals in certain cities if the other capitulatory powers consent also; but that consent cannot be given for its collection outside the cities until some equable system of collecting the tax is devised.
712
June 13 (499) From the Chargé in Egypt
British refusal to consent to the collection of the tax from their nationals even in cities, until an equable system of collecting the tax is established outside the cities. Note to the Foreign Office (text printed) conveying U. S. Government’s conditional assent to the collection of the Gaffir tax.
712
[Page CIX]

Efforts by the United States To Protect the Interests of American Archeologists in Egypt

Date and Number Subject Page
1923 Jan. 15 From the President of the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Resolutions adopted by the Board of Trustees (text printed) instructing the director of the museum to end the work of the museum’s expedition in Egypt as soon as the Egyptian Government puts into effect the proposed law revoking the provisions of the 1912 law under which organizations excavating in Egypt received one-half of the objects found in their excavations. Request that action be taken in behalf of the Metropolitan and other art museums of the country.
714
Jan. 29 To the Minister in Egypt
Department’s correspondence with the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the American Federation of Art with regard to the modification of the 1912 law relating to the division of antiquities unearthed in Egypt by foreign excavators. Authorization to consult with his British, French, and Italian colleagues with a view to making joint representations. Instructions to refer the matter to the Department before making separate representations.
715
Mar. 5 (284) From the Minister in Egypt
Written protest sent to the Egyptian Government, since the British High Commissioner had already filed a protest and the French Minister thought his Government would take the same action.
716
Mar. 29 (9) From the Minister in Egypt (tel.)
Official information that antiquities law now prevailing will continue for the season of 1923–24, permitting museums to continue their work.
717
1924 Feb. 23 (10) To the Minister in Egypt (tel.)
Instructions to report whether the Egyptian Government has recently reached any decision which would affect the right of U. S. archeological institutions under the law of 1912, in view of recent inquiries from the Metropolitan Museum regarding further extension of their right to excavate and retain onehalf of their discoveries and the Department’s belief that the present time might not be opportune for such representations because of the reported difficulties between Howard Carter and the Egyptian Government with respect to the tomb of Tutankhamen.
718
Feb. 25 (19) From the Minister in Egypt (tel.)
Information that the Government has not reached a decision affecting the right of U. S. archeological institutions under the law of 1912; that the present is not an opportune time to make representations.
718
May 20 From the Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Cablegram, May 17, from a member of the expedition in Egypt (text printed) reporting that the old law will not be changed but that permits will include the proposed change in division of discoveries. Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees, May 19 (text printed) declining to resume excavations under such conditions. Request for the Department’s continued support.
719
[Page CX]May 27 (495) From the Minister in Egypt
Aide-mémoire, April 22, to the Foreign Office (text printed) of representations with respect to proposed modification of the law of 1912. Failure of the Minister’s efforts to have the question remain exactly as it was during 1922–1923. Note, May 27, from the Foreign Office (text printed) refusing to abandon the plan to modify the law in question.
720

FINLAND

Extradition Treaty Between the United States and Finland, Signed August 1, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Aug. 1 Treaty between the United States of America and Finland
For the extradition of fugitives from justice.
724

FRANCE

Convention Between the United States and France Regarding Rights in Syria and the Lebanon, Signed April 4, 1924

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 4 (3) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French opposition to inserting any mention of the extradition treaty of 1909 in the mandate convention. Ambassador’s belief that the French will not object to the mention of the consular convention of 1853. French inquiry about progress of the Palestine convention.
730
Jan. 12 (13) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to inform the Foreign Office that benefits of the extradition treaty will be unilateral unless the treaty is mentioned in the convention; that the Department is prepared to proceed to the signature of the convention omitting reference to extradition if the Foreign Office still prefers that procedure; that the Department plans to take up negotiations with Great Britain for the early conclusion of a convention concerning Palestine similar to the one regarding Syria and the Lebanon.
731
Jan. 16 (20) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
French opposition to any mention in the convention of the extradition treaty or the consular convention; their suggestion that the matter of advantages desired by the United States be covered by an official French note.
731
Jan. 21 (26) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Willingness to proceed to signature of the convention on understanding that the French will write a note confirming the understanding regarding most-favored-nation treatment and agreeing to grant the other advantages desired by the United States, with particular respect to consular rights and extradition. Instructions to cable draft of the French note for Department’s approval.
732
[Page CXI]Feb. 1 (3908) From the Ambassador in France
French draft note (text printed) giving assurances concerning most-favored-nation treatment, extradition, and consular rights.
733
Feb. 28 (64) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Draft reply to the French assurances (text printed). Readiness to proceed to immediate signature of the convention, provided the French agree to certain suggested changes in their draft note.
735
Mar. 7 (105) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Foreign Office acceptance of the suggested changes in their draft note; suggested omission from the U. S. draft note.
737
Mar. 14 (85) To the Ambassador in France
Concurrence in suggested omission from the U. S. draft note. Instructions to proceed to immediate signature of the convention and exchange of notes.
738
Apr. 4 From the French President of the Council to the American Ambassador
Assurances concerning most-favored-nation treatment, extradition, and consular rights in Syria and the Lebanon.
738
Apr. 4 (2675) From the American Ambassador to the French President of the Council
U. S. appreciation of French assurances and readiness to proceed to the signature of the convention.
740
Apr. 4 Convention between the United States of America and France
Defining American rights in Syria and the Lebanon.
741

Consent of the United States to Increased Duties on Imports Into Syria Pending Ratification of the Syrian Mandate Treaty

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Mar. 20 From the Consul at Beirut (tel.)
French High Commission’s request for the consent of the United States, pending conclusion of the mandate convention, to an increase in customs duty on alcohol of approximately 50 percent.
747
Mar. 22 To the Consul at Beirut (tel.)
Request for information regarding provisions of the law in question and attitude of the nationals of other countries.
747
Mar. 31 From the Consul at Beirut (tel.)
Information that the new law increases customs duties in general to 15 percent, with the exception of certain luxuries and particularly alcohol which is to be approximately 50 percent; and that the other powers need not be consulted as they have accepted the French mandate.
747
Apr. 2 To the Consul at Beirut (tel.)
Consent to the increased duty on alcohol, with reservations as to jurisdiction of the American consular court.
748
[Page CXII]Apr. 9 From the Consul at Beirut (tel.)
French High Commissioner’s request for the consent of the United States to an increase in customs duties in general to 15 percent, with the exception of certain staple articles specified which will remain at 11 percent.
748
Apr. 12 To the Consul at Beirut (tel.)
Consent to the increased customs duties, with reservation that there shall be no discrimination against American citizens or products and that consular courts shall have jurisdiction over cases in which American citizens are concerned.
748

Opinion by the Department of State Regarding Jurisdiction Over American Nationals in Syria

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Feb. 4 (1297) From the Consul at Beirut
View that suit for alleged breach of contract brought in local Syrian courts against an American now residing in the United States should properly come under the Mixed Commercial Tribunal, and service of summons should be made through the consulate general. Request for opinion whether service of summons upon the American might properly be transmitted through the Department. Intention to protest the attachment of the defendant’s property in Syria as constituting an act of execution of judgment.
749
Mar. 14 To the Consul at Beirut
Agreement that protest should be made if act of attachment is in the nature of an execution of a judgment. Opinion that processes which must be served through American consular court may not be served outside the jurisdiction of the consular court, which obviously does not extend to the United States.
751

Further Protests by the United States Against the Grant of Exclusive Privileges to French Archeologists for Research in Albania and Afghanistan

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 Feb. 26 (80) To the Minister in Albania
Letter received from the Archaeological Institute of America protesting against the reported monopolistic concession for archeological exploration granted by the Albanian Government to France. Instructions to bring the matter to the attention of the Foreign Office and to state that the United States is opposed to the granting of such exclusive privileges.
753
Feb. 26 (869) To the Ambassador in France
Letter from the Archaeological Institute of America protesting against exclusive privileges granted to French archeologists for research in Albania and Afghanistan. Instructions to bring the matter to the attention of the Foreign Office and to state that the United States is opposed to the granting of such exclusive privileges.
753
[Page CXIII]Mar. 31 (241) From the Minister in Albania
Foreign Minister’s reply that the concession to the French Government had been ratified and it would be impossible to modify it; his regret that the Archaeological Institute of America did not make application for the concession early in 1923 when an arrangement might have been possible.
754
Apr. 2 (4078) From the Ambassador in France
French note, March 27, in regard to the concession for archeological exploration in Afghanistan; and French note, March 28 (text printed) in regard to the concession granted to the French Government by Albania.
(Footnote: Information that the Department made no further representations regarding archeological exploration in Albania and Afghanistan.)
754

Discrimination Against American Shipping by French Authorities in Refusing To Recognize Classification and Inspection of Vessels by the American Bureau of Shipping

Date and Number Subject Page
1924 June 2 (1000) To the Ambassador in France
Letters, May 13 and 14, from the American Bureau of Shipping protesting in regard to French discrimination against American vessels classed by the bureau. Instructions to bring the matter to the attention of the Foreign Office and urge that the bureau be given recognition similar to that accorded certain other classification societies.
756
July 24 (243) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Note for the Foreign Office (text printed) expressing the view that the American Bureau of Shipping is entitled to full recognition by the French authorities on an equal footing with Lloyd’s or any other foreign classification society, and the confidence that such recognition will be accorded the bureau. Instructions to reinforce the note with vigorous oral representations, advising the Foreign Office of the resolution adopted May 15 by the U. S. Shipping Board suggesting retaliatory measures.
756
Aug. 5 (254) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to protest against further delay and urge early favorable action, in view of the urgency of the situation arising from the call of the President Adams of the Dollar Line at Marseilles; and to endeavor to ascertain the grounds on which the French Government requires inspection of Dollar Line vessels, which hold U. S. Government inspection certificates.
758
Aug. 23 (379) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Official information that, pending recognition of the American Bureau of Shipping by the French Government, American vessels calling at French ports will not be interfered with.
759
[Page CXIV]Aug. 26 383) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Foreign Office note stating that the formalities to which American vessels in French ports are subjected are made necessary by article 3 of the law of April 17, 1907, and not as a result of the nonrecognition of the American Bureau of Shipping; and suggesting that the formalities can be waived by an agreement recognizing the equivalence of French and American legislation on the subject.
759