List of Papers

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

GENERAL

Scrapping of Ships by the United States, Great Britain, and Japan in Accordance With the Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armament, Signed February 6, 1922

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Feb. 17 (29440–178:17S) From the Secretary of the Navy
Information that Navy Department has completed scrapping of vessels as required under the Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armament.
(Information communicated to France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan.)
1
Feb. 20 To the Secretary of the Navy
Expression of appreciation for Navy Department’s careful execution of the task imposed by the treaty.
1
Mar. 6 (Foreign Service Report 15) From the Ambassador in Japan
Information that Japan has completed scrapping of vessels as provided for in the treaty.
2
Mar. 24 (298) From the British Ambassador
Information that Great Britain has completed scrapping of vessels in accordance with the treaty.
2

Proposals for the Calling by the President of the United States of a Disarmament Conference

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Undated Excerpt From a Memorandum of a Conversation Between the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the American Ambassador, London, February 11 [10?], 1925
Opinion of Sir Austen Chamberlain that much could be accomplished by a naval disarmament conference, and intimation that he would welcome an invitation from the United States to hold such a conference.
3
Feb. 14 (67) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Mr. Chamberlain’s opinion that France and Japan would participate in a naval disarmament conference.
4
Feb. 14 (74) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to ascertain the basis for Mr. Chamberlain’s belief that France would join in a conference.
4
Feb. 17 (71) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Basis of Mr. Chamberlain’s views found to be his inference from general political situation in France and conversation with French Premier.
5
[Page XXXIV]Feb. 19 (74) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Mr. Chamberlain’s reply to a question in the House of Commons regarding the conference that the matter has been mentioned informally in conversations with the U. S. Ambassador and is under consideration.
5
Feb. 20 (34) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
United Press cablegram reporting consent of England, Japan, and Italy to conference, and consent of France awaited by President Coolidge.
5
Feb. 21 (94) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Resume of what has occurred in regard to discussion of disarmament conference; assurance for French Government that no formal negotiations have taken place, as might have been inferred from press reports, and that if the United States takes any initiative in the matter, all the other Governments, including France, will be notified.
6
Feb. 21 (19) To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Summary of situation concerning possible calling of conference, and U. S. position; regret that press reports have made it appear that some special negotiation was going on with Great Britain.
7
Mar. 18 (51) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
London press despatch reporting President Coolidge’s alleged decision, following failure of Geneva Protocol, to proceed with the conference even if some powers refuse to take part. Japanese impression that U. S.-British conversations were significant.
(Footnote: British Government’s announcement, March 12, of its inability to accept Geneva Protocol.)
8
Mar. 19 (31) To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Secretary’s explanation to Japanese Ambassador in Washington that the subject of a disarmament conference was introduced by Mr. Chamberlain, that conversations were informal, and that if the President decided to call a conference the United States would communicate with Japan as well as other Governments.
9
Undated Memorandum of a Conversation Between the Secretary of State and the French Ambassador, March 26, 1925
Opinion of French Government that disarmament is not now practical. Discussion of security question.
10
Oct. 22 (385) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to cable summary of press comment in country to which accredited regarding the President’s remarks to the press on possibility of disarmament conference.
(Similar instruction sent to Japan. Instructions to Ambassador in France to repeat to Great Britain, Germany, and Italy.)
11
Oct. 23 (510) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Press comment opposed to any disarmament conference.
11
Oct. 24 (160) From the Chargé in Italy (tel.)
No press comment in regard to a disarmament conference.
11
[Page XXXV]Oct. 24 (332) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Ambassador’s feeling that an atmosphere of hostility exists toward any conference in Washington on land armament, but that proposition to reduce naval armaments might be favorably received. General press comment to the effect that with the Locarno Agreement, initiative has passed from Washington to Geneva.
12
Oct. 24 (322) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Request that Ambassador ascertain informally and unofficially the attitude of the British Government toward President’s calling of a disarmament conference, and the opinion of British officials as to its reception by other European countries.
(Footnote: Telegram from Ambassador, October 26, stating that Department’s inquiry had been answered by his telegram No. 332, October 24.)
13
Oct. 24 (176) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Absence of editorial comment in Japanese press regarding President’s remarks. Information that Japan would prefer to see settlement of obligations arising out of the 1922 Washington Conference before considering new commitments.
14
Oct. 26 (183) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Information that the President’s remarks have received very little press comment. Ambassador’s opinion that Germany would welcome President’s calling of a conference.
14
Oct. 29 (337) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Probability of the calling of a European conference for the limitation of armament, excluding United States. Ambassador’s suggestion that the situation might be aided if President Coolidge were to point out that any so-called American interference in European affairs has come only when European powers themselves were unable to agree and had asked for help.
15
Nov. 19 (338) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the President will take up the subject in his message to Congress, December 8.
16

Disinclination of the United States To Be Associated in European Security Pacts: (1) Geneva Protocol; (2) Locarno Agreement

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the British Ambassador, January 5, 1925
British efforts for modifications in the Geneva Protocol. Secretary’s personal views as to aspects of protocol which might give concern to U. S. Government. Ambassador’s suggestion for possible reservation by Great Britain, and Secretary’s desire that, in event of such reservation, nothing be said to the effect that an arrangement satisfactory to United States had been made regarding ratification of the protocol.
16
[Page XXXVI]Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the British Ambassador, January 8, 1925
U. S. desire that Great Britain act entirely on its own responsibility in dealing with Geneva Protocol, and especially that no mention be made of any understanding with United States. Ambassador’s reiteration of British policy to act in cooperation with United States.
19
Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the German Ambassador, March 16, 1925
Substance of proposition made by Germany to France and Great Britain for a joint security pact to secure France, including proposal that France’s security be guaranteed to United States. Secretary’s statement that United States is not authorized to join in any guarantee, nor is question of Germany’s joining the League of Nations a matter for U. S. comment or suggestion.
20
Mar. 16 From the Chargé in Great Britain
German memorandum of January 20 (text printed) handed to Great Britain, France, Italy, and Belgium on the subject of a security pact. Information that Great Britain will probably attempt to induce France to include Germany in any pact, on the understanding that Germany will first enter the League of Nations on an equal footing.
21
June 5 (123) To the Minister in Poland
Secretary’s assertion, upon receipt of Polish Legation’s memorandum of May 28 (text printed) summarizing Polish position in connection with possible security pacts, that United States cannot associate itself in any way with a security pact.
23

Participation by the United States in the Conference for the Super-vision of the International Traffic in Arms, at Geneva, May 4–June 17, 1925

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Jan. 8 (C. L. 192. 1924. IX) From the Secretary General of the League of Nations
Notification of meeting at Geneva, May 4, 1925, of international conference to examine the draft convention for the control of the international traffic in arms adopted July 12, 1924, by the Temporary Mixed Commission of the League of Nations, and to conclude a convention on the subject. List of governments having already signified willingness to be present.
26
Apr. 16 (1) To the American Delegation
Instructions for representing United States at the Geneva conference. Explanation of U. S. position regarding certain principles underlying the draft convention, namely, the licensing system; the restriction of sales to recognized governments and belligerents; and the prohibited zones. U. S. insistence upon publicity of shipments by governments as well as by private parties. Consideration of the draft convention article by article.
(Footnotes: Membership of American delegation and its technical advisers and secretarial staff.)
27
[Page XXXVII]Apr. 16 (2) To the American Delegation
Instructions as to attitude to be taken in the event of Soviet participation in the conference. Reservation (text printed) to be made in proposed convention as safeguard against any possible misconstruction of attitude of United States toward a signatory or adhering power represented by a regime not recognized by the United States.
48
May 13 (28) From the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Desire of French delegation for provision in draft convention that signatories will undertake not to authorize the exportation of war material to countries where domestic legislation prohibits its importation. Circulation of draft provision to that effect by the Uruguayan representative. Request for instructions.
50
May 14 (20) To the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Department’s belief that insertion of provision such as suggested by the French delegation would be superfluous to the purposes of the convention.
51
May 15 (31) From the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Egyptian delegate’s suggestion of a statement to be included in convention to provide for possible infractions of the convention by foreigners in countries where extraterritorial rights are enjoyed. Views of American delegation and suggestion of substitute provision.
51
May 15 (32) From the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Opinion, after further consideration, that the principle involved in the Uruguayan proposal (made on French initiative), if properly phrased, might serve as a useful precedent for securing cooperation of foreign powers in making effective the provisions of the U. S. prohibition law.
52
May 16 (21) To the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that Department would not object to provision suggested in regard to extraterritorial countries.
53
May 16 (24) To the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Instructions to oppose proposal of Uruguayan delegate, since the proposal, even if redrafted in accordance with American delegation’s suggestion, might prove either useless or embarrassing.
53
May 21 (42) From the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request for instructions as to whether Department wishes delegation to endeavor to secure modification of article 31 regarding submission of disputes to arbitration, or to seek a reservation on the part of the United States.
54
May 23 (36) To the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Opinion of Department that modification of article 31 is not necessary; authorization, subject to final instructions, to sign convention without reservations as to article 31.
54
[Page XXXVIII]June 1 (54) From the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Recommendation of Military and Naval Committee for a separate international conference to deal with subject of gas warfare. Suggestion of American delegation that, as means of retaining initiative in the matter, U. S. President might invite countries to designate representatives to agree in Washington on a convention on use of poison gas.
55
June 3 (50) To the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Secretary’s suggestion of resolution regarding use of poison gas to be proposed to conference; other suggestions for keeping initiative in hands of United States; plan to consult with President about possible calling of a conference.
56
June 4 (51) To the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Authorization, as result of Secretary’s consultation with President, to indicate to powers represented at conference the President’s willingness to extend invitation as suggested by American delegation.
57
June 4 (60) From the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that resolution substantially identical with that proposed by Secretary was rejected in committee and that other suggestions were criticized. Request for further instructions.
(Footnote: No indication of further action.)
57
June 14 (87) From the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request for authorization to sign convention.
58
June 15 (64) To the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Authorization for signature of convention, provided no new or objectionable features are introduced, and provided a reasonable number of other powers are prepared to sign.
59
[June 17] (90) From the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that convention, final act, protocol of signature, and gas protocol have been signed by the chairman and vice chairman of American delegation.
59
June 17 From the Chairman of the American Delegation
Statement (text printed) approving provisions of convention and consenting to its signature, signed by the three American delegates who did not join in signing of the treaties.
59
July 24 (471) From the Minister in Switzerland
Transmittal of various acts signed at Geneva June 17, 1925: Convention for the supervision of the international trade in arms (text printed), protocol concerning gases (text printed), declaration regarding the Territory of Ifni, the final act, and the protocol of signature.
(Footnote: Information concerning the declaration regarding the Territory of Ifni, the final act, and the protocol of signature.)
60
[Page XXXIX]

Failure of the United States To Secure the Adoption of the Rules Drafted by the International Commission for the Revision of the Rules of Warfare

Date and number Subject Page
1924 Jan. 26 (829) To the Ambassador in France
Instructions to make clear to the Government to which accredited the readiness of United States, in conjunction with Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the Netherlands, to accept the two sets of rules drafted by the International Commission of Jurists in 1923. Instructions, further, to inquire whether Government would be disposed to conclude with United States and other powers mentioned two conventions (such as were proposed by the American delegation at The Hague, February 12, 1923), to each of which one set of rules should be annexed.
(The same to representatives in Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and the Netherlands.)
93
Apr. 23 (459–E) From the Ambassador in Japan
Foreign Office note, April 19, 1924 (text printed), indicating willingness of Japan to adopt both sets of rules prepared by Commission of Jurists and to conclude conventions substantially as suggested by United States.
95
July 18 (1061) To the Ambassador in France
Instructions to bring matter of proposed conventions again to the attention of Foreign Office, referring to favorable action by Japan and emphasizing U. S. hope for affirmative reply from France.
(Footnote: Similar instructions to representatives in Great Britain, Italy, and the Netherlands.)
96
1925 Jan. 10 (24) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to endeavor to obtain early favorable decision from Foreign Office.
(Footnote: Similar telegrams to representatives in Great Britain, Italy, and the Netherlands.)
97
Jan. 31 (313) From the Ambassador in Italy
Foreign Office note, January 29 (text printed), acceding to principles involved in conventions proposed, but asserting advisability of considering the review and expansion of the conventions.
97
Feb. 12 (398) From the Minister in the Netherlands
Foreign Office note, February 11 (text printed), replying in detail to inquiries of United States relative to the proposed conventions—agreeing in principle with U. S. ideas as to form of conventions, suggesting convocation of a conference to agree upon details of rules to be annexed, and explaining inability to accept certain articles of the rules in their present form.
(Footnote: Foreign Office note, September 1, 1939, explaining that the Netherlands point of view has undergone certain changes since 1925.)
99
Mar. 12 (4941) From the Ambassador in France
Foreign Office note, March 10 (text printed), stating that the rules proposed reproduce solutions already adopted by France and included either in conventions now in force or in practices of international law.
105
[Page XL]Apr. 9 (1166) From the Chargé in Great Britain
Foreign Office note, April 6 (text printed), stating British Government’s decision to await further international discussion on question before formulating its views on the rules prepared by the Commission of Jurists.
106

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

belgium

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Mar. 26 (111) To the Ambassador in Belgium
Note to be presented to Foreign Office (text printed) referring to correspondence of 1919 (extracts printed) whereby Belgium agreed to accord to post-armistice advances by United States as favorable treatment as that accorded to advances by other nations; and inquiring, in light of the foregoing, when United States may expect to receive payments on account of the Belgian post-armistice relief debt proportionate to payments which Belgium appears to have made to other creditor nations on similar account.
(Footnote: Note delivered to the Foreign Office April 22.)
107
May 29 (32) To the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Instructions to inform Belgian officials that United States will not object to notation of proposed $50,000,000 loan by Belgium, being negotiated with J. P. Morgan & Co., provided Belgian Government will undertake at once to refund its entire indebtedness to United States on certain principles enumerated, and will set forth in writing its acceptance of these principles and agree to send a commission to United States to negotiate settlement with World War Foreign Debt Commission.
114
May 31 (62) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Decision of Belgian officials to accept U. S. conditions and to send note to that effect.
116
June 2 (65) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Foreign Office note (text printed) stating adherence in principle to U. S. conditions.
117
June 3 (35) To the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Information that Belgian note is unsatisfactory because it leaves certain particulars in doubt. Instructions to make a communication to Belgian Government (text printed), or, if considered preferable, to proceed along some other line to obtain unequivocal statement accepting principles set forth by United States.
118
June 5 (70) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Unconditional acceptance of U. S. principles as basis of negotiation. Belgian memorandum, June 5 (text printed), for U. S. approval.
119
[Page XLI]June 6 (39) To the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Instructions to state, upon receipt of written assurance that Belgium will send a mission to United States in July to negotiate settlement, that United States considers memorandum of June 5 satisfactory.
120
June 7 (72) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Belgian statement (text printed) giving assurance that mission will be sent to United States.
121
June 7 (40) To the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Information that Department has notified the press regarding Belgian mission to be sent to United States, and hate notified J. P. Morgan & Co. that it has no objection to the $50,000,000 loan.
(Footnote: Information that Belgian Commission sailed from Cherbourg on July 30.)
121

czechoslovakia

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Apr. 4 (252) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia
Note to be presented to Czechoslovak Government (text printed) expressing surprise at apparent discrimination against United States in favor of other creditor governments, in view of the understanding set forth in 1919 correspondence (texts printed) regarding U. S. advances to Czechoslovakia for relief and reconstruction purposes.
122
May 2 (12) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Information that Dr. Beneš, Czechoslovak Minister of Foreign Affairs, denies any intention of discriminating against United States by arranging payment of so-called Nansen relief bonds and will write Minister in explanation.
125
May 5 (11) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Résumé of situation in regard to Czechoslovak debt to United States, emphasizing Czechoslovak pledge in 1919 not to discriminate against United States and fact that the arrangement for refunding of relief credits extended by other governments is in violation of this assurance.
125
May 16 (16) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Reaffirmation by Dr. Beneš of Czechoslovak intention to honor all her engagements, and his plan to take up debt question without delay.
126
July 6 (26) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Czechoslovak Chargé’s statement that his Government had in principle agreed to meet all obligations to United States; enumeration of points agreed to, and desire to know if they would constitute a basis satisfactory for beginning of negotiations. Department’s request for any information available on actual intentions of Czechoslovak Government.
126
[Page XLII]July 11 (37) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Dr. Beneš’ confirmation of Chargé’s statement.
127
July 16 (28) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Memorandum handed to Czechoslovak Chargé on July 10 (text printed) stating readiness of World War Foreign Debt Commission to enter negotiations with a commission from Czechoslovakia to conclude a settlement of the debt question.
127
July 21 (29) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Informal memorandum left at Department on July 20 by Czechoslovak Chargé (text printed) stating readiness of Czechoslovakia to begin negotiations after the settlement of the debt question with United States by Belgium, France, and Italy, and inquiring whether such a time will be acceptable. U. S. informal reply that no connection exists between these several debt questions, and that negotiations should begin in the very near future.
128
July 23 (41) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Receipt of note from Czechoslovak Government formally acknowledging indebtedness to United States and stating difficulty of submitting a full proposal for settlement because of fiscal and economic condition of Czechoslovakia.
129
Aug. 27 (37) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Note to be presented to Czechoslovak Government (text printed) expressing U. S. confidence that a suitable basis of settlement can readily be reached at present time; expectation that Czechoslovakia will promptly take action looking toward settlement; and hope that a commission will be sent to United States at an early date to enter negotiations.
(Footnote: Information that note was presented August 31.)
130
Sept. 21 From the Czechoslovak Chargé
Membership of Czechoslovak commission to United States and information that commission will sail from Cherbourg on September 26.
132

france

Date and number Subject Page
1924 Dec. 8 (550) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Report that French Premier believes France’s debt to United States should be funded, and that he will submit a plan in the near future for suggestions and criticisms.
132
Dec. 30 (614) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that Premier Herriot has submitted a memorandum drawn up by Minister of Finance Clémentel, terms of which (including suggested moratorium for 10 years) are certain to be unacceptable to American public opinion. Ambassador’s decision to confer with Herriot and Clémentel in effort to secure a more favorable proposal.
133
[Page XLIII]Dec. 30 (493) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Unfavorable impression in United States caused by press publicity given to statement of so-called balance sheet of France issued by Clémentel (extracts printed). Secretary’s assurance to press correspondents that statement was not an official communication to U. S. Government and that French Government had never suggested possible repudiation or cancelation of its debt. Instructions to confer informally with Herriot and Clémentel and make clear U. S. position, removing any misunderstanding in regard to a proposal for partial or entire cancelation of the debt.
134
Dec. 31 (618) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Clémentel’s expression of regret over the entirely mistaken impression that his report has given in United States, and assertion that the report (excerpts printed) repeatedly affirmed France’s responsibility for her debts.
137
1925 Jan. 1 (1) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Belief that Clémentel’s memorandum mentioned in Ambassador’s telegram No. 614, December 30, 1924, should be regarded as confidential.
139
Jan. 2 (2) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Probable difficulty of keeping Clémentel’s memorandum confidential, as press already has information that France has made an offer which includes a 10–year moratorium followed by payment through 80 years at rate of one-half of 1 percent.
139
Jan. 3 (8) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Translation of Clémentel’s memorandum on the state of French opinion relative to France’s debt to United States (text printed), containing suggested terms for dealing with debt. Report that Clémentel considers memorandum only a tentative personal and unofficial suggestion.
140
Jan. 15 (46) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that Mr. Mellon, Chairman of the World War Foreign Debt Commission, does not consider terms suggested in Clémentel’s memorandum satisfactory as a practical basis upon which to begin negotiations.
143
Jan. 23 (79) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Ambassador’s concern over trend of events in question of debt settlement and financial crisis which France is facing; suggestion as to advisability of endeavoring to have the Clémentel proposal renewed in an official form in order to pave the way for examination of financial status of France by representatives of Debt Commission prior to possible opening of negotiations.
144
Feb. 6 To the Ambassador in France
Enumeration of difficulties that must be faced and suggestion that some progress might be made if the French Government were to send a delegation to United States to show the exact economic situation and endeavor to bring about a common agreement as to the underlying facts.
145
[Page XLIV]Mar. 20 (188) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Clémentel’s realization of importance to France of settlement of debt question, and Ambassador’s hope that he will modify his proposals to extent that Debt Commission might regard them as basis for negotiations.
147
Mar. 31 (206) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Note from Clémentel, March 28 (text printed), enclosing new text of his memorandum. Ambassador’s hope that the new text, in view of conciliatory changes in comparison with first proposal, may serve as a starting point for negotiations.
147
May 5 (184) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to take up with French authorities the question of the French debt, in the belief that the statement communicated to the French Ambassador by Mr. Mellon on December 1, 1924, can appropriately be used as basis for further discussions. Assertion that it is preferable to elicit overture from France, if possible.
150
May 7 (268) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Report of conversations with French officials. Opinion of M. Franklin-Bouillon (member of Chamber of Deputies) that certain basic principles must be agreed upon, namely: (1) Great Britain to be paid pari passu with United States; (2) France to be granted a 10-year moratorium; (3) debt to be extinguished in 80 years. Request for Mr. Mellon’s views on these principles.
152
May 8 (190) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that basic principles set forth by M. Franklin- Bouillon are not acceptable. U. S. desire to elicit from French Government an official proposal to the Debt Commission on basis of Mr. Mellon’s statement to Ambassador Jusserand, December 1, 1924.
153
May 16 (282) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Further explanation of the first principle put forward by M. Franklin-Bouillon. Opinion that an official proposal will be made in the near future.
154
May 18 (203) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Secretary’s statement regarding debt-funding negotiations (text printed), made for information of newspaper correspondents.
(Instructions to repeat to representatives in Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Rumania, and Yugoslavia.)
155
June 18 (336) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Report of conversations with French officials. M. Briand’s statement that he would (1) admit publicly France’s debt to United States in speech on July 3; (2) in no way link France’s payments to United States with German reparation payments; (3) open correspondence with United States regarding details of debt; (4) send small official commission to confer with Debt Commission.
156
[Page XLV]June 23 (235) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Desire that suggestion be made, if possible, that in speech on July 3, M. Briand announce publicly the intention of sending a commission to Washington to enter upon debt-funding negotiations.
157
July 3 (362) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
M. Briand’s announcement, in his speech, of French Government’s decision to send a commission to United States in near future to negotiate debt settlement.
157
Sept. 16 From the French Ambassador
Membership of French mission to United States. Information that mission embarked at Havre on September 16.
157

greece

Date and number Subject Page
1925 July 31 (237) To the Chargé in Greece
Note to be presented to Greek authorities (text printed), calling attention to fact that no proposal has been received from Greece looking toward settlement or funding of Greek indebtedness to United States.
158
Sept. 5 (406) From the Chargé in Greece
Foreign Office note, August 30 (text printed), stating that the Greek Minister at Washington has been empowered to negotiate with the World War Foreign Debt Commission.
160
Nov. 12 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs
Greek Minister’s informal communication to the Department that new negotiators have been appointed by his Government to take up funding of Greek indebtedness to United States. Mr. Dulles’ opinion that any long delay would be unfortunate, and his hope that the representatives will proceed to United States at an early date.
160
Dec. 26 From the Greek Minister
Information that the special mission to United States will arrive in Washington on December 28.
162

italy

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Feb. 16 (34) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Information that Italian Ambassador, soon to sail for United States, will be able to explain attitude of his Government on its war debt to United States.
162
May 8 (53) To the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Italian Ambassador’s statement, in interview with the Secretary, that his Government does not intend to do anything about funding of its debt until French funding is arranged, and that French settlement will be basis for any proposal by Italy. U. S. inability to recognize this attitude. Secretary’s opinion that Italy should make effective its assertion, in 1922, of readiness to send a representative to United States to negotiate with World War Foreign Debt Commission.
163
[Page XLVI]Sept. 2 (134) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Foreign Office announcement of personnel of delegation to go to Washington in October to discuss debt settlement. Opinion of Italian press that Italy is unable to pay sums expected of her and will not undertake to do so.
164

latvia

Date and number Subject Page
1925 July 20 (273) To the Minister in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
Information that the Latvian Minister in Washington has received instructions to negotiate debt-funding agreement, and that he has been introduced to the secretary of the World War Foreign Debt Commission, with a view to the inauguration of negotiations.
164

rumania

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Feb. 16 (6) To the Minister in Rumania (tel.)
Report of acceptance by various creditor nations of Rumanian proposal for refunding her relief debt. Department’s desire for comments and opinion of Minister as to whether there is any reason why United States should not call upon Rumania to take steps toward a similar settlement of her debt to United States.
165
Feb. 18 (10) From the Minister in Rumania (tel.)
Minister’s opinion that there is no reason why United States should not press for a settlement.
165
Feb. 20 (7) To the Minister in Rumania (tel.)
Department’s decision not to make representations at present, and desire that initiative in the refunding matter should come from Rumania, if possible.
166
Feb. 22 (12) From the Minister in Rumania (tel.)
Opinion that attitude of Minister of Finance will probably hamper any efforts to bring about refunding of debt. Report that only vague promises have been elicited so far.
167
Mar. 17 (13) To the Minister in Rumania (tel.)
Instructions to present note (text printed) expressing U. S. surprise at Rumania’s apparent discrimination against United States in favor of other creditor nations, and declaring U. S. expectation of a prompt proposal from Rumania for refunding its indebtedness to United States.
167
Mar. 31 (18) To the Minister in Rumania (tel.)
Department’s unfavorable attitude, made known in reply to an inquiry, toward any proposal for flotation of a loan either to Government of Rumania or any of its political subdivisions. Instructions to present an additional note to Foreign Office (text printed) if no suitable reply is received by April 3 to previous representations.
169
[Page XLVII]Apr. 6 (29) From the Minister in Rumania (tel.)
Minister’s recommendation against too vigorous action at present because of Rumania’s apparent sincere bid for American financial support, with corresponding advantages to United States.
169
Apr. 9 (745) From the Minister in Rumania
Foreign Office note, March 30 (text printed), in reply to U. S. representations, stating that Rumanian arrangement with other creditor nations regarding relief bonds was not made at Rumanian request but was consented to because of its international character. Suggestion to send representative to United States to explain Rumanian situation.
170
Apr. 9 (22) To the Minister in Rumania (tel.)
Assertion that Department finds Rumanian note of March 30 unsatisfactory. Instructions to present further note to the Foreign Office (text printed) repeating U. S. inability to agree that Rumania should make no payments to United States while making payments to other Governments for similar indebtedness, and expressing opinion that no useful purpose would be served by the suggested mission to United States to explain Rumanian position.
172
Apr. 11 (24) To the Minister in Rumania (tel.)
Information that Rumanian Minister has been advised of U. S. representations to Rumania and informed of importance attached by U. S. Government to receiving early assurances from Rumania that appropriate action will be taken in regard to the funding of its indebtedness to United States.
173
July 18 (44) To the Chargé in Rumania (tel.)
Advice from Rumanian Minister that his Government is shortly to make proposals to United States with respect to indebtedness.
174
July 21 (66) From the Chargé in Rumania (tel.)
Statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs (text printed) that Rumania has decided to send a commission to Washington to examine bases on which an arrangement might be reached with United States.
175
July 27 (67) From the Chargé in Rumania (tel.)
Desire of Mr. Culbertson, appointed Minister to Rumania, to know if Foreign Minister’s oral statement is satisfactory reply to Department’s representations for a definite proposal from Rumania.
175
July 31 (45) To the Chargé in Rumania (tel.)
For Culbertson: Department’s inability to regard oral statement as satisfactory reply; desire for written reply, giving definite information and assurances regarding the debt mission to United States.
176
Aug. 30 (72) From the Chargé in Rumania (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s formal written note, presented August 29 (text printed), confirming Rumania’s decision to send debt mission to United States; and his statement that mission will probably reach Washington about October 1.
176
[Page XLVIII]

yugoslavia

Date and number Subject Page
1923 Feb. 12 (1795) From the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
Résumé of correspondence with Yugoslav officials regarding desire of World War Foreign Debt Commission for proposal for settlement or refunding of Yugoslav indebtedness to United States. Foreign Minister’s statement that question will be studied.
177
Apr. 27 (4) To the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (tel.)
Instructions to endeavor to impress upon Yugoslav Government the importance of refunding its obligation to United States and to report developments as to refunding of debt to France and England.
(Footnote: Synopsis of correspondence in 1919 which resulted in Yugoslav assurances to United States of treatment on equal footing with other creditor nations.)
180
May 11 (6) From the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (tel.)
Yugoslav decision to send a mission to Washington in the fall.
(Footnote: Postponement of mission’s departure until February 1924.)
181
1924 Mar. 18 From the Minister of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
Information that delegation will arrive in Washington on March 21, and inquiry as to day and hour when they may be presented to the Secretary.
(Footnote: Secretary’s reception of delegation on March 22 at 12 o’clock. Information that on April 7 the mission appeared before the Debt Commission and shortly thereafter left the United States.)
181
May 13 (14) To the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (tel.)
Instructions to present note to Foreign Office (text printed) expressing regret that the Yugoslav mission found itself unable to make any definite proposals, and requesting confirmation of U. S. understanding that Yugoslav Government will take no action with respect to any of its indebtedness which would result in placing United States in a less favorable position as a creditor than that which it now occupies.
182
1925 Feb. 11 (2572) From the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
Promise of Minister of Finance to study question and reply to U. S. note in a few days and his expectation to make definite proposal in May or June looking to the refunding of the Yugoslav indebtedness to United States.
183
Mar. 9 (9) From the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (tel.)
Report that British Government has demanded Yugoslav agreement to a plan for refunding of its post-war advances in order to guarantee British share of Blair loan.
184
[Page XLIX]Mar. 25 (11) From the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (tel.)
Finance Minister’s request to know whether, if he accedes to British refunding demand, the United States will demand a similar reimbursement plan.
(Footnote: Instructions to the Minister on April 8 to state U. S. intention to insist on a settlement of Yugoslav indebtedness to United States simultaneously with any settlement made by Yugoslavia with another creditor nation.)
185
May 17 (2680) From the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
Foreign Office note, May 14 (text printed), giving assurances requested by United States in telegram No. 14, May 13, 1924.
186
Dec. 29 From the Legation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
Personnel of commission appointed by Yugoslav Government to come to Washington. Information that commission will sail from Cherbourg on January 6, 1926.
188

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

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Jan. 21 (75) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
British memorandum, January 8, to be sent to the Ambassadors’ Conference (text printed) proposing that conference reach decision on behalf of the several Governments concerned in regard to certain points raised by the Reparation Commission in connection with disposition of the proposed liberation bonds of the Austro-Hungarian succession states.
189
Jan. 22 (52) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to show telegram No. 75, January 21, to Logan (the U. S. unofficial representative on the Reparation Commission) and request him to cable comments as to any right or interest he may feel United States has in bonds in question.
190
Jan. 27 (83) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Logan: Opinion, in view of considerations enumerated, that United States should take a definite stand. Suggestion that United States take no action in Conference of Ambassadors till March and then request that delivery of bonds be made to Reparation Commission as trustee, with instructions to the Commission to make no disposition of bonds or their proceeds except in agreement with United States.
190
Feb. 6 (108) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Information that British memorandum has been adopted by Conference, subject to Chargé’s reservation that no instructions have been received from United States.
192
[Page L]Feb. 7 (76) To the Chargé in France (tel.)
Department’s regret that matter of liberation bonds was permitted to be acted upon by Conference pending Department’s instructions. Inquiry as to whether it is to be understood that Conference will not reply to Reparation Commission along lines proposed in British memorandum until Chargé has received instructions as to U. S. views regarding British proposal.
192
Feb. 9 (115) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Information that Conference will not reply to Reparation Commission until Chargé has received instructions.
193
Feb. 17 (126) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Draft resolution of British, French, and Italian Governments regarding liberation bonds (text printed).
194
Feb. 24 (99) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to inform Conference of U. S. views on draft resolution, stating that in view of U. S. claims against Austria and Hungary, the United States cannot concur in an instruction to Reparation Commission to hold bonds as trustee for British, French, and Italian Governments alone, but that any final disposition should be made only in agreement with United States.
194
Feb. 24 (100) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Logan: Department’s desire for any information available on what may be intended in regard to distribution of C bonds or liberation bonds.
195
Mar. 3 (150) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that memorandum has been presented to Conference of Ambassadors in pursuance of instructions in telegram No. 99, February 24, and is being reserved for future discussion.
196
Mar. 10 (169) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Logan: Information that C bonds have never been distributed, and understanding that distribution is not now contemplated. Statement that the only information available about possible distribution of liberation bonds is article 2 of the Spa Agreement.
196
May 4 (262) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
British suggestion to Conference that bonds be delivered to Reparation Commission without requesting it to hold them as trustee for any particular governments, as previously proposed. Opinion of Ambassador and Hill (delegated to assist Logan) that this is unsatisfactory. Request for instructions.
197
May 5 (186) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Department’s agreement that British suggestion is unsatisfactory, and instructions to insist upon U. S. view as set forth in telegram No. 99, February 24.
198
June 12 (326) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Ambassador’s opinion that as his role is only that of an observer at the Conference of Ambassadors, it will be difficult to prevent Conference from adopting British proposal, if it wishes.
198
[Page LI]June 30 (245) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that Conference of Ambassadors as such has no competency to deal with question unless specifically authorized by the interested Governments, of which United States is one, hence the fact that Ambassador sits as an observer is immaterial.
199
Oct. 30 From the Unofficial Representative on the Reparation Commission
French Government’s view that it would be preferable in the present circumstances not to call for the issue of liberation bonds.
200
Dec. 7 From the Unofficial Representative on the Reparation Commission
Opinion of British Government that it would be preferable not to call for the issue of liberation bonds in the present circumstances.
201

Refusal by the United States To Consent to the Adherence of the Soviet Union to the Spitzbergen Treaty of February 9, 1920

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Apr. 7 From the French Ambassador
Objection of French Government to terminology used to designate the Government of Russia in the U. S. draft agreement handed to the French Ambassador in 1924 relative to Russian adherence to the Spitzbergen Treaty of February 9, 1920. Suggestion of a substitute designation.
201
May 12 To the French Ambassador
Draft agreement (text printed) which is believed to be in harmony with the views of the French Government.
203
June 16 From the French Ambassador
French opinion that wording in U. S. draft may not be acceptable to all the powers signatory to the Spitzbergen Treaty. Submission of further draft embodying suggested change, with inquiry as to whether it meets U. S. approval.
205
July 3 To the French Ambassador
U. S. inability to accept in its entirety the substitute clause suggested in latest French draft. Transmittal of a redraft for consideration.
206
July 13 From the French Ambassador
Suggestion of further change in phrasing of draft agreement.
206
Aug. 17 From the French Ambassador
Suggestion of slight modification in phrasing of draft agreement.
207
1926 Jan. 7 From the French Chargé
French Government’s desire for a communication from United States on the question of the proposed adherence of the Soviet Union to the Spitzbergen Treaty.
208
Feb. 2 To the French Ambassador
U. S. inability, in view of the terms of the treaty, to see its way to consent to the adherence thereto of the regime functioning in Russia.
208
[Page LII]

Assent by President Coolidge to Provisions in the Polish-Swiss Arbitration Treaty for Invoking the Assistance of the President of the United States Under Certain Contingencies

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Apr. 15 From the Polish Minister
Inquiry whether it is agreeable to the President of the United States that the Governments of Poland and Switzerland should provide for invoking his assistance in certain circumstances described in articles 3 and 14 (texts printed) of the Polish-Swiss Treaty of Arbitration, signed on March 7.
(Footnote: Identic note dated April 16 from the Swiss Minister.)
209
Apr. 18 To the Polish Minister
Assent by the President to the provisions of articles 3 and 14 of the treaty.
(Footnote: The same, mutatis mutandis, to the Swiss Minister.)
210

Unsuccessful Efforts To Have American Customs Attachés Accorded Diplomatic Status

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Mar. 31 (329) From the British Ambassador
British memorandum (text printed) setting forth views of British Government regarding the act of Congress approved January 13, which provides that customs attachés shall be regularly and officially attached to U. S. diplomatic missions; and explaining British objections to activities of U. S. Treasury representatives in conducting investigations into foreign costs of production.
211
Apr. 2 To Certain Diplomatic and Consular Officers
Data regarding the purpose and the nature of the activities abroad of U. S. customs attachés of the Treasury Department and representatives of the Tariff Commission, presented for information and guidance in case the activities of these agents are questioned by Government to which accredited and the Department gives instructions to take up the matter.
212
Apr. 2 (5038) From the Ambassador in France
Memorandum prepared by member of the Embassy staff (text printed) presenting arguments against the examination of foreign manufacturers’ books by representatives of U. S. Tariff Commission.
223
Apr. 21 (731) To the Minister in Austria
Instructions to inform the Austrian Government of the appointment of certain customs attaches to the U. S. Legation and to request their recognition by the appropriate authorities; also to explain their duties, making use of information contained in Department’s circular instruction of April 2.
(Footnote: The same, mutatis mutandis, to Embassies in Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Spain; to Legations in Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; and on May 5 to Legations in China and Finland.)
227
[Page LIII]Apr. 21 (1475) To the Ambassador in France
Instructions to inform French Government regarding the appointment of customs attachés and U. S. desire for their recognition; also to furnish a memorandum giving the detailed description of their activities contained in Department’s circular of April 2, and to explain that procedure thus described is the result of an effort to meet views of the French Government as expressed in a note from the French Ambassador dated May 26, 1924 (text printed), and at the same time to carry out provisions of the Tariff Act of 1922.
Brief comment on memorandum transmitted in Ambassador’s despatch No. 5038, April 2.
230
Apr. 21 (123) To the Minister in Sweden
Instructions to inform Swedish Government regarding the appointment of customs attachés and U. S. desire for their recognition; also to furnish a memorandum giving the detailed description of their activities contained in Department’s circular of April 2, and to explain that procedure thus described is the result of an effort to meet the wishes of the Swedish Government as expressed in recent representations and at the same time to carry out provisions of the Tariff Act of 1922.
(Footnote: The same, mutatis mutandis, to the Legation in Switzerland, April 18.)
233
May 4 To the British Ambassador
Hope that the British objections to the activities of U. S. customs attachés will be removed upon receipt of complete information concerning their purpose and the method of procedure to be used in the future, as contained in instructions to the American Ambassador in London.
233
June 6 (595) From the Ambassador in Spain
Information that Spanish Government, while not according diplomatic status to the customs attachés, is willing to grant to them, upon request, such customs facilities as are usually extended to members of diplomatic missions.
234
June 16 (799) From the Chargé in Rumania
Information that Rumanian Government has no objections to advance in connection with the appointment of customs attachés to American diplomatic missions.
235
June 17 (240) From the Ambassador in Belgium
Belgian inability to recognize diplomatic status of customs attaches or to grant them permission to conduct investigations of costs of production.
235
June 23 (485) From the Chargé in Italy
Inability of Italian Government to accede to U. S. request regarding customs attachés.
236
June 26 (199) To the Ambassador in Great Britian (tel.)
Department’s suggestion that Ambassador point out to Sir Austen Chamberlain certain considerations which the British commercial counselor in Washington believes may influence the Foreign Office to waive its objections to cost-of-production investigations by customs attachés.
237
[Page LIV]June 30 (473) From the Minister in the Netherlands
Inability of Netherlands Government to accede to U. S. request.
238
July 2 (2733) From the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
Decision of Yugoslav Government to wait until one or more other Governments have recognized diplomatic status of customs attachés before reaching final decision.
238
July 10 (324) To the Ambassador in Italy
U. S. understanding that Italian Government, while unable to accord diplomatic status to customs attaches, does not intend to prohibit them from performing in Italy their duties under the Tariff Act of 1922. Instructions to make informal inquiries to determine if understanding is correct.
240
July 11 (213) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British refusal of diplomatic status to customs attaches and maintenance of objections in principle to cost-of-production investigations.
240
July 18 (680) From the Minister in Hungary
Foreign Office recognition of diplomatic status of U. S. customs attaché.
241
July 22 (394) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
French inability to grant diplomatic status to customs attachés.
241
July 23 (529) From the Chargé in Sweden
Foreign Office note, July 21 (text printed), expressing Swedish Government’s regret that it cannot give a favorable reply to U. S. request.
241
July 31 (775) From the Minister in Austria
Résumé of Minister’s efforts to obtain consent of Austrian officials to accord diplomatic status to U. S. customs attaches. Request to be informed if any other nation has taken favorable action in the matter.
(Footnote: Notification to the Minister on August 20 that Hungary and Rumania had taken favorable action. Instruction on December 23 that Department considers informal statements of Foreign Office officials reported in despatch No. 775 as equivalent to a refusal of diplomatic status.
243
Aug. 8 (551) From the Chargé in Italy
Information that customs officials will not be prohibited from carrying out their duties in Italy, but that any inspections of business concerns will depend upon acquiescence of the owners.
246
Aug. 11 (936) From the Minister in Denmark
Danish Government’s inability to conform to U. S. wishes.
246
Aug. 19 (659) From the Minister in Norway
Information that Norwegian Government has declined to accede to Department’s request.
247
Aug. 20 (198) From the Ambassador in Germany
German Government’s inability to accord recognition to customs attaches as requested by United States.
248
[Page LV]Sept. 22 (24) From the Consul General at Hongkong
Withdrawal by the Colonial Government of Hongkong of the provisional recognition which had been accorded to the assistant customs attaché at that port.
(Footnote: Information that on May 5 the consul in charge at Hongkong had been instructed to notify local authorities of the appointment of an assistant customs attaché.)
248
Sept. 23 (88) From the Minister in Poland (tel.)
Negative reply of Foreign Office to U. S. request.
249
Oct. 6 (428) From the Minister in Greece
Hellenic Government’s regret at inability to accede to U. S. request.
249
Oct. 7 (1208) From the Minister in Portugal
Inability of Portuguese Government to comply with U. S. wishes. Minister’s request for instructions.
249
Nov. 4 (597) From the Minister in Switzerland
Swiss Government’s inability to accord diplomatic status to customs representatives.
250
Dec. 24 To Certain Diplomatic and Consular Officers
Inadvisability of further efforts to secure recognition of diplomatic status for customs attachés. Information that Department’s circular instruction of April 2 remains in effect; also that in those countries where the attachés have been recognized as members of the diplomatic mission, they will continue to be so regarded pending a modification of the act of Congress of January 13.
252
1926 Feb. 27 (149) From the Minister in Finland
Finland’s refusal to accord diplomatic status to customs attachés.
254

International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading

Date and number Subject Page
1924 Aug. 25 International Convention
For the unification of certain rules relating to bills of lading.
254

Convention Between the United States and Other Powers for the Protection of Industrial Property, Signed November 6, 1925

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Jan. 7 (3474) From the Netherlands Minister
Invitation to United States to be represented at the International Conference for the Protection of Industrial Property, to be opened at The Hague on October 8.
268
Mar. 3 To the Netherlands Minister
U. S. acceptance of invitation extended by the Netherlands Government and appointment of delegates to attend conference.
268
[Page LVI]Nov. 6 Convention Between the United States and Other Powers
For the protection of industrial property.
269

Acceptance by the United States of Invitation To Attend the Third International Telegraph Conference at Paris in 1925

Date and number Subject Page
1925 July 17 To the French Ambassador
Views of U. S. Government that subjects to be discussed at the International Telegraph Conference in Paris should not include questions relating to radio, as such questions will be considered at the International Radiotelegraph Conference to be held in Washington. U. S. willingness, in response to French inquiry, to postpone the Washington conference till 1926.
287
Aug. 17 To the French Ambassador
U. S. acceptance of French Government’s invitation to conference to be held in Paris September 1. List of U. S. delegates and technical advisers.
295
Aug. 23 From the French Ambassador
Information that the sole program of the Paris conference is to consider additions and amendments which the telegraphic office desires to have made in the service regulations and rates in force. French Government’s doubt that the Radiotelegraph Conference may be called with advantage before 1927.
296

Extension of Invitations to the Third International Radiotelegraph Conference at Washington in 1927

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Aug. 18 (263) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to extend invitation (text printed) to Government to which accredited to participate in a radiotelegraph conference to be held at Washington; also to state subjects which U. S. Government believes should be taken up at the conference. Instructions to repeat invitation to the American missions in various European countries.
(Footnote: Information regarding invitations to certain other European countries and to Latin American countries.)
297
Sept. 19 (80) To the Chargé in Switzerland (tel.)
Instructions to inform Radiotelegraph Section of International Telegraph Bureau that United States desires to obtain whatever additions or modifications to the International Radiotelegraph Convention that the various Governments desire to have considered at the conference, and to obtain propositions on certain subjects to be discussed at conference. Suggestion that propositions be submitted by February 1, 1926.
299
Sept. 24 (121) From the Chargé in Switzerland (tel.)
List of points in connection with Department’s instruction No. 80, September 19, on which the Director of Radiotelegraph requests information. Director’s opinion that propositions to be submitted by the governments could not be printed and distributed before May 31, 1926.
300
[Page LVII]Sept. 29 (83) To the Chargé in Switzerland (tel.)
Instructions to explain fully U. S. desire to hold conference during fiscal year 1926, and to ascertain shortest time in which Bureau can print and distribute propositions; also to ask Bureau to suspend action temporarily on Department’s telegram No. 80, September 19.
301
1926 Mar. 15 To Certain Diplomatic Officers
Postponement of the conference to a later date because of amount of time required to obtain propositions of the various governments.
(Footnote: Further instruction, February 11, 1927, containing information that conference will be postponed till fall of 1927.)
301

Opposition of the Department of State to Participation by the League of Nations in International Conferences of American States

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Jan. 15 (966) To the Ambassador in Brazil
Department’s views, to be transmitted informally to Brazilian Foreign Minister, that participation of representatives of the League of Nations in pan-American conferences would bring viewpoints and policies of states which are not American states and thus alter the nature of the conferences.
302

The Tacna-Arica Question: The Arbitrator’s Award and the Establishment of the Plebiscitary Commission

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Mar. 5 (7) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Information that the President has signed the Tacna-Arica decision and that a summary will be cabled, copy of which is to be handed to the Foreign Minister.
(Footnote: The same to the Ambassador in Peru.)
304
Mar. 4 Opinion and Award of the Arbitrator
In the matter of the arbitration between the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Peru with respect to the unfulfilled provisions of the treaty of peace of October 20, 1883, under the protocol and supplementary act signed at Washington, July 20, 1922.
305
Mar. 23 (12) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Information that Gen. John J. Pershing has been appointed President of the Plebiscitary Commission.
(Footnotes: The same, mutatis mutandis, to the Ambassador in Peru; information, March 27, to the Ambassadors in Chile and Peru of appointment of Gen. Jay J. Morrow as American member of the Special Boundary Commission.)
348
Mar. 26 (14) From the Chilean Ambassador
Designation by the Chilean Government of Señor Don Agustín Edwards as member of the Plebiscitary Commission.
348
[Page LVIII]Apr. 2 From the Peruvian Ambassador
Memorial of the Peruvian Commission of Defense (text printed) submitting views of the Peruvian Government in regard to the Award of the Arbitrator, informing the Arbitrator of certain acts said to have been perpetrated against the Peruvian inhabitants of Tacna and Arica since the date of the Award, and requesting certain guarantees in regard to the conduct of the plebiscite decreed under the Award.
348
Apr. 9 To the Peruvian Ambassador
Ruling and observations of the Arbitrator (text printed) on the questions presented in the Peruvian memorial of April 2, emphasizing that the Award is final and without appeal and that the Plebiscitary Commission shall have complete control over the plebiscite.
355
Apr. 10 (41) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Assertion by an informant that Peruvian people and Congress oppose participation in the plebiscite, in view of the Arbitrator’s ruling of April 9; that Government officials, however, desire participation; and that an American assurance of protection from outrage in the disputed region during voting would have a beneficial effect on both popular and governmental opinion.
361
Apr. 14 (29) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Declaration that the Arbitrator could not state that one side will be protected from so-called atrocities on the part of the other; that the Award provides amply for consideration by the Plebiscitary Commission of all questions involved in the voting; and that Peru might well expedite constitution of the Comission by appointment of a Peruvian member.
362
May 8 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs
Bolivian Minister’s inquiry whether U. S. Government would be prepared, after the holding of the Tacna-Arica plebiscite, to use its good offices to bring about a settlement of the question of a revision of the Chilean-Bolivian Treaty of 1904 by which Bolivia would obtain a seaport. Department’s inability to state at present what its attitude will be at a future time.
362
June 18 From the Peruvian Ambassador
Communication to President Coolidge (text printed) naming Mr. Manuel de Freyre Santander as the Peruvian member of the Plebiscitary Commission, and stating certain opinions of the Peruvian Government which are not in concurrence with the ruling and observations of the Arbitrator.
363
June 30 To the Peruvian Ambassador
Communication from President Coolidge, June 29 (text printed), expressing satisfaction over the appointment of a Peruvian member of the Commission, and stating that the Arbitrator adheres to his ruling of April 9, which leaves nothing to be said in reply to the Peruvian communication of June 18.
368
Aug. 11 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
Instructions to report immediately concerning alleged restrictions by Chilean authorities on movements of Peruvians in Tacna and Arica; also to report details of Ordonez incident.
369
[Page LIX]Aug. 14 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Information that the restrictions referred to are embodied in two decrees regulating travel; that the Ordonez incident was regrettable but not important; that there is no doubt of Chilean oppression and intimidation of Peruvians and that under existing conditions a fair plebiscite is impossible.
370
Aug. 14 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Opinion that the two decrees regulating travel violate the decision of the Arbitrator. View that Plebiscitary Commission has power to decide whether any act of Chile’s administration of Tacna and Arica would obstruct fair and free vote, and inquiry whether Pershing wishes Secretary to take any action before matter is decided by Commission.
371
Aug. 16 From the President of the Plebiscitary Commission (tel.)
Pershing’s request that Department make no representations at present, and hope that it will take no action except upon his request, as the problem is not one that can be hurried.
372
Aug. 18 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Secretary’s intention to follow Pershing’s suggestions; his summary of conversation with Chilean Ambassador concerning situation in Tacna and Arica.
373
Aug. 20 (77) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Ambassador’s inquiry if he should communicate to Pershing certain information regarding matters bearing on the plebiscite.
374
Aug. 21 (49) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions not to forward any information direct to the Plebiscitary Commission.
374
Sept. 6 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Telegram to the Chilean Commissioner (text printed) advising that situation in Tacna is becoming intolerable and requesting that Chilean Government take immediate action. Suggestion that representations be made to Presidents of Chile and Peru.
375
Sept. 10 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Transmittal of report of Ambassador in Chile (text printed) regarding Chilean complaints as to Peruvian activities and alleged bids for U. S. sympathy; and efforts of President of Chile to maintain order and assure fair plebiscite. Secretary’s inquiry if Pershing still desires that representations be made to Presidents of Chile and Peru.
375
Sept. 11 (55) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions to make clear to Americans in Chile U. S. hope that they will maintain an absolutely neutral attitude in the Tacna-Arica controversy.
(Repeated mutatis mutandis to Peru.)
377
Sept. 13 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Withdrawal of suggestion that representations be made to Presidents of Chile and Peru at present time.
377
Sept. 18 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Department’s appreciation of Pershing’s efforts to arrange for free and fair plebiscite and hope that Chilean authorities will realize importance of such a plebiscite.
378
[Page LX]Sept. 21 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Report of methods of violence, intimidation, and deportation used persistently by Chileans. Opinion that Commission will fail unless attitude of Chile can be changed.
378
Sept. 24 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Proposal of a resolution to be laid before the Plebiscitary Commission embodying prerequisites essential to a fair plebiscite. Synopsis of opinion of Pershing’s legal advisers in connection with the resolution.
379
Nov. 2 Resolution Adopted by the Plebiscitary Commission
Enumerating prerequisites essential to further progress in the task of the Commission.
382
Sept. 28 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Personal comments and opinion on the legal questions in the resolution as proposed in telegram of September 24. Request for views as to whether time has come for representations to Chilean Government.
385
Oct. 9 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Opinion that time has arrived for representations to Chile.
390
Oct. 10 (61) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Statement to be read to Chilean officials (text printed) declaring it to be inadmissible that Chile, after having invoked the President as Arbitrator, and having insisted upon a plebiscite and upon the recognition of her administrative authority in the disputed territory pending the plebiscite, should attempt to use that authority to thwart a fair plebiscite; and expressing Secretary’s confidence that Chile will appreciate importance of taking such action as will assure a free and fair plebiscite.
Instructions to call attention orally to fact that one of the consequences of a persistence of the Chileans in their present attitude may be forfeiture of Chile’s right to a plebiscite, and with it of any right to the disputed territory.
(Footnote: Information that the statement was read on October 13 to certain Chilean officials.)
392
Oct. 12 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Chilean Ambassador’s suggestion that Chilean troops be confined to barracks instead of withdrawn from provinces, because of difficulty of withdrawal in present political situation.
395
Oct. 14 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Assertion that Chilean Ambassador’s suggestion is entirely inadequate to meet situation; that the presence of troops in the provinces is a menace to a fair plebiscite. Opinion that demands contained in resolution must be regarded as minimum and any material modification cannot be accepted.
397
Oct. 17 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Emphasis on great importance of carrying out plebiscite, of not withdrawing from plebiscite, and of taking every reasonable means to prevent either Chile or Peru from withdrawing. Opinion that careful consideration should be given any reasonable suggestion of Chilean Government.
399
[Page LXI]Oct. 19 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Information that the new Foreign Minister has given the Chilean Commissioner instructions to comply with substance of Pershing’s resolution.
400
Oct. 25 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Report of conversation with Chilean Commissioner, which indicated Chile’s refusal to recognize authority of Commission or to show sincere attempt to meet its demands.
401
Oct. 26 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Peruvian determination, as indicated in memorandum to Department, to take part in plebiscite only if wholly legal and correct and with as full and efficient guarantees for Peruvians as for Chileans.
403
Oct. 27 (75) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Opinion that Peru would not consider a diplomatic settlement of the Tacna-Arica question; that any suggestion coming from U. S. Government would be misunderstood and would cause resentment.
404
Oct. 27 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: View that if any reasonable basis can be found by Arbitrator upon which to abandon plebiscite and initiate diplomatic negotiations, it would be wise to adopt it, as conditions are most unfavorable to holding of plebiscite.
405
Oct. 29 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Transmittal of Chilean Ambassador’s request for assurance that no session of Commission will be called during proposed absence of Chilean Commissioner, who is to be called to Santiago for consultation.
406
Oct. 29 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Opinion that plebiscite should not be suspended, as suggested by Chilean Government.
407
Oct. 31 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Message from Ambassador in Chile, October 30 (text printed), transmitting Chilean request that Secretary instruct Pershing to postpone action on resolutions. Secretary’s assertion that authority rests with Pershing, and he is transmitting Chilean request for Pershing’s consideration.
408
Oct. 31 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Secretary’s view, in connection with Chile’s suggestions for diplomatic settlement, that if negotiations reach point where both countries are ready to invite U. S. good offices, United States might be in position to assist them to reach an agreement.
(Footnote: The same to Embassies in Chile and Peru.)
409
Nov. 9 (117) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Inquiry whether Department wishes steps taken to investigate complaints of Peruvians detained in Santiago against their will.
411
Nov. 11 (72) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Request for certain information concerning detention of Peruvians in Santiago and possible attitude of Chile should the matter be taken up with Government informally.
411
[Page LXII]Nov. 12 (118) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Chilean Government’s willingness to have United States make inquiries in connection with any complaints. Ambassador’s opinion that U. S. diplomatic and consular officers in Chile should be free to hear and investigate all complaints and should then inform Chilean authorities, giving them opportunity to explain or refute.
412
Nov. 19 (74) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions to discuss informally with Chilean Foreign Minister the matter of Peruvian complaints.
414
Nov. 20 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Résumé of correspondence regarding U. S. policy on question of good offices in settling Tacna-Arica controversy. Inquiry if there is any way Pershing might ascertain what Peru’s attitude might be.
(Footnote: Departure of Pershing from Arica on January 27, 1926, for temporary stay in United States.)
414
Nov. 22 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Chilean Commissioner’s assertion that hereafter Chile will not participate in meetings of Commission unless directly concerned with registration and election regulations and with providing for fixed dates for registration and voting.
415
Nov. 23 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Suggestion that election rules and regulations be enacted as soon as possible, but that notification be given that compliance with decisions of Commission is expected.
416
Nov. 25 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Telegram from Ambassador in Chile, November 24 (text printed), summarizing his observations on recent developments and opinions of various groups regarding the situation.
417
Nov. 26 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Readiness to proceed with work on election regulations as rapidly as possible, and belief that they can be reported out of committee in about 30 days.
419
Nov. 27 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Information that Chilean Ambassador had been called to Department and impressed with necessity of complying with Pershing’s position concerning election regulations.
420
Nov. 27 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Department’s regret, expressed to Chilean Ambassador, over policy which Chilean Government is pursuing in its newspaper campaign of vilification against the American Plebiscitary Commission.
420
Nov. 28 (123) From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Chilean Commissioner’s statement at meeting of Commission, apparent object of which was to confuse the issue and bring proceedings of the Commission to an end in such a way as to enable Chile to escape her just responsibility.
421
[Page LXIII]Nov. 28 (8) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Report that powerful influences outside the Government are working to obtain diplomatic settlement of Tacna-Arica question on basis of division of territory or sale of all rights in the province to Bolivia.
422
Dec. 1 (77) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Secretary’s favorable attitude toward a diplomatic settlement, and willingness to advise settlement and lend aid if asked by both parties for his good offices.
422
Dec. 2 (126) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s regret over publication in Chilean press of articles impugning motives of the Arbitrator and his representatives.
(Footnote: Information that last paragraph of Department’s telegram of November 27, concerning campaign of vilification, had been telegraphed to the Ambassador in Chile.)
423
Dec. 3 (78) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Expression of regret that Chilean press is continuing to abuse Pershing and impugn motives of United States. Information that Secretary has given no statements to the press. Request for any suggestions Ambassador may care to make.
424
Dec. 5 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Intention to present a motion to the Commission fixing tentatively the schedule of dates for the plebiscite, which will be the same as previously suggested except that it will be necessary to postpone all dates two weeks.
425
Dec. 8 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Disappointment over suggested postponement of election; President’s feeling that delay may furnish ground for complaint. Inquiry whether matter of adopting regulations could be disposed of early in January.
426
Dec. 11 From the Consul at Arica (tel.)
From Pershing: Information that under existing circumstances any attempt to fix dates for registration and election is guesswork.
427
Dec. 12 (142) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Public statement of Chilean Foreign Minister (text printed) announcing Chile’s exercise of the right of appeal, owing to failure of the Commission to fix dates of plebiscite earlier.
428
Undated [Rec’d Dec. 17] From the President of the Plebiscitary Commission (tel.)
For the Arbitrator: Resolution of the Plebiscitary Commission (text printed) certifying to the Arbitrator Chile’s dissenting opinion and appeal from the action of the Commission on December 9, and authorizing transmittal to the Arbitrator of certain related documents.
(Footnote: Information that Commission’s resolution of December 9 fixed date of plebiscite for April 15, 1926, after period of one month’s registration, February 15–March 15; that a resolution adopted on January 12, 1926, postponed all dates 15 days.)
428
[Page LXIV]Dec. 22 To the Consul at Arica (tel.)
For Pershing: Arbitrator’s order that, until further determination by him, the Commission shall proceed with performance of its duties under the opinion and award of March 4. Secretary’s opinion that appeal period should be devoted to work of preparatory nature necessary to avoid loss of time should the decision of the Arbitrator affirm the resolution of December 9.
431

Boundary Disputes

colombia and nicaragua

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Mar. 21 (212) To the Chargé in Nicaragua
U. S. note to Nicaragua (text printed) stating Department’s decision not to accede to Nicaragua’s request to recommend to Colombia an arbitration dealing solely with the ownership of the San Andres Archipelago, as the Mosquito Coast and the Corn Islands are also involved in the dispute. Department’s suggestion that controversy might be settled on the basis proposed by Colombia, which would recognize sovereignty of Nicaragua over the Mosquito Coast and Corn Islands and sovereignty of Colombia over the San Andres Archipelago.
431
Apr. 20 (19) From the Chargé in Nicaragua
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister’s unwillingness to discuss desirability of settling the controversy by accepting the proposal made by Colombia.
434
Sept. 24 (831) To the Minister in Colombia
Nicaraguan Minister’s assertion of his Government’s desire to submit question to the mediation of United States. Instructions to discuss matter informally with Foreign Minister, if deemed advisable, and ascertain views of Colombian Government as to possible U. S. mediation with a view to ultimate arbitration.
434
Nov. 19 (769) From the Minister in Colombia
Information that Foreign Minister accepted representations in friendly spirit but has not subsequently commented upon them.
435

colombia and peru

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Jan. 7 (1) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Transmittal of Colombian proposal for settlement of boundary question between Colombia and Brazil, on condition that Brazil withdraw its memorandum protesting against Peru’s ratification of the Colombian-Peruvian boundary treaty of 1922. Instructions to state as personal opinion, in case matter should come up for discussion with Brazilian authorities, that United States might be disposed to use its good offices if Brazil should express readiness to negotiate settlement on basis suggested.
436
[Page LXV]Jan. 19 (3) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Secretary’s desire to have boundary question settled if possible before his leaving office on March 4.
437
Jan. 23 (5) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Information as to Colombian willingness to accept settlement of Colombian-Brazilian boundary along the Apaporis- Tabatinga line on certain conditions. U. S. desire for reply on the Colombian proposal transmitted on January 7 before communicating this information officially to Brazil.
438
Jan. 24 (7) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Assertion that the stumbling block appears to be the embarrassment that would be occasioned Brazil by having formally to withdraw her opposition to Peru’s ratification of the Peruvian-Colombian boundary treaty.
438
Jan. 26 (6) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Department’s opinion that an agreement with Colombia on the Apaporis-Tabatinga line would remove cause for Brazil’s opposition to the treaty. Suggestion of one document to cover all points of difficulty, namely, a procès-verbal of a meeting of the Brazilian Chargé, the Colombian Minister, and the Peruvian Ambassador in the Secretary’s office.
439
Feb. 6 (10) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Foreign Office acceptance of the Apaporis-Tabatinga line as the boundary between Brazil and Colombia.
440
Feb. 21 (15) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Draft of proposed procès-verbal of a meeting to be held in the Secretary’s office (text printed); instructions to express hope that Foreign Minister will instruct Brazilian Chargé to attend the meeting and sign procès-verbal.
440
Feb. 21 (2) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Transmittal of draft of procès-verbal, and instructions to express hope that Peruvian Ambassador will receive instructions to take part in proposed meeting.
(Footnote: Similar telegram to the Minister in Colombia.)
443
Feb. 23 (3) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Peruvian President’s statement that withdrawal of Brazil’s protest would remove his only objection to ratification of the boundary treaty; his opinion that arrangement as stated in proposed procès-verbal seemed a happy solution of question.
443
Feb. 24 (4) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s statement that it is impossible to take action until he can hear from Brazilian Government.
444
Feb. 24 (16) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Information that Foreign Minister approves procès-verbal, but suggests verbal changes, including alteration of words “formal protest,” and a more explicit description of boundaries.
444
[Page LXVI]Feb. 25 (16) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Acceptance of minor verbal changes by Colombian Minister and Peruvian Ambassador; withdrawal by Brazilian Foreign Minister, at U. S. request, of modifications of boundary line, in order not to delay matter beyond March 4.
445
Feb. 25 (3) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information that Colombian Minister has received instructions to sign procès-verbal. Instructions to endeavor to have Peruvian Ambassador authorized to sign without delay.
445
Feb. 26 (18) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Information from Foreign Office that Brazilian Chargé has been instructed by telegraph to sign procès-verbal.
446
Feb. 26 (5) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s inability to instruct Peruvian Ambassador until he has heard from Brazilian Government.
446
Feb. 26 (4) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information that instructions are being sent Brazilian Chargé to sign procès-verbal. Desire that Peruvian Ambassador receive his instructions so that document may be signed February 28 if possible.
447
Feb. 27 (6) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s promise to send instructions immediately, and his suggestion of a modification in the Peruvian-Colombian treaty.
447
Feb. 27 (5) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information that Brazilian Chargé has received instructions to sign procès-verbal.
448
Feb. 27 (6) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Department’s surprise at suggestion for modification in treaty, in view of Peruvian President’s statement that withdrawal of Brazilian protest would remove his only objection to the treaty.
450
Feb. 28 (8) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
President’s disapproval of Foreign Minister’s suggestion for modification in treaty; his promise that draft instructions for Ambassador in Washington would be ready shortly.
450
Feb. 28 (9) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Sec. 1. Foreign Minister’s assurance that instructions will be cabled to Peruvian Ambassador before 1 p.m., February 28.
451
Feb. 28 (9) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Sec. 2. Insistence of President and Foreign Minister on certain changes in procès-verbal, as contained in proposed instructions to Peruvian Ambassador.
451
Feb. 28 (8) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Instructions to point out to Peruvian Government that insistence on the modifications in procès-verbal, as contained in Peru’s instructions to Ambassador, will necessitate reopening of negotiations with Colombia and Brazil, thus making it impossible to conclude matter before March 4.
452
[Page LXVII]Mar. 1 (10) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
President’s insistence on two of the modifications in procèsverbal; his willingness to make a substitution in the third modification.
454
Mar. 2 (17) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Instructions to inquire if Brazilian Government will accept procès-verbal with modifications specified by Peru, and to endeavor to expedite Brazil’s reply.
456
Mar. 2 (11) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Ambassador’s expression of opinion, in reply to Colombian Minister’s inquiry, that it would be advantageous to Colombian Government to authorize the signing of the modified procès-verbal.
457
Mar. 2 (9) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Instructions to endeavor to have Peruvian Government send instructions authorizing the substitution to be made in one of the modifications specified.
457
Mar. 3 (21) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Foreign Office opinion that instructions already sent to Chargé are adequate.
458
Mar. 3 (12) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Peruvian promise to forward substitute modification (text printed).
458
Mar. 3 (13) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Report of conversations with President and Foreign Minister.
458
Mar. 3 (10) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information that Peruvian Ambassador has received instructions as promised, but that certain words in the substitute modification are objected to on behalf of Colombia. U. S. desire to know if Peru will delete words or agree to one of several acceptable alternatives.
459
Mar. 4 (15) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
View of Ambassador and Colombian Minister, after consultation, that all parties should sign procès-verbal immediately in accordance with last instructions sent to Peruvian Ambassador, as reopening of negotiations with Peru would be hazardous, and the words objected to cannot be construed as having any material effect on agreement.
460
Mar. 4 To the Peruvian Ambassador
Transmittal of copies of procès-verbal (text printed) of a meeting between the Secretary of State, the Peruvian Ambassador, the Colombian Minister, and the Brazilian Chargé, March 4, 1925.
(Similar notes to the Colombian Minister and the Brazilian Chargé.)
460
Mar. 4 (11) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information that procès-verbal was signed March 4. Appreciation of Ambassador’s cooperation.
(Footnote: The same to the Ambassador in Brazil; first sentence to the Minister in Colombia.)
463
[Page LXVIII]Mar. 10 From the Peruvian Ambassador
Ambassador’s expression of inability to concur in certain points which he considers to be changes in procès-verbal.
463
Mar. 24 To the Peruvian Ambassador
Secretary’s conclusion after reviewing the steps leading to signature of the procès-verbal, that there are no changes in the procès-verbal and that it forms an equitable basis for the settlement of questions pending between the three countries.
465
July 3 (47) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Information concerning a conversation between the Secretary and the Brazilian Ambassador as to the carrying out of the procès-verbal, with suggestion that Ambassador might discuss the matter with Foreign Minister.
467
Oct. 30 (62) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information that Colombia has ratified Colombian-Peruvian boundary treaty; indication that similar action by Peru would be welcome.
(Footnote: First paragraph sent also to Brazil.)
468
Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Colombian Minister, October 31, 1925
Ecuadoran protest to United States that Colombian- Peruvian treaty would make it more difficult for Ecuador to agree with Peru as to the boundary between those two countries. Secretary’s inability to see how treaty could affect Ecuadoran interests or to offer U. S. good offices unless requested by all countries involved.
468
Nov. 30 (477) From the Ambassador in Peru
Report of representations on behalf of boundary treaty; opinion of leader of the Government party that favorable action could be obtained on the treaty when the Tacna-Arica plebiscite had made further progress or had been disposed of.
469

costa rica and panama

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Jan. 23 (10) To the Minister in Panama (tel.)
Information that, as Costa Rican Government has approached United States with a view to delimitation of the boundary between Panama and Costa Rica, the United States would be glad to have Panama appoint its engineer to delimit, in conjunction with those appointed by the arbitrator and by Costa Rica, the boundary as set forth in the arbitral award.
471
Feb. 2 (628) From the Minister in Panama
Foreign Minister’s note, January 29 (text printed), expressing opinion that settlement of the pecuniary claim on Costa Rica should be considered precedent to the demarcation of the frontier. Foreign Minister’s note, January 30 (text printed), stating that in order to proceed with nomination of the Panaman engineer, it is essential that a previous agreement be reached along lines indicated in his note of January 29.
472
[Page LXIX]Feb. 6 (17) To the Minister in Panama (tel.)
U. S. note to Foreign Minister (text printed) declaring U. S. willingness to await for a reasonable time the outcome of such direct negotiations as Panama may undertake with Costa Rica; readiness to proceed in January 1926 with the demarcation of the boundary line, if no agreement has been reached by that time.
474
Apr. 9 (46) From the Minister in Panama (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s statement that Panama is willing to enter into direct negotiations with Costa Rica only to settle indemnity question.
(Repeated to Costa Rica.)
(Footnote: Minister’s report, June 25, of appointment of Julio Fabrega as Panaman confidential agent to go to Costa Rica to solve the boundary controversy.)
476
Sept. 22 (16) To the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.)
Instructions to use good offices informally with the President to further success of the negotiations.
(Footnote: Arrival of Señor Fabrega in San José on September 18.)
476
Nov. 10 (21) To the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.)
Information concerning a compromise settlement of boundary line which Panama might accept. Inquiry as to what solution, in Minister’s opinion, would be acceptable to Costa Rica, if Panaman proposal is not.
(Footnote: Repeated to Panama.)
477
Nov. 11 (22) To the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.)
Information as to minimum amount acceptable to Panama, including straightening of the boundary line.
(Footnote: Repeated, except for first paragraph, to Panama.)
478
Dec. 11 (82) To the Minister in Panama (tel.)
Costa Rican Minister’s opinion that he might be able to induce Costa Rica to accept a solution on basis of the convention providing for demarcation of the boundary according to the award, the matter of indemnity to be submitted to arbitration. Instructions to discuss the matter informally with President and Foreign Minister to determine if some such arrangement could be agreed upon.
(Footnote: Repeated to Costa Rica.)
479
Dec. 18 (121) From the Chargé in Panama (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s statement of Panama’s unwillingness to accept Department’s suggestion at present, as they still hope Costa Rica will accept Fabrega’s proposition for straightening the boundary line.
480
Dec. 18 (54) From the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.)
Information that Panaman proposal was rejected by Costa Rica but that counterproposal has been submitted to Panaman representative.
481
Dec. 27 (123) From the Chargé in Panama (tel.)
Fabrega’s rejection of Costa Rican proposal and submission of a counterproposal for rectification of the boundary.
482
[Page LXX]Dec. 29 (29) To the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.)
Instructions to endeavor to find out whether Costa Rica has accepted counterproposal of Fabrega for rectification of the boundary or has agreed to put off further negotiations till May.
483
1926 Jan. 7 (2) From the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.)
Costa Rica’s rejection of Fabrega’s counterproposal and of his proposal to postpone the negotiations till May.
483

Extension of the Sovereignty of the United States Over Swain’s Island by Joint Resolution of Congress, Approved March 4, 1925

Date and number Subject Page
1924 May 22 To President Coolidge
Résumé of U. S. Government’s relation to Swain’s Island for more than 50 years; discussion of status of the island so far as jurisdiction of the United States is concerned; draft of proposed joint resolution of Congress (text printed) extending U. S. sovereignty over Swain’s Island and making the island a part of American Samoa.
(Footnote: Approval by Congress of the joint resolution on March 4, 1925.)
483

ALBANIA

Recognition by the United States of the Government of Ahmed Zogu

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Jan. 5 From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Request for instructions as to attitude to be assumed toward the government of Ahmed Zogu, in view of his having been sentenced as one of those responsible for the murder of Coleman and De Long, American citizens, in 1924.
489
Jan. 8 (3) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Report on possible attitude of other governments toward the government of Ahmed Zogu.
489
Jan. 10 (2) To the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Information that Department would not be disposed to withhold recognition because of the charges that Zogu was implicated in the killing of Coleman and De Long. Instructions to maintain informal relations with authorities pending further instructions.
490
Jan. 14 (4) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Report that in order to clear Zogu officially, the case of the murder of Coleman and De Long is to be reopened.
490
Jan. 22 (3) To the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Information that if Minister can secure definite assurances from Zogu that the prosecution will be pressed, Department would consider sending early instructions to accord recognition. Inquiry as to what definite action has been taken by other powers.
491
[Page LXXI]Jan. 25 (6) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Report that the Assembly gave vote of confidence January 19; that all but the American representative sent acknowledgment in reply to official notification of establishment of the republic, which was proclaimed January 21.
491
Jan. 29 (8) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Assertion by Zogu’s government that every possible measure has been taken for the arrest and exemplary punishment of those responsible for the murders.
492
Jan. 31 (5) To the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Authorization to extend recognition to the new regime and to acknowledge receipt of official notification of the establishment of the republic.
492
Feb. 3 (10) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Compliance with Department’s instructions of January 31.
492

Renewed Representations by the United States for Equitable Treatment of American Oil Interests in Albania

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Feb. 4 (6) To the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Information that Standard Oil Co. of New York has received word of renewed activity on the part of the Anglo-Persian Oil Co. in Albania and is disposed to send a representative to Albania if the situation warrants. Instructions to report briefly.
493
Feb. 4 (11) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Report of interview with President and Foreign Minister, who promised to give a statement on February 7 defining Albanian attitude regarding oil concessions.
493
Feb. 5 (12) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Report that Yugoslav Chargé has urged postponement of decision on oil concession until assembly of the new Parliament.
494
Feb. 10 (15) From the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s announcement that two projects to facilitate entry of foreign capital will soon be presented to the Assembly.
494
Feb. 10 (7) To the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Information that Mr. Sheffield, Standard Oil representative, is to arrive in Tirana about February 28.
494
Feb. 11 (16) From the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s assertion that if the Assembly remains in session about 20 days more, the granting of the oil concession will be considered.
495
Feb. 13 (8) To the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Instructions to make representations, if the situation justifies, to the Albanian Government for the protection of American companies interested in the granting of oil concessions.
495
[Page LXXII]Feb. 13 (9) To the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Message of Standard Oil Co. to Albanian Foreign Minister (text printed) stating that reports that the company is no longer interested in obtaining an oil concession in Albania is erroneous.
496
Feb. 13 (18) From the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Representations on behalf of American interests, because of critical situation in regard to the oil concession question. Italian and Servian protests to Albanian Government.
Request for instructions to govern further steps.
496
Feb. 16 (10) To the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Department’s approval of representations and desire that matter be followed up vigorously.
497
Feb. 16 (20) From the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Albanian Assembly’s ratification of the Anglo-Persian concession.
497
Feb. 23 (36) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Ambassador’s belief, in view of British-Italian negotiations, that Italy may be granted one-fourth of the Albanian concession and that Anglo-Persian Co. may thus secure hold on Italian oil.
498
Feb. 26 (39) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Intimation by a Foreign Office official that Italy would not be satisfied with a share in the Anglo-Persian concession in Albania but wished a distinct and separate concession.
498
Mar. 2 (13) To the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Instructions to consult with Standard Oil representative (shortly to arrive in Tirana) and to communicate his views of the situation, with Chargé’s comments, to the Department.
499
Mar. 6 (27) From the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Mr. Sheffield’s view that his company should regard the petroleum situation as an accomplished fact and proceed to investigate desirability of making further proposals. Report of rumors that Italians have already formed an agreement with the Anglo-Persian Co.
499
Mar. 10 From the Vice President of the Standard Oil Co. of New York
Cable from Mr. Sheffield, March 4 (text printed), reporting Anglo-Persian contract for concession and reporting his own efforts to learn where Anglo-Persian is to choose areas and whether there is a chance for similar concession to Standard Oil Co.
500
Mar. 10 (29) From the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s reiteration of assurances given in 1922 for most-favored-nation treatment to American interests in Albania. Information given to Standard Oil representative, upon his proposal for second choice as to oil areas, that Albania has practically agreed to give Italians second choice.
500
Mar. 11 (30) From the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Decree granting extensive rights to Italy. Albanian willingness to grant third choice to American interests, should they accept at once. Chargé’s opinion that U. S. position regarding equality of opportunity for American interests, as set forth in 1923, had not been met by Albania.
501
[Page LXXIII]Mar. 17 (15) To the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Instructions to inform Albanian Government that situation is unsatisfactory, and to endeavor to obtain text of Italian agreement with Albania concerning the period within which the second choice of oil areas is to be made.
502
Mar. 22 (32) From the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Information that Albanian decree provides for Italian choice within 2 months of 50,000 hectares, from which 30,000 for exploitation may be chosen within research period of 3 years, with possible extension.
503
Mar. 26 (54) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Opinion that inasmuch as the Italian Government has more interest in the political and strategic situation than in petroleum, the American interests might well go ahead and take their chances with third choice.
503
Mar. 30 (419) From the Chargé in Albania
Representations as authorized by Department’s No. 15 of March 17 concerning the state of Albanian-American relations; Albanian reply, March 23 (text printed). Chargé’s assertion that Foreign Minister’s attitude and informal comments, as well as formal reply, indicated that he did not understand seriousness of the situation.
504
Mar. 31 (20) To the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Report from Standard Oil Co. that the granting of third choice has been conditioned upon the payment of a contribution of between $20,000 and $40,000 by the company. Instructions to inform Albanian Government orally of U. S. failure to understand the proposal of such a condition.
507
June 1 (453) From the Chargé in Albania
Report on recent developments in the oil concession situation. Information that Standard Oil representative is continuing his negotiations to obtain a third choice of territory and that his proposals have been accepted by all Cabinet members except the Foreign Minister.
507
July 8 (45) From the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Information that Cabinet has approved concession proposed by Standard Oil Co. and referred it to Parliament.
509
July 13 (473) From the Chargé in Albania
Ratification of Standard Oil proposals by Chamber of Deputies, and expectation of favorable vote in the Senate.
509
July 20 (48) From the Chargé in Albania (tel.)
Completion of ratification of Standard Oil Co.’s concession in Albania.
510
Oct. 7 (30) From the Minister in Albania
Report that Standard Oil Co. has completed the selection of lands under the concession ratified by Parliament.
510
[Page LXXIV]

Approval by the Parliament of Albania of the American-Albanian Agreement Effected by an Exchange of Notes June 23 and 25, 1922

Date and number Subject Page
1922 Aug. 2 (3) From the Commissioner in Albania
Transmittal of notes exchanged between United States and Albania, June 23 and 25, 1922 (texts printed), as basis for U. S.-Albanian relations.
511
1925 Dec. 16 (44) From the Minister in Albania
Parliament’s approval of the 1922 agreement by exchange of notes. Transmittal of the proposed law approving the agreement and of the report rendered by the Foreign Minister (texts printed).
512
Dec. 29 (46) From the Minister in Albania
Information that Albania’s pledges of June 25, 1922, to the U. S. Government became law on December 28, 1925, by publication in the Official Gazette.
514

AUSTRIA

Informal Agreement Between the United States and Austria for Continuation of Reciprocal Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Customs Matters

Date and number Subject Page
1925 June 25 (25) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Instructions to inquire whether Austrian Foreign Office intends the continuance of most-favored-nation treatment to American commerce pending the conclusion of a treaty of friendship, commerce, and consular rights between the two countries.
516
July 4 (45) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Informal understanding for the continuance of reciprocal most-favored-nation treatment until the conclusion and entry into force of the treaty under negotiation.
517

BELGIUM

Convention Between the United States and Belgium for the Prevention of Smuggling of Intoxicating Liquors, Signed December 9, 1925

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Sept. 8 To the Belgian Chargé
Presentation of a draft liquor convention almost identic with the one concluded with France on June 30, 1924.
518
Dec. 9 Convention Between the United States of America and Belgium
For the prevention of liquor smuggling into the United States.
519
[Page LXXV]

Interest of the United States in German Reparation Payments to Belgium

Date and number Subject Page
1924 Dec. 4 (118) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Belgian Government’s fear that the British Treasury is seeking to do away with the Belgian priority to German reparation payments, and desire for U. S. assistance in support of the Belgian equities.
(Copy to Logan.)
522
1925 Jan. 3 (11) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Logan: Assertion that the points on which Belgian priority has been contested have not been made clear. Reference to Belgian debt question, with the statement that the United States must maintain its position of looking to Belgium for payment.
523
Jan. 11 (32) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Logan: Tentative agreement (text printed) providing for reimbursement of Belgian war debt from German reparation payments, with 12 percent as the amount allotted to Belgium on account of its debt to the United States.
524
Jan. 13 (32) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Herrick, Kellogg, and Logan: Department’s failure to understand differences in percentages as shown in the tentative agreement from those indicated in a previous letter.
525
Jan. 14 (45) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Logan: Article 4 (text printed) of the agreement of January 14 regarding distribution of the Dawes annuities, showing percentages as indicated in the tentative agreement. Information that the 12 percent to be received by Belgium, “by reason of her debt to the United States,” is only tentative and “pending the final settlement;” and that the Belgians agree to turn this money over to the United States on account of their debt to the United States. Suggestion that a letter be obtained from the Belgians which will meet the U. S. angle of the situation and will arrange for form of payments to avoid possible difficulties in foreign exchange.
525
Jan. 22 (53) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Logan: Draft by U. S. Treasury of letter to be obtained from Belgians, as suggested in Ambassador’s telegram No. 45, January 14, and of reply to be made (texts printed).
526
Jan. 29 (88) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Logan: Belgian suggestions for changes in the proposed letters.
528
Feb. 7 (78) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Logan: Authorization that the proposed letters be exchanged, with the suggested modifications and further minor insertions, on the basis that it be made clear by an additional letter that the position of the United States as to the Belgian debt is in no way changed.
529
Feb. 17 From the Unofficial Representative on the Reparation Commission
Transmittal of letter received from tire Belgians (text printed) and of Logan’s letters in reply.
530
[Page LXXVI]Mar. 31 (140) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Hill: U. S. position, to be conveyed to the Belgian Government, that the United States is in no way committed to the decision of the Reparation Commission as to the amount of the debt owed by Belgium to the United States—that this is a question solely between the two Governments.
531
Apr. 2 (208) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Hill: Information that Belgian representative understood perfectly the U. S. position, as communicated in accordance with Department’s instructions.
532

BRAZIL

Disapproval by the Department of State of Proposed Loans From American Bankers to the State of Sao Paulo

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Undated Memorandum by Mr. Stokeley W. Morgan, of the Division of Latin American Affairs, of a Conversation With Mr. Earle Bailie, August 18, 1925
Inquiry by Mr. Bailie as to whether the Department would have any objection to a projected loan by his company (J. & W. Seligman & Co.) to the Paulista Institute for the Permanent Defense of Coffee of São Paulo.
533
Aug. 21 To Mr. Earle Bailie
Department’s inability to approve the proposed loan.
534
Nov. 4 From Speyer & Co.
Inquiry as to Department’s attitude regarding a loan for 25 to 35 million dollars being negotiated with the State of Sao Paulo to finance agricultural and commercial interests.
534
Nov. 6 To Speyer & Co.
Department’s inability to approve the proposed loan, in view of the policy of coffee valorization followed by the authorities of Sao Paulo.
535

BULGARIA

Continuance of American Capitulatory Rights in Bulgaria

Date and number Subject Page
1924 July 1 (503) From the Minister in Bulgaria
Report of French inquiry as to whether the exchange of ratifications of the U. S.-Bulgarian extradition treaty should be taken as an indication of U. S. relinquishment of its capitulatory rights in Bulgaria.
536
[Page LXXVII]1925 Sept. 23 (141) To the Minister in Bulgaria
Department’s opinion that no direct relation exists between U. S. capitulatory rights in Bulgaria and the provisions of the extradition treaty. Assertion that Department’s interest in capitulations is limited to securing most-favored-nation treatment for its nationals. Request for Minister’s comments on present situation and attitude of the various capitulatory powers.
537
Dec. 6 (743) From the Chargé in Bulgaria
Résumé of capitulations in Bulgaria from the Treaty of Berlin of 1878. Attitude of Ministry of Foreign Affairs that capitulations no longer exist. Information that the attitude of Great Britain, France, and Italy is more or less conciliatory; that at present American citizens in Bulgaria receive the same treatment as that accorded the nationals of other countries. Opinion that best policy for United States would be to hold capitulatory rights in reserve against either the possible defense of a national or to use for some commercial preference.
538

CANADA

Extradition Convention Between the United States and Canada Applying to Offenses Against Laws for the Suppression of Traffic in Narcotics

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Jan. 8 Convention Between the United States of America and Great Britain in Respect of the Dominion of Canada
For enlarging the list of crimes on account of which extradition may be granted under previous conventions between the two countries.
542

Boundary Treaty Between the United States and Canada

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Feb. 24 Treaty Between the United States of America and Great Britain in Respect of the Dominion of Canada
To define more accurately, to complete, and to maintain the demarcation of the boundary between the United States and Canada.
544

Convention and Protocol Between the United States and Canada To Regulate the Level of the Lake of the Woods

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Feb. 24 Convention Between the United States of America and Great Britain in Respect of the Dominion of Canada
To regulate the level of the Lake of the Woods.
550
[Page LXXVIII]Feb. 24 Protocol
Accompanying the convention to regulate the level of the Lake of the Woods.
555
Feb. 24 Agreement
Accompanying the convention and protocol to regulate the level of the Lake of the Woods.
556

Continued Protests by the Canadian Government Against Increased Diversion of the Waters of the Great Lakes

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Feb. 13 To the British Ambassador
Transmittal of notice issued by the Secretary of War, February 10 (text printed), of a hearing to be held on February 20 on an application made by the Sanitary District of Chicago for a permit to divert an annual average of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second from Lake Michigan.
558
Feb. 24 (198) From the British Ambassador
Canadian Government’s reiteration of protest against the abstraction of water from the St. Lawrence basin as injurious to Canadian interests as regards navigation and power development. Expression of confidence that no permit will be granted for the diversion of any water not essential to safeguarding the health of the population of Chicago.
559
Mar. 21 To the British Ambassador
Information that on March 3 a permit was issued by the War Department to the Sanitary District of Chicago (text printed) authorizing the temporary withdrawal from Lake Michigan of 8,500 cubic feet of water per second until December 31, 1929, subject to certain conditions.
561
May 7 (467) From the British Ambassador
Canadian Government’s inquiries as to the extent to which the new permit will modify the actual conditions which obtained during the year immediately preceding March 3, 1925.
563
June 15 To the British Chargé
Information in reply to the inquiries made by the Canadian Government, to the effect that net result will make possible a reduction in the flow of water passing Lockport.
564
Sept. 15 (813) From the British Chargé
Canadian Government’s opinion that the permit of March 3 will authorize a greater diversion of water than is now being made, and inquiry as to whether the U. S. authorities intend to take measures to insure future curtailment.
565
Nov. 24 To the British Ambassador
Assertion that Canadian Government is correct in concluding that no immediate reduction is provided, but that its conclusion that no definite reduction is assured and that the effect of the permits will actually be to authorize a greater diversion than is now being made cannot be confirmed.
567
[Page LXXIX]

Intimation by the Canadian Government of Its Claim to Sovereignty in the Islands of the North

Date and number Subject Page
1925 June 15 (627) From the British Chargé
Information of Canadian Government’s readiness to lend assistance of Canadian officers in the far North and posts of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to proposed MacMillan scientific expedition, and to furnish the necessary permits for entering Canadian northern territories.
570
June 19 To the British Chargé
Route of proposed expedition; request for information as to what constitutes a post of the Royal Mounted Police, where such posts have been established, whether they are permanently occupied, and if so, by whom.
571
July 2 (676) From the British Chargé
Information regarding posts and duties of the Royal Mounted Police.
571
July 18 To the British Chargé
Promise of reply to the Chargé’s notes of June 15 and July 2 when necessary study of the matter has been completed.
(Footnote: Information that apparently no further reply was made to these British notes.)
573

Regulations To Give Effect to the Convention of June 6, 1924, Between the United States and Canada for the Suppression of Smuggling

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Sept. 19 Executive Order No. 4306
Approving regulations to give effect to the smuggling convention of June 6, 1924, between the United States and Great Britain in respect of Canada.
573

CHILE

Disinclination of the United States To Grant Asylum During Revolutionary Crisis in Chile

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Jan. 24 (8) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Report of revolutionary movement by the Army and formation of New Junta de Gobierno.
581
Jan. 25 (9) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Fear of certain members of the late regime for the safety of those members being held virtual prisoners, and request for action by the Ambassador on their behalf. Ambassador’s desire for instructions.
581
Jan. 26 (12) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Report that situation is grave, with possibility of civil war. Opinion that it is not necessary to send ships to Chile, but would be desirable to send some very close to Chilean ports.
582
[Page LXXX]Jan. 26 (3) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Department’s opinion that, in view of the fact that the members of the late regime are under guard by order of the present authorities, any action by the Ambassador in their behalf would not be justified.
583
Jan. 27 (4) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Outline of Department’s position with regard to asylum; maintenance of view that the granting of shelter to any person not exempt from the local jurisdiction cannot be viewed with favor except under very exceptional circumstances.
584
Jan. 27 (5) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Department’s feeling that the presence of American war vessels in Chilean ports would cause an unfavorable impression; willingness to send them only if American lives were in danger.
585
Jan. 27 (13) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Report that acute crisis appears to be settled; that Alessandri has been declared constitutional President; that new constitutional convention is to be called and political prisoners released.
585
Feb. 12 (19) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Request of a religious order for protection for its property in Chile, on the ground that the title is in the name of an American citizen. Desire for instructions.
586
Feb. 14 (6) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions not to extend protection if the property mentioned is actually owned by the order and only the title is recorded in name of the American citizen; otherwise, to inform Department as to particulars.
587
Mar. 19 (11) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions that upon Alessandri’s resumption of office, formal relations may be maintained with him.
(Footnote: Alessandri’s resumption of office on March 20.)
587

CHINA

Renewal of Civil War in North China and Refusal by the United States To Lend Itself to a Policy of Intervention

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Jan. 2 (1) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report of unsettled conditions in North China, both military and political: Military power of Chang Tso-lin, shared by Feng Yu-hsiang; arrival of Sun Yat-sen at Peking. Plans of Marshal Tuan, the Chief Executive, for reorganization conference for solution of the complicated situation. Reports of anti- Christian agitation in Canton and in Chekiang Province.
588
[Page LXXXI]Jan. 13 (22) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chang Tso-lin’s announcement of his departure from Tientsin for Mukden with the statement, “All my troops will also be instructed to return to Mukden successively.”
591
Jan. 15 (23) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report of informal conversation with Chief Executive, in which latter stated that 19 out of 22 provinces had accepted invitations to his rehabilitation conference. Report that the conference, however, is the subject of constant attack by the Kuornintang.
591
Jan. 16 (26) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from consul general at Shanghai, January 15 (text printed), reporting an incident involving American and French sailors and resulting in several casualties to Chinese soldiers interned at Haig reserve school.
592
Jan. 18 (28) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Conference with British Minister regarding proposal of the British acting consul general at Shanghai, in telegram dated January 16 (extract printed), at the behest of British interests there, that measures be taken, including the sending of an international military force, to prevent a recurrence of fighting near Shanghai. Minister’s opinion that such measures would constitute forcible intervention on Chinese territory; British Minister’s concurrence in this view.
Telegram from American consul general at Shanghai, January 17 (text printed), indicating a similar proposal by a meeting of the consular body at Shanghai; Minister’s reply, January 17 (text printed), setting forth questions as to various details of the proposal, and requesting consul general to consult with Admiral McVay and send information requested.
592
Jan. 19 (29) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Message from Admiral McVay (extract printed) that the force available for protection of the International Concession at Shanghai is considered by senior naval officers to be sufficient; that American sailors have been cleared of any responsibility in the shooting of the Chinese previously reported.
595
Jan. 21 (35) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul at Shanghai, January 14 (extract printed), reporting decision of the consuls general of the powers to request the diplomatic body to authorize the consular body to forbid right of asylum to all Chinese military leaders so long as conditions remain unsettled. Resolution adopted by diplomatic body, January 19 (text printed), authorizing such action.
595
Jan. 24 (45) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report of military attaché, January 23 (extract printed), sent to Shanghai by the Minister, expressing opinion that present force available is ample to handle conditions.
596
Jan. 27 (47) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Radiogram from Admiral McVay, January 26 (text printed), transmitting message from General Wang that Woosung fort would not fire on foreign vessels during daylight only.
596
[Page LXXXII]Jan. 28 (49) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Radiogram from Admiral McVay, January 27 (extract printed), reporting that senior naval officers had sent message to Woosung fort of their inability to accept a wireless warning, closing the fort during the night constituting an interference with foreign shipping.
(Footnote: Admiral McVay’s telegram of January 28 reading, “Woosung fort has agreed to abide by notice sent yesterday.”)
597
Jan. 29 (2740) From the Minister in China
Report of insistence by Americans as well as British in Shanghai on their demands for protection; request for instructions as to policy to be adopted by the United States in the event of a repetition of the recent situation in Shanghai.
597
Jan. 31 (56) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Radiogram from Admiral McVay, January 30 (text printed), reporting that a detachment of Chang Tso-lin’s army has arrived in Shanghai and taken charge, and that Chang is now master of the eastern section of North China from Harbin to Shanghai.
598
Feb. 5 (Circular 30) From the Netherlands Minister in China, Senior Minister, to the American Minister
Note from the Waichiaopu, February 4 (text printed), stating that, in accord with the Senior Minister’s request, the Chief Executive had been requested to give instructions to the military authorities in Kiangsu Province for the prohibition of troops in or near the foreign settlement.
598
Feb. 5 (59) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report of request by consular body at Shanghai that the foreign ministers suggest that the Chinese Government dismantle the Woosung forts and evacuate the troops there. Minister’s request for instructions as to whether he should join in such a suggestion.
599
Feb. 7 (19) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Department’s inability to authorize the Minister to join in representations to Chinese Government regarding Woosung forts.
600
Mar. 12 (102) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Death of Sun Yat-sen, March 12.
600
Mar. 21 (120) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report from consul at Mukden of an interview with Chang, in which Chang indicated his determination to oust Feng. Minister’s belief that it is inevitable that Chang should fight it out with Feng before long.
600
Mar. 27 (309) From the British Ambassador
Information that the British Government has instructed its Ambassador in Tokyo to inquire of the Japanese Government whether it would desire to make any proposals with a view to international consultation or the use of diplomatic pressure upon the rival Chinese groups to prevent the hostilities now threatened. Request for U. S. views.
601
[Page LXXXIII]Mar. 27 (56) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Request for comments on the British proposal as set forth in the British Ambassador’s note No. 309 of March 27. Secretary’s opinion that it would not be wise for the United States to join in a request to Japan for suggestions.
(Instructions to repeat to Tokyo.)
602
Mar. 28 (36) To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Instructions to telegraph opinion of the British proposal and any pertinent information.
603
Mar. 29 (127) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Views as to possible motives of Great Britain. Opinion that neither international consultation, peaceful action, nor pressure would prevent hostilities if they are to occur; that the powers should avoid even the appearance of intervening on either side; and that the United States should pursue its traditional policy of helpful cooperation with the Chinese.
603
Mar. 29 (55) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Report that the Japanese Foreign Office has had no news of the impending strife between Chang and Feng. Opinion that the form of the British suggestion is objectionable; suggestions as to possible U. S. course of action.
605
Mar. 30 (877) To the Minister in China
Department’s assertion, in reply to Minister’s despatch No. 2740 of January 29, of the impracticability of setting forth in advance its attitude toward a particular situation; concurrence in Minister’s view, as set forth in telegram No. 28, January 18, that the sending of an international military force to Shanghai would be an act of forcible intervention.
606
Apr. 2 To the British Ambassador
Summary of U. S. views regarding British suggestion in note No. 309 of March 27; conclusion that U. S. Government cannot adopt the course of action proposed.
607
May 2 (179) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Report of mobilization of Feng forces, and other circumstances which make clash between Chang and Feng appear more imminent.
609
May 26 (189) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Chang’s intention to come to Tientsin shortly, and to Peking immediately thereafter, and to secure military control of Peking and environs.
610
May 30 (194) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Arrival of Chang Tso-lin at Tientsin.
610
July 2 (259) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Chang’s continued desire to crush Feng, to come to Peking and take control of affairs, and his efforts to obtain British support; Feng’s support by Soviet and radical Kuomintang assistance, and his antiforeign propaganda.
611
[Page LXXXIV]July 9 (686) From the British Chargé
Summary of the Chinese situation as it appears to the British Government: Increase of Feng’s military power in and around Peking, his support from Russia, and his anti-British declarations; danger of renewed disorders in the Yangtze Valley; aggressive attitude of Communist Government at Canton. Inquiry as to U. S. views of the situation, and what steps the United States considers should be taken.
611
July 13 To the British Chargé
Expression of general accord with the British Government as to the seriousness of the situation in China; information that up to the present the United States has not considered any action other than the maintenance of its present military and naval forces for the protection of the lives and property of its citizens in China.
613
July 25 (290) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Press reports of Chang Tso-lin’s arrival at Mukden.
614
July 27 (712) From the British Chargé
Information that according to reports received by the British Government the situation in China has eased somewhat, and therefore no special measures have been taken beyond the despatch of one aircraft carrier to Hongkong.
614
Oct. 17 (448) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Existence of tense situation between forces of Chang in Kiangsu and the Chekiang forces under Sun Chuan-fang, who is believed to be acting upon an understanding with Feng and Wu Pei-fu to drive Chang back into Manchuria; consequent possibility that all North China will be involved in a new civil war between Feng and Chang, with the possession of Peking and control of the Central Government as the principal objective.
614
Oct. 17 (451) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Shanghai (text printed) stating that forces of Sun Chuan-fang have completely occupied Shanghai without resistance.
616
Nov. 5 (475) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report that negotiations between representatives of Chang and Feng for peaceful division of power have failed; that Chang appears to be confronted by Feng, Wu Pei-fu, and Sun Chuan-fang. Mobilization of troops by both sides.
616
Nov. 18 (488) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Diminution of the possibility of immediate conflict between Chang and Feng, due to a sudden compromise agreement.
617
Nov. 25 (497) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report that Chang has been placed under confinement at Mukden by order of Manchurian General and that there is dissension among Manchurian commanders at Shanhaikwan. Factional fighting among Manchurian forces. Recommendation, in view of the military and political instability throughout China, for the holding in readiness of certain U. S. military and naval forces.
618
Nov. 28 (502) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that telegram No. 497, November 25, was partially erroneous, as Chang Tso-lin is still in control at Mukden.
618
[Page LXXXV]Nov. 30 (508) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Demonstrations against the Central Government by students and workmen, and distribution of leaflets and cartoons, some issued by Chinese Communist Society and some by Kuomintang.
619
Dec. 7 (517) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul at Mukden, December 6 (text printed), reporting that Chang has suffered complete debacle and that his position is hopeless.
620
Dec. 9 (521) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul at Mukden, December 8 (text printed), reporting determination of Chang and his son to make a hard fight.
620
Dec. 11 (524) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Attack on international train between Peking and Tientsin; occupation of the railway station at Yangtsun by Feng forces. Plans of Minister and Senior Minister at Peking to protest to Feng’s Peking representative against the occupation of the Yangtsun station as a violation of article 9 of the 1901 protocol.
620
Dec. 12 (527) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Arrival of international train at Peking with all on board unhurt and well.
622
Dec. 14 From the Consul General at Tientsin (tel.)
Successful resistance by Li Ching-lin, Military Governor of Chihli, against advance Feng forces from Peking on a line more than 6 miles from Tientsin.
622
Dec. 14 (528) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Aide-mémoire (text printed) to be presented to the Chief Executive by the Ministers of the protocol powers, urging measures to bring about free communication between Peking and Tientsin in accordance with the protocol of 1901.
623
Dec. 23 (542) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report that international train between Tientsin and Shanhaikwan was fired upon by Feng forces, halted, and forced to return to Tientsin. Further representations by the Senior Minister to Feng’s representative and to the Chinese Government. Approval by Feng and Li Ching-lin, after much negotiation, of arrangements for operation of international trains.
623
Dec. 24 From the Consul at Chefoo (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Tientsin (text printed) reporting that Li Ching-lin’s forces are retreating from Tientsin and Feng’s troops are entering the city.
625
Dec. 24 (544) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Identic telegram to their respective governments agreed upon by the Ministers of the protocol powers (text printed) requesting instructions, in view of the possible necessity for the use of force to restore the operation of the international train in spite of assurances given.
Report that since the telegram was drafted, Feng has ordered that the train be allowed to pass unhindered.
625
[Page LXXXVI]Dec. 24 From the Consul at Mukden (tel.)
Chang Tso-lin’s defeat of the forces of Kuo Sung-ling, commander of Manchurian forces attempting to overthrow Chang.
626
Dec. 24 (347) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Department’s disapproval of the use of force, as mentioned in identic telegram quoted in Minister’s telegram No. 544, December 24, unless lives of U. S. citizens are in danger.
626
Dec. 25 (545) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Arrival of international train at Tientsin from Peking; resumption of commercial service with depleted equipment.
626
Dec. 28 (549) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Issuance by Tuan of mandates adding a cabinet to the system of the Provisional Government; abolishing supreme control by the Chief Executive and vesting it in the Premier, the Cabinet, and the Chief Executive jointly; and appointing Hsu Shih-ying as Premier.
627

Decision by the United States and Other Powers To Accredit Ministers to the Provisional Government of China

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Apr. 6 (69) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to report whether the Chinese Government will consider acceptable the appointment of Mr. John V. A. Mac Murray as Minister to China.
627
Apr. 9 (146) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that the appointment of Mr. MacMurray will be satisfactory to the Chinese Government; that the Belgian and French Ministers have not yet presented their credentials.
628
Apr. 10 (150) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Assertion that the real reason for the failure of the Belgian and French Ministers to present credentials is that Tuan’s government is only de facto, and such action would constitute de jure recognition.
628
Apr. 27 (174) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Presentation of credentials by the Spanish Minister, April 24. Report that the French and Belgian Ministers have telegraphed for instructions.
629
Apr. 30 (178) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Belgian Minister’s receipt of authorization to present his credentials if he considers it to be in accordance with the collective declaration of December 9, 1924. Plans for discussion of the question of presentation of letters of credence at meeting of the Washington Conference powers, May 6.
629
May 2 (91) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Department’s feeling that it is impractical to consider in connection with the presentation of credentials, the qualifications which may have been attached to the recognition of the Peking regime in December 1924, in view of the relations that the powers are actually maintaining with that regime.
630
[Page LXXXVII]May 6 (181) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Identic telegram (text printed) to be sent by the representatives of the treaty powers to their respective governments. General opinion among the representatives that unless certain reservations were made, the Chinese Government would consider the presentation of credentials as de jure recognition.
631
May 9 (93) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Department’s belief that there would be no advantage in withholding action which would merely confirm a relationship already practically existing.
632
May 13 (186) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Chargé’s suggestion that, as even Tuan and the Chinese themselves consider Tuan’s regime as only provisional, it would be preferable to address the new Minister’s credentials to the Chief Executive of the Provisional Chinese Government rather than to the President of the Republic of China, thus avoiding recognition of the unstable transitional regime as the de jure Government of China.
632
May 27 (98) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Memorandum from the British Embassy, May 16 (text printed), requesting U. S. views as to whether recognition is at present possible. Secretary’s suggestion to the British Ambassador that letters be addressed to the Chief Executive of the Provisional Government of China.
633
June 23 (116) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Memorandum from the French Embassy, presented June 22 (text printed), requesting U. S. views as to the postponement of the presentation of credentials by the Ministers of the powers until the Boxer indemnity claims have been given satisfaction. Department’s unwillingness to have Mr. Mac- Murray postpone the presentation of his credentials on this basis.
635
July 2 (258) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Presentation of letters of credence by the Belgian Minister on June 30 and by the French Minister on July 1.
635
July 7 (266) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
From MacMurray: Arrival in Peking, July 7.
636
July 15 (273) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Presentation of credentials, July 15.
636

Acceptance of the Soviet Ambassador as Dean of the Diplomatic Corps at Peking and Establishment of an Informal Organization of Heads of Legation

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Feb. 28 (30) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Authorization, in view of the Soviet Ambassador’s status as dean of the diplomatic body in Peking, to join colleagues whenever it may seem expedient in conveying to the Soviet Ambassador an intimation of readiness to cooperate with him in such matters as are of general concern to the entire diplomatic body.
636
[Page LXXXVIII]Mar. 11 (100) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Plan agreed to by Heads of Legation to limit the diplomatic body to ceremonial functions and to establish a group embracing all the ministers now in Peking as an unofficial instrument for the transaction of common treaty business with the Chinese Government and consular bodies. Appointment of committee to draft communication in this sense to Karakhan (the Soviet Ambassador) and the Chinese Government.
637
Mar. 14 (41) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Department’s opinion that the communications to Karakhan and the Chinese Government should be as informal as possible.
638
Apr. 21 (161) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Communication for Karakhan and the Chinese Government (text printed) stating the recognition of Karakhan as dean of the diplomatic corps for ceremonial purposes.
638
Apr. 25 (172) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Request for instructions as to attitude to be adopted in respect of relations with Karakhan as dean of the diplomatic body.
639
Apr. 30 (89) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Reference to Department’s telegram of August 28, 1924, to Helsingfors (text printed) for guidance with regard to relations with Karakhan. Assertion that U. S. nonrecognition of Soviet regime should not preclude purely social and unofficial relationships.
640
May 4 (2962) From the Chargé in China
Karakhan’s inquiry, upon receiving notification of his recognition as dean, whether he was also dean of the protocol powers; negative reply agreed upon by Heads of Legation.
640

Further Consideration by the American and British Governments of Means for Effectively Preventing the Traffic in Arms With China

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Mar. 12 (252) From the British Ambassador
British Government’s opinion, after exchange of views with the French Government, that there is no hope of success for a tripartite agreement prohibiting the export of aircraft to China; that it is doubtful whether the Arms Embargo Agreement of 1919 can be strengthened. Intention, however, to continue policy of doing all in their power to make the embargo a reality.
641
Mar. 16 From the British Ambassador
Possibility that at the forthcoming Geneva arms conference the question may arise whether China should be scheduled as a prohibited area. Request for U. S. views on such a proposal, or suggestions as to other means of effective international cooperation.
642
Mar. 25 (302) From the British Ambassador
Insistence of the French Government that aircraft of commercial type cannot legally be detained in transit to the Far East. Request for U. S. views as to possibility of U. S. pressure on the French Government to stop this traffic.
644
[Page LXXXIX]Apr. 8 To the British Ambassador
U. S. concurrence in British opinion as to the doubtful success of a tripartite agreement at present. Intention to continue to emphasize to the French Government the nonexistence of commercial aviation in China and the view that all aircraft destined for China should come within the scope of the embargo.
644
Apr. 15 To the British Ambassador
Expression of doubt as to whether any useful purpose could be served by a discussion of the China arms question at the Geneva conference. U. S. inclination not to favor a suggestion to place China in the so-called prohibited areas.
646

Participation by the United States in Efforts To Solve Problems Arising From the Disturbances at Shanghai, May 30, 1925

Date and number Subject Page
1925 May 31 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Report of violence in International Settlement following demonstrations by Chinese students, resulting in several casualties and arrests among the students.
647
June 1 From the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Italian Minister in China, Senior Minister
Formal protest in regard to the occurrence in Shanghai, May 30. Request for release of the arrested persons and for instructions to Shanghai consular authorities to prevent a recurrence of the incident.
647
June 3 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Report of general strike resolutions passed by students and various associations, to become effective June 1; also of demands made and resolutions passed on all conceivable questions.
648
June 3 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Information that 49 of those arrested have been arraigned in the Mixed Court on a charge of rioting. Chinese attack upon police and volunteers; increase of immediate need for additional war vessels; extensive spread of strike among workmen.
649
June 3 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Resolutions passed by various meetings held on June 2; circulation of propaganda advocating extension of the strike to the public utilities and workmen indispensable to foreigners.
650
June 4 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Further spread of the strike.
651
June 4 To the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Department’s desire that all needful measures be taken to prevent the further spread of trouble and to protect American lives and property.
651
June 4 (202) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Demonstrations by students in Peking, upholding certain demands against foreigners in connection with the Shanghai incident.
652
[Page XC]June 4 (203) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Note handed to the Chinese Foreign Office by the Senior Minister (text printed) specifying the circumstances under which the police were led to the use of arms in the Shanghai disturbance of May 30; and expressing the hope that the Chinese Government will regard the incident with a conciliatory spirit pending the reestablishment of order.
Information that Karakhan has addressed a note of sympathy to the Waichiaopu regarding the Shanghai incident.
653
June 4 From the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Italian Minister in China, Senior Minister
Protest that alleged violent attitude of the authorities of the International Concession at Shanghai has resulted in gravest consequences, notably general strikes; request for urgent instructions to the consular authorities that firing cease.
654
June 5 (204) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Karakhan’s note of sympathy to the Chinese Foreign Office (text printed). Information that Karakhan has transmitted to the Heads of Legation a telegram of protest received by him from the Shanghai Union of Teachers.
655
June 6 (6320–388:2) From the Secretary of the Navy
Disposition of U. S. naval forces at Shanghai, as given in a despatch from the commander in chief of the Asiatic Fleet.
656
June 6 From the Italian Minister in China, Senior Minister, to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs
Assertion, in reply to the Foreign Office note of June 4, that the diplomatic representatives have decided to send a delegation to Shanghai to study the situation there and report to the diplomatic body. Assurances that the police of the Settlement have always had orders to use arms only if attacked.
656
June 6 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State
Conversation with the Chinese Minister regarding the situation at Shanghai. U. S. willingness that the Minister telegraph to his Government and let it be known in Shanghai that U. S. forces are there solely for the protection of American lives and property.
657
June 6 (206) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Personnel of the delegation to study the situation at Shanghai and report back to the Heads of Legation.
658
June 8 (211) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Decision by the Heads of Legation to suggest to the consular body at Shanghai the reembarkation of part of the landing force if the local situation permits, publicity to be given to such measures if taken.
Chang Tso-lin’s intention to send his son to investigate situation in Shanghai, and to despatch forces to maintain order.
660
June 9 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Report that trial of the rioters is proceeding. Consul general’s proposal that he support at the consular body meeting the appointment of an international foreign mission to investigate actions of the police on May 30 and that a Chinese representative be invited to watch the proceedings.
660
[Page XCI]June 10 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Report that conditions have improved since June 3 and 4 except in regard to the strike, which is spreading.
661
June 10 To the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Suggestion concerning the advisability of consultation with the diplomatic body and with its commission of investigation before considering the appointment of an international foreign mission of investigation, so that a duplication of effort may be avoided.
662
June 11 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Improvement of general conditions but no perceptible subsiding of strike. Information from Admiral McVay that naval vessels have been stationed at practically every treaty port.
663
June 12 From the Consul General at Shanghai (tel.)
Telegram to the Legation (text printed) reporting that Mixed Court trial of rioters was completed June 11, with extreme leniency shown to the accused.
663
June 12 (107) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that press articles appearing in United States which suggest the existence of a plot by European powers and Japan to draw United States into action oppressive of China in order to further their own interests, have received no sanction whatever from the Department.
(Instructions to repeat to Tokyo and Shanghai.)
664
June 12 (217) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Note from the Waichiaopu to the Senior Minister, June 11, criticizing action of the Settlement authorities; reply drafted by Heads of Legation stating that diplomatic delegation at Shanghai has been instructed to consider with the consular body and Chinese delegates the best means to remedy the distressing situation, and recalling to the Chinese Government its grave responsibility for maintaining order throughout China.
Opinions of Chang Tso-lin and Feng Yu-hsiang regarding Shanghai disturbances.
664
June 14 (225) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Report from the consul at Shanghai that part of defense forces have been withdrawn, owing to improved situation.
666
June 17 (112) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Information that the purport of telegram No. 107, June 12, to Peking, has been conveyed to the Foreign Minister, who expressed gratification.
667
June 19 (237) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Inability of diplomatic delegation at Shanghai to reach an agreement with the Chinese Government delegates in respect of the Shanghai incidents; departure of the delegation for Peking. Decision of Heads of Legation to constitute the Italian and the French Ministers and the U. S. Chargé^ as a committee to negotiate with the Chinese Government for settlement of the incidents and, if so agreed by the Governments concerned, for a reorganization of the International Settlement and the administration of justice in the Settlement.
667
[Page XCII]June 20 (238) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Chinese Government’s preference for Shanghai as the place for negotiations; desire of Heads of Legation, conveyed to the Foreign Minister, that negotiations be held in Peking.
669
June 23 (242) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Shanghai, June 22 (text printed), reporting belief that there will be no relaxation in strike until June 26; also that no practical assistance for maintaining order has yet been received from Chang Tso-lin.
670
June 26 (Circular 187 bis) From the Italian Minister in China, Senior Minister, to the American Chargé
Note from the Waichiaopu, June 24 (text printed), submitting the 13 demands formulated by the Chinese delegation at Shanghai and the Chinese views concerning treaty revision, for consideration during the forthcoming negotiations at Peking.
670
June 27 (252) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Shanghai, June 26 (text printed), reporting the reopening of all Chinese banks and most shops.
672
July 2 (255) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Opinion of Heads of Legation, conveyed to the Foreign Minister, that the Chinese Government’s 13 points cannot seriously be considered as basis for negotiations.
Suggested possibility of referring settlement of the Shanghai incidents to the Permanent Court of International Justice in conjunction with the League of Nations.
672
July 2 (257) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions from the Heads of Legation to the senior consul at Shanghai to be communicated to the Municipal Council (text printed), containing recommendations for revision of the police regulations of the International Settlement and for the replacement of Colonel McEuen, commissioner of police, because of negligence in connection with the incident of May 30.
674
July 2 (129) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Department’s desire that in the negotiations for settlement of the Shanghai incidents, every effort be made to see that the Chinese point of view receives fair and just consideration.
676
July 3 (262) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Request from the consular body at Shanghai, acceded to by Heads of Legation, for a delay until July 6 in presentation to the Municipal Council of the decisions of the Heads of Legation described in telegram No. 257, July 2. Intention to communicate the decisions to the Chinese Government and to the press on July 6.
676
July 6 (264) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that British Government has instructed its Chargé to cause suspension of communication of decisions of the Heads of Legation to the Chinese Government and to the press, pending further instructions.
677
[Page XCIII]July 6 (133) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions to refrain from joining any move to refer to the Permanent Court of International Justice or to the League of Nations any question in which U. S. Government is concerned, as United States is not a member of either body.
677
July 7 (684) From the British Chargé
British Government’s instructions to its Chargé in Peking to satisfy himself, before taking any further action, that the decisions of the diplomatic body will not meet with any effective resistance from the Municipal Council of Shanghai, and that the U. S. and Japanese representatives have been officially authorized to make the proposed communications to the Chinese Government and to the press. Hope that the U. S. Chargé will be given similar instructions.
678
July 9 (267) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that the decisions of the Heads of Legation have been transmitted to the Municipal Council.
Displeasure among certain members of the diplomatic body, particularly the French Minister, over action of British Government as described in telegram No. 264, July 6. Compromise suggested by U. S. Chargé, and ultimately agreed upon, whereby the Municipal Council would be allowed to take the proposed action as on its own initiative, announcing that such action followed discussion with the consular body and approval by the representatives of the powers concerned at Peking; identic telegram in this sense to the U. S., British, and Japanese consuls at Shanghai.
679
July 10 (268) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Refusal of the Municipal Council of Shanghai to accede to the conclusions of the diplomatic representatives; no reply to the identic telegram to the U. S., British, and Japanese consuls. Identic telegram from the Heads of Legation to their respective governments (text printed) requesting authorization to undertake, if necessary, negotiations for the modification of existing land regulations in the International Settlement.
681
July 11 (271) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
French Minister’s statement of his inability to continue as a member of the diplomatic commission delegated by the Heads of Legation to negotiate in their behalf with the Chinese authorities for the settlement of the Shanghai incident.
683
July 13 (146) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Authorization as requested in the identic telegram described in Chargé’s telegram No. 268, July 10.
684
July 17 (217) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British Government’s proposed telegram to its Chargé in Peking (text printed), expressing opinion that a public judicial inquiry should be held in regard to the Shanghai incident, and suggesting a communication from the diplomatic body to the Municipal Council in this sense; and stating that pending the result of this inquiry the police commissioner should be suspended without prejudice.
Hope of the British Government that similar instructions may be sent to the representatives at Peking of the United States, France, and Japan.
684
[Page XCIV]July 18 (159) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Request for comments on the British proposal.
686
July 20 (282) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Recommendation that the United States accede to the British proposal with a qualification that the commission of inquiry should include a Chinese jurist.
687
July 22 (236) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to inform the British Government that the United States is prepared to acquiesce in its proposal for the holding of a judicial inquiry provided the proposed commission shall include a Chinese jurist of high standing.
689
July 30 (236) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British Government’s approval of the suggestion that the proposed commission include a Chinese jurist.
690
Aug. 3 To the British Chargé
Acknowledgment of the British Chargé’s note No. 684, of July 7, and assertion that since receipt of the note the situation has been altered by the proposal for a judicial inquiry.
690
Aug. 14 (245) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Foreign Office note (extract printed) stating that the French, Japanese, and Italian Governments have agreed in principle to the establishment of a judicial inquiry, and requesting U. S. support in British efforts to obtain cooperation of certain other countries.
691
Aug. 5 (248) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the U. S. representatives in certain European capitals have been instructed to support their British colleagues as requested by the British Government.
691
Aug. 6 (192) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese Minister’s statement to the Secretary that his Government could not see any need for the proposed judicial inquiry into the Shanghai matter.
692
Aug. 8 (319) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Review of the critical situation in China, including Foreign Minister’s objection to a judicial inquiry; British draft document for constitution of the commission of inquiry, which, in Minister’s opinion, confuses functions of inquiry with political considerations; and continued agitations at Shanghai. Recommendation of a plan of action to be urged upon the British Government, to consist of: (1) Immediate acceptance of Colonel McEuen’s resignation; (2) opening of negotiations with the Chinese Government; (3) holding of judicial inquiry, if insisted upon, to be limited to finding of facts.
692
Aug. 10 (322) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Shanghai, August 7 (text printed), reporting decision of the naval authorities that the landing forces, except to guard public utilities, will be withdrawn on August 10.
695
Aug. 10 (197) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Approval of Minister’s proposed plan of action as set forth in telegram No. 319, August 8; authorization to discuss the matter with the Japanese Minister. Information that the Embassy at London is being instructed to take the matter up with the Foreign Office.
696
[Page XCV]Aug. 15 (257) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Foreign Office note (text printed), in reply to U. S. Ambassador’s informal note, objecting to the acceptance of McEuen’s resignation, but recommending that he be suspended by the Municipal Council pending outcome of the inquiry; agreeing to the immediate opening of negotiations with the Chinese Government; and agreeing to certain modification of its draft terms of reference in order to proceed with the judicial inquiry.
696
Aug. 21 (272) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Opinion of the Minister in China that McEuen’s resignation is necessary. Authorization to communicate this view to the British Government and to express the hope that it may be able to reconsider its position in this regard.
698
Aug. 27 (354) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that it now appears that the British Government desires that even McEuen’s suspension should not be put into effect or announced until immediately before the commission of inquiry convenes.
699
Aug. 27 (274) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Conversation with Sir Austen Chamberlain, in which he expressed desire of British Government to act in concert with the United States and Japan; fear of certain complications, however, if McEuen’s resignation is permitted before a public inquiry has been made.
699
Aug. 29 (362) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Shanghai (text printed) reporting cancelation of the state of emergency and reembarkation of all U. S. landing forces.
700
Aug. 30 (364) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Recommendation, in reply to Department’s request for comments and suggestions, that British Government be informed that in order to avoid an indefinite delay in settlement of the Shanghai affair, the United States will not insist upon McEuen’s resignation before the inquiry but feels that assurances should be given that he will be retired in the event of his vindication by the inquiry.
700
Aug. 31 (282) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to convey to the British Government the U. S. position as recommended by the Minister in China, together with the understanding that McEuen’s suspension will be arranged to take effect as soon as possible without awaiting the commencement of the judicial inquiry.
702
Sept. 1 (278) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the Foreign Office will instruct the British Chargé at Peking to cooperate with his U. S. colleague in accord with Department’s position as stated in telegram No. 282, August 31.
703
Sept. 4 (379) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Formula drafted by the U. S. Minister, Japanese Minister, and British Chargé (extract printed), based upon the British Foreign Office draft for the terms of reference to judicial inquiry of the matters related to the Shanghai incident. Request for authorization to sign the formula, if satisfactory to Department.
703
[Page XCVI]Sept. 4 (283) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to inform Foreign Office that the United States would consider acceptable a definite pledge from it as suggested by the British Chargé in China, to the effect that the British Government would, if necessary, at the close of the judicial inquiry, exert its influence to bring about McEuen’s retirement.
704
Sept. 4 (232) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Department’s approval of the formula transmitted in telegram No. 379, September 4, and authorization to sign it or any modification thereof importing no substantial alteration.
705
Sept. 9 (385) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Acceptance of terms of reference by interested colleagues, with certain modifications. Assertion that action awaits selection of American and Japanese judges.
705
Sept. 9 (238) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that Associate Justice E. Finley Johnson, of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, will be named as the American judge to serve on the commission of inquiry at Shanghai.
705
Sept. 10 (389) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Letter received from the British Chargé transmitting British Government’s pledge in regard to McEuen’s retirement. Inquiry if assurance is satisfactory.
706
Sept. 11 (241) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to inform the British Chargé that the assurance given is satisfactory, and that the Minister is ready to proceed with negotiations with the Chinese Government regarding the Shanghai incident.
706
Sept. 15 (Circular 259) From the Netherlands Minister in China, Senior Minister, to the American Minister
Telegram from the senior consul at Shanghai stating that the Municipal Council confirms its agreement to conform to the conclusions of the judicial commission and to suspend the commissioner of police before the first meeting of the commission.
Letter to the Chinese Foreign Minister (text printed) transmitting a certified copy of the terms of reference for the commission of inquiry.
707
Oct. 3 (Circular 273) From the Netherlands Minister in China, Senior Minister, to the American Minister
Note from the Chinese Foreign Minister, October 2 (text printed), stating that the Chinese Government maintains its attitude that a judicial inquiry is unnecessary and will only involve a waste of time.
708
Oct. 9 (431) From the Minister in China (tel.)
First meeting of commission of inquiry, October 7. Telegram from Johnson, October 7 (text printed), reporting adjournment of sessions until October 12 to enable all parties to prepare their evidence; stating that apparently the Chinese witnesses will not appear; and asking if the inquiry should proceed. Minister’s reply that the inquiry should proceed.
(Footnote: Personnel of the commission.)
710
[Page XCVII]Oct. 14 (435) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Johnson (text printed) reporting the existence of general opposition to the inquiry.
711
Oct. 15 (291) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to inform Johnson that he is free to take any necessary action to bring out facts and truth, even though this should compel him to make a minority report.
712
Oct. 16 (446) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Johnson (text printed) stating that a minority report is imminent.
712
Oct. 28 (467) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Message from Johnson reading, “Court has finished inquiry and I will make report in 6 to 10 days.”
712
Nov. 21 (492) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Summary of Johnson’s report, with list of the three concluding recommendations; comment that the report exceeds the terms of reference, as it gives conclusions and recommendations beyond the scope of the inquiry. Minister’s opinion that it is unfortunate that dicta of a controversial political nature should be contained in a judicial finding intended to be published at this time.
713
Nov. 24 (324) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Department’s surprise that Johnson took up matters outside the scope of the inquiry. Request for information as to whether matters of the same general nature are also dealt with in reports of the other judges.
715
Nov. 25 (498) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that the British and Japanese judges in their reports keep within the limits of the terms of reference.
716
Nov. 27 (500) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram to Shanghai (text printed) quoting message of the U. S., British, and Japanese Ministers to their respective consuls in Shanghai which outlined the differences in the findings of the judicial commission and suggested the desirability of certain action by the Municipal Council, including the offer of generous compensation to the victims of the Shanghai incident, and the devising of ways of dispensing with the services of the police commissioner and the officers actually involved in the incident.
716
Dec. 3 (355) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Résumé of information contained in telegram No. 500, November 27, from the Minister in China. Authorization to state to the Foreign Office that, while it is regrettable that the commission should have disagreed in its findings, the U. S. Government feels that it would be disastrous at present to suppress, edit, or delay the publication of the findings of the judicial commission.
(Footnote: Authorization to Ambassador in Japan to repeat substantially the same views to the Japanese Foreign Office.)
717
[Page XCVIII]Dec. 12 (525) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Authorization by the diplomatic body for certain Ministers to suggest to the Municipal Council the adoption of measures to settle the affair of May 30, namely, the resignation of the responsible police officers and the offer of reasonable amounts to the Chinese victims.
720
Dec. 21 (538) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Withdrawal of objections by Japan to the publication of the reports. Adoption by the Municipal Council of the suggestions outlined by the diplomatic body.
721
Dec. 22 (540) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that the interested Ministers have authorized the Senior Minister to release to the press on December 23 certain documents relative to the judicial inquiry, and that publication of full texts of the reports will follow in due course.
(Footnote: Minister’s report, January 22, 1926, that texts of the reports were to be released to the press on January 23.)
721

Spread of Antiforeign Disturbances in China

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Jan. 12 (15) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Article in Shanghai conservative press declaring that a serious wave of antiforeign and anti-Christian feeling is sweeping across China. Information from the consul general at Shanghai, in reply to the Minister’s inquiry, that missionaries and educators have received reports from interior correspondents concerning anti-Christian move.
722
Jan. 16 (27) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from consul general at Shanghai, January 15 (text printed), giving opinion of Dr. Pott, missionary educator in China, that the anti-Christian move looks worse than he thought at first and he regards it as political.
Quotation from editorial in the Chinese Recorder, monthly journal of the Christian movement in China, concerning the critical situation.
724
Feb. 5 (60) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Canton, February 4 (text printed), reporting continuation of antiforeign campaign.
725
June 4 (201) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul at Changsha, June 3 (text printed), reporting strike of students in Changsha because of the Shanghai incident of May 30.
725
June 6 (207) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul at Amoy (text printed) reporting student demonstration and strong feeling against Japanese and British.
726
June 7 (208) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul at Nanking, June 6 (text printed), reporting serious rioting in Chinkiang British Concession.
726
[Page XCIX]June 10 (214) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul at Antung, June 9 (text printed), reporting attack of Japanese police on Salt Gabelle patrol attempting to arrest Korean smugglers off shore of Japanese Concession, killing five Chinese.
726
June 13 (218) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Reports of student strikes and parades at Foochow, Tsinan, and Tsingtau, and other disturbances at Swatow and Canton.
727
June 13 (219) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Hankow, June 12 (text printed), reporting incident at British Concession resulting in several casualties among Chinese.
727
June 13 (220) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from Swatow, June 10 (excerpt printed), stating that there is reason to believe effort is being made by Bolshevik agitators to involve the United States, but up to the present time students and other organizations have shown no definite anti-American feeling.
728
June 14 (226) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Report, through radio from Admiral McVay, that Japanese and British consulates at Kiukiang were destroyed by mob on June 13; no casualties reported.
728
June 15 (228) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Consideration by Heads of Legation of an offer from Chang Tso-lin to send 10,000 soldiers to Peking to restore order; Chargé’s statement that the acceptance of such aid might compromise U. S. neutrality; similar expression by the British Chargé. Decision by Heads of Legation to reply to Chang in the affirmative, however, not opposed by U. S. and British representatives, but formula (text printed) worded in such a way as probably not to compromise neutrality.
729
June 15 (229) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Report of British and Japanese consulates and British municipal building at Kiukiang looted and bank of Taiwan burned; serious situation at Chungking and Hankow.
731
June 16 (231) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Information that the Senior Minister called on the Chief Executive and secured from him assurance of protection of life and property of foreign residents in Peking. Some relief of tension at Peking. Report of recent satisfactory interview with representative of Shanghai students.
731
June 16 (108) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Department’s approval of Chargé’s attitude as set forth in his telegram No. 228, June 15.
732
June 17 (234) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Note from Heads of Legation to be presented to the Waichiaopu reviewing the Hankow, Kiukiang, and Chinkiang incidents and recent murder of foreigners near the Shanghai Settlement; and calling to the serious attention of the Chinese Government the gravity of the present situation and the necessity incumbent upon it to meet the situation.
733
[Page C]June 18 (110) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Secretary’s informal statement to the Chinese Minister, June 15 (text printed), that the Department views with apprehension the continued antiforeign demonstrations and disturbances in China and feels that something should be done by the Chinese Government to prevent the spread of those disturbances.
733
June 19 (235) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Message from consul at Chungking (text printed) stating that no reports have yet been received justifying advice to Americans to be in readiness to leave.
734
June 24 (246) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul at Amoy, June 23 (text printed), reporting grave situation and recommending that naval assistance, with landing party of about 100, be sent immediately.
735
June 27 (251) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Offer of assistance from Chang Hsueh-liang, son of Chang Tso-lin, made to Heads of Legation to bring about a speedy conclusion of the Shanghai incident; reply, as suggested by U. S. and British Chargés, conveying a polite rejection of the offer.
735
July 16 (275) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul at Swatow, July 11 (text printed), reporting that Cantonese troops attacked and looted British mission at Wukingfu on July 9.
736
July 31 (303) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Message from Amoy (text printed) recommending U. S. cooperation with the British in the matter of naval protection; opinion that presence of a naval vessel will have a restraining influence on the extremist elements.
737
Aug. 30 (363) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report from the consul at Amoy that the situation is quiet; presence of naval vessel no longer necessary.
737
Sept. 9 (384) From the Minister in China (tel.)
General abatement of the tensity of Chinese feeling, such as to warrant hope that crisis has passed.
738

Victory of the Radical Wing of the Kuomintang in Canton

Date and number Subject Page
1925 May 29 (192) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, May 28 (substance printed), reporting breach in the Kuomintang, conservative members being allied with Yunnan and Kwangsi military groups, and the radicals, including the present civil administration, with Cantonese troops and Russian-trained volunteers.
740
June 2 (195) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, June 1 (text printed), reporting local conditions critical, with every indication of the Government’s intention to fight, despite its denial that it is Communist.
740
[Page CI]June 5[6?] (205) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, June 5 (text printed), reporting military preparations of both sides and the understanding that General Hsu’s Cantonese army is within 40 miles of Canton.
741
June 9 (212) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, June 7 (text printed), reporting that fighting has begun, and that all Americans are safe so far.
741
June 9 (213) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, June 8 (text printed), reporting continued firing by the opposing forces.
741
June 14 (223) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, June 13 (text printed), reporting the Yunnanese routed and all in the city surrendered to the Cantonese, June 12; also that seamen’s strike will begin in Canton and Hongkong on June 15 in sympathy with the Shanghai students.
742
June 15 (227) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, June 14 (text printed), reporting antiforeign agitation and considerable uneasiness in Canton and other cities; also domination of the local situation by the Whampoa military school cadets, who were responsible for the destruction of the Yunnan army.
743
July 22 (284) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Message from Canton (text printed) that the central executive committee of the Kuomintang has called a preliminary people’s conference to be held in Peking after August 1 to cancel unequal treaties; and that it has urged the Chief Executive to accept the Kuomintang’s advice rather than that of Chang Tso-lin.
743
Aug. 24 (347) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Substance of two telegrams from Canton reporting the assassination on August 20 of Liao Chung-hoi, head of the local radical movement.
744
Aug. 27 (355) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Canton, August 25 (text printed), stating that the Whampoa cadets have occupied Canton and arrested over 100 government officials supposedly implicated in the assassination of Liao Chung-hoi.
744
Aug. 30 (365) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Canton, August 27 (extracts printed), reporting city in complete control of the Whampoa cadets and the civil administration badly disorganized.
744
Aug. 31 (369) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, August 28 (text printed), stating that according to fairly reliable reports, the strike committee has decided to confine the strike and boycott to the British.
745
Sept. 4 (382) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, September 1 (text printed), reporting inability of the strike committee to agree to confine the strike and boycott to the British only.
745
[Page CII]Sept. 25 (416) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, September 21 (text printed), reporting that General Hsu has been relieved of his command and has left hurriedly for Shanghai.
746
Oct. 7 (428) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Canton, October 2 (text printed), reporting mobilization of the Canton army.
746
Oct. 16 (447) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Canton, October 15 (text printed), reporting that a state of emergency has been declared in the Boca-Tigris fort area and that all adjacent waters have been mined; also suggesting a statement as to U. S. attitude regarding the safe conduct of U. S. vessels, and possible protest against the placing of mines. Request for authorization to approve the consul general’s recommendations.
746
Oct. 24 (463) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Canton, October 20 (text printed), reporting severe fighting in eastern Kwangtung.
747
Oct. 29 (308) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Authorization to approve recommendations of the consul general at Canton as suggested in telegram No. 447, October 16.
747
Nov. 6 (477) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Swatow, November 4 (excerpt printed), reporting the Cantonese in possession of the city.
748
Nov. 9 (478) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegram from Swatow, November 7 (text printed), reporting arrival of Chiang Kai-shek, November 6, with several thousand troops.
748
Nov. 23 (493) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Inquiry from the consul at Swatow whether, in view of the possibility that the Canton Government may take over the maritime customs at Swatow, action should be taken similar to that of the consul general at Canton in 1923. Request for instructions.
748
Nov. 23 (321) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Secretary’s assertion that he questions the advisability at this time of conducting an international naval demonstration such as was carried out at Canton in 1923. Approval of formal representations if necessary, however.
748

Intensification of Antiforeign Feeling in Canton After the Firing at Shameen

Date and number Subject Page
1925 June 19 (236) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, June 18 (text printed), reporting the imminence of a general strike against foreigners and the consul general’s warning to American women and children to leave.
749
[Page CIII]June 22 (239) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, June 21 (text printed), reporting announcement of a general strike and boycott against the British, Japanese, and Americans.
749
June 23 (243) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, June 22 (text printed), reporting assurances from the local authorities that foreigners will be protected, and giving further details in regard to the strike and boycott.
750
June 24 From the Consul General at Canton (tel.)
Rifle and machine-gun firing between Chinese soldiers and British and French sailors on June 23 during a demonstration of students, laborers, and soldiers passing by Shameen.
750
June 26 (336) From the Consul General at Canton
Detailed account of the firing which took place at Shameen, June 23, including estimation of casualties and information as to evacuation of refugees. Tenseness and uncertainty of the situation.
751
June 26 From the Consul General at Canton (tel.)
Continuation of tense situation, each side accusing the other of firing the first shot, and no overtures for a peaceful settlement yet possible.
Chinese request that the consul general sit on an international commission of inquiry; request for expression of U. S. attitude.
754
June 28 From the Consul General at Canton (tel.)
Information that the local government has sent notes to the British consul general and the French consul demanding retrocession of Shameen, apology, remuneration to the families of the killed, punishment of officials responsible for shooting, and withdrawal of warships.
755
June 28 From the Consul General at Canton (tel.)
Recommendation that the Department suggest to Great Britain and France that an international commission be created and that the Canton affair be dealt with separately from Peking.
755
July 1 To the Consul General at Canton (tel.)
Instructions, in reply to the consul general’s telegram of June 26, to decline to sit on the proposed commission of inquiry except under certain circumstances, in which case further instructions should be sought.
756
July 3 (260) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram from the consul general at Canton, July 1 (text printed), stating that nothing is being said at present in regard to the proposed commission of investigation.
756
July 8 (340) From the Consul General at Canton
Information that Americans who volunteered in militia and police forces of Shameen withdrew upon finding British and French authorities did not intend asking for assistance of American naval forces. Consul general’s encouragement to Americans, however, to lend aid in maintaining public services of nonmilitary character.
757
[Page CIV]July 31 (301) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Telegrams from Canton, July 27 and July 28 (texts printed), reporting general situation apparently less strained but no indications of a settlement locally, and rumor that the radicals will attempt to seize the local government on August 1.
757
Aug. 14 (329) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Inquiry as to U. S. policy, in view of possible attack on the French and British Concessions at Shameen, regarding the utilization of U. S. naval forces. Recommendation that the U. S. forces remain in order to protect American citizens and that they be authorized to unite in such defense measures as the commander may deem necessary to accomplish that end after mediation appears no longer possible.
758
Aug. 15 (202) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Approval of policy as recommended by the Minister, with the understanding that U. S. forces should not participate in the defense of Shameen unless specifically requested to do so by the naval authorities of the countries concerned.
760
Oct. 16 (304) From the Consul General at Canton to the Minister in China
Improvement in general attitude toward Americans, but conditions still too unsettled to advise American women and children to return.
761

Adherence of Certain Powers to Treaties Concerning China Signed at Washington, February 6, 1922

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Aug. 6 To the Ambassador in Spain (circular tel.)
Note for the Foreign Minister (text printed) stating that the treaty relating to the revision of the Chinese customs tariff, signed at Washington, February 6, 1922, has been ratified by the signatory Governments, and inviting the adherence of Spain to the treaty.
(Footnote: Sent, mutatis mutandis, to representatives in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.)
(Note: Dates of adherence of Denmark, Sweden, Spain, and Norway.)
761
Oct. 1 (288) To the Ambassador in Spain
Communication inviting the adherence of Spain to the treaty relating to the principles and policies to be followed in matters concerning China, signed at Washington, February 6, 1922.
(Footnote: Sent, mutatis mutandis, to representatives in certain European and Latin American countries and Persia.)
(Note: Dates of adherence of Norway, Bolivia, Sweden, Denmark, and Mexico.)
762

Request From the Chinese Government to the Washington Conference Powers for a Readjustment of Treaty Relations

Date and number Subject Page
1925 June 24 (247) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Identic note from the Chinese Foreign Office addressed to the representatives of the Washington Conference powers (text printed) requesting a readjustment of China’s treaty relations with foreign powers.
763
[Page CV]June 26 (249) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Identic telegram from the representatives of the Washington Conference powers to their respective Governments (text printed) requesting instructions with reference to the Chinese Government’s identic note of June 24. Chargé’s opinion that the reply, while reaffirming the principles and policies of the Washington Conference, should indicate the practical difficulties involved and the necessity for facing facts.
(Telegram repeated to Tokyo.)
765
June 30 (116) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Agreement with views of the Chargé in China; feeling that the Chinese proposal should be neither rebuffed nor received in such a manner as to convey an impression that the powers are yielding under pressure.
766
July 1 (125) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Department’s opinion that the reply to the Chinese proposal should express a willingness to consider sympathetically the modification of existing treaties in measure as the Chinese authorities demonstrate their willingness and ability to fulfill their obligations to protect foreign rights. U. S. desire also to expedite preparations for the special conference on the Chinese customs tariff and for the despatch of the Commission on Extraterritoriality, said commission to be requested to make recommendations for a definite program to be followed.
767
Undated Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs
Statement by the Secretary, in conversations with the Chinese Minister, June 30 and July 1, that the United States would be willing to urge upon the other interested powers the hastening of the calling of the conference on tariff matters, and also the sending of the Commission on Extraterritoriality.
768
July 3 (677) From the British Chargé
Opinion of the British Government that the powers should indicate an unwillingness to discuss particular reforms or to review treaty relations until order has been restored and the Chinese Government has evidenced its determination to repress antiforeign agitations and enforce protection of foreigners; unfavorable attitude toward a promise to expedite the meeting of the Commission on Extraterritoriality.
770
July 5 (263) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Conversation with the Japanese Minister in regard to settlement of the Shanghai affair; belief of the Japanese Minister that his Government contemplates a larger cooperation between the U. S., British, and Japanese Governments with respect to China than merely cooperation regarding the Shanghai affair.
771
July 6 (134) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Telegram dated July 4 from Mahlon F. Perkins, on special mission in London (text printed), conveying opinion of British Foreign Office official that it would be preferable to concentrate efforts on the early convening of the special conference on Chinese customs tariff rather than upon meeting of the extraterritoriality commission.
774
[Page CVI]July 6 (682) From the British Chargé
British Government’s sympathy with the U. S. aims as set forth in Department’s telegram No. 125, July 1, to the Chargé in China; doubt expressed, however, as to the wisdom of laying down such definite terms of reference for the Commission on Extraterritoriality as those suggested by the Department.
775
July 7 (683) From the British Chargé
Proposal of a joint declaration (text printed) to be made publicly by the treaty powers in reply to the Chinese note of June 24. Inquiry as to U. S. attitude.
776
July 10 From the Secretary to the President (Sanders) to the Acting Secretary of State
President’s opinion that the Secretary of State should cooperate as far as possible with the other interested powers, using great care not to have China think there is a division of counsel.
777
July 10 (270) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
From Mac Murray: Opinion that, in the face of the present agitation against foreign treaty rights, a strict adherence to the Washington Conference program is the only safe road.
778
July 12 (124) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Foreign Office views of the primary importance of complete accord between the United States, Great Britain, and Japan. Information that the Japanese position will be defined shortly.
779
July 13 To the British Chargé
U. S. accord with British opinion that China must be impressed with the necessity of giving concrete evidence of its ability to suppress disorders and protect foreigners; feeling, however, that existing conditions in China can best be met by consistent and scrupulous observance by the powers of the obligations undertaken by them at the Washington Conference. Further exposition of U. S. attitude on the instructions to be given the Commission on Extraterritoriality. Opinion that the present is not an opportune moment for a joint public declaration such as proposed by the British Government in its note No. 683, July 7.
(Footnote: Substance repeated to the representatives in Japan, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and Portugal.)
780
Undated From the Japanese Embassy
Memorandum presented July 16 stating willingness of the Japanese Government to support a policy looking toward a readjustment of treaty relations in China conjointly with the other powers, provided the Chinese Government shows a determination to carry out its obligations and provided certain questions are settled.
783
July 16 (277) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Opinion that the United States should welcome any offer from the British and Japanese to work as far as possible in harmony with them, but should carefully avoid any commitments or obligations which might hinder the maintenance of U. S. policies and views regarding China.
785
[Page CVII]July 18 (157) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Secretary’s concurrence in the Minister’s opinion as to the attitude that should be taken by the United States; view that there should be no agreement with the powers whereby the U. S. general policy would be varied. Request for views as to the desirability of a separate note in reply to the Chinese note of June 24.
788
July 20 (701) From the British Chargé
British Government’s opinion that it would be inadvisable to delay acquainting China with attitude of the powers. Outline of the statements which the British Government feels should be contained in the reply to the Chinese Government.
788
July 20 (702) From the British Chargé
Amendments suggested by the Japanese Government to the joint declaration proposed by the British Government; British approval of the amendments.
790
July 20 (703) From the British Chargé
Italian proposal that the identic reply by the powers to the Chinese note of June 24 should embody and itself constitute the public declaration previously suggested by the British Government.
791
Undated [Rec’d July 21] From the Japanese Embassy
Japanese draft of the proposed joint declaration in reply to the Chinese note of June 24.
792
July 23 To the British Chargé
Assertion that the only point of difference among the powers appears to be in regard to the precise phraseology of the reply to the Chinese representations. Opinion that, as a matter of practical policy, it would be preferable to convey fair warning to the Chinese Government of its responsibility for the preservation of order and other matters rather than to make complete restoration of order a condition precedent to a discussion of reforms and treaty relations. U. S. draft reply (text printed).
(Footnote: Countries to which text of the draft reply was telegraphed.)
793
July 23 (165) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Communication of text of the U. S. draft reply, with instructions to use it as a basis for discussion with the representatives of the other interested powers.
(Instructions to repeat to Tokyo.)
797
July 27 (292) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Suggestion of certain changes in wording of the U. S. draft, particularly in the paragraph dealing with tariff revisions.
Recommendation that if it should prove impossible to obtain almost immediate concurrence in an identic note based upon U. S. draft, the United States should send its own note and let the others reply as they see fit to the Chinese note of June 24.
798
July 28 (293) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Analysis of tentative impressions regarding the situation in China, with particular reference to the growing nationalism and the consequent difficulty of maintaining special treaty rights in China.
799
[Page CVIII]July 28 (170) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Comment on the Minister’s suggested changes in wording of the U. S. draft reply to the Chinese note of June 24, and approval of his recommendation as set forth in telegram No. 292, July 27.
802
July 29 (300) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Further expression of opinion, in connection with the wording of the U. S. draft, that the phrase “tariff autonomy” ought not to be used, and that the wording of the sentence in question is not clear as it stands; suggestion of substitute wording.
803
July 30 (301) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Conversation with the Japanese Minister, in which he suggested the establishment of a close working relationship between the U. S., British, and Japanese Legations, looking toward a more definite leadership by those powers having the greatest responsibilities and interests in China.
803
July 30 (173) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions for wording of the passage in the U. S. draft regarding the tariff, so that the U. S. position will be clear.
804
July 30 (723) From the British Chargé
Information that, as the U. S. draft differs so radically from the Anglo-Japanese text, the British representative in China has been authorized to discuss the two texts with the U. S. Minister and his other colleagues in the hope of combining both in a new agreed text. British disapproval of the statement in the U. S. draft with regard to the Extraterritorial Commission, and objection to the term “tariff autonomy.”
805
Aug. 1 (180) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Secretary’s conversation with the Japanese Ambassador, who indicated Japanese disagreement with U. S. proposal to make reference in the powers’ note to China to the questions of extending the scope of the tariff conference and also of tariff autonomy. Secretary’s reiteration of U. S. position and explanation of the phraseology which will be acceptable to the United States and which it is hoped will meet the objections of the Japanese Government.
806
Aug. 1 (306) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Conversation with the Japanese Minister, who expressed his Government’s difficulty in assenting to the U. S. draft insofar as it conveys a formal promise to consider tariff autonomy at the special conference. U. S. Minister’s personal view that it would be tactically unsound to announce publicly at this time a readiness to go beyond the terms of the Washington Conference provisions for the special conference. Request for instructions.
807
Aug. 3 (181) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Readiness of the British Government, as well as the U. S. Government, to extend the scope of the tariff conference. Summary of British note No. 723, of July 30.
810
[Page CIX]Aug. 4 (142) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Statement of the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs that for the present the Japanese Government are not prepared to go beyond the terms of the Washington Conference in any discussion with the Chinese Government; his reiteration of Japanese desire to work with U. S. and British Governments in meeting the present situation, and assertion that the Washington Conference provided a basis upon which all agreed.
812
Aug. 5 (311) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Suggested modifications in the U. S. draft to meet what the Minister understands to be the British views.
813
Aug. 5 To the British Chargé
Reply to the British note No. 723, of July 30, pointing out an apparent misinterpretation by the British Government of the statement in the U. S. draft with respect to the Extraterritorial Commission.
814
Aug. 6 To the British Chargé
Information that the Department, desiring to meet the British point of view, has authorized the U. S. Minister in China to make certain changes in the text of the U. S. draft. Hope that with these amendments the British Government will find itself able to accept the American draft.
815
Aug. 7 (193) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Information as to the comments of various Governments in regard to the U. S. draft note to the Chinese Government: Concurrence of Belgium and the Netherlands in U. S. views; Italian agreement in principle with the essential points of the U. S. draft; French preference for the Japanese draft, considering the U. S. draft too mild in tone and the British perhaps too sharp.
816
Aug. 11 (151) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s assertion that, so far as the Extraterritorial Commission is concerned, he is in substantial agreement with the American point of view; that concerning tariff, Japan could not go beyond the terms of existing treaties or the Washington Conference engagements.
818
Aug. 11 (738) From the British Chargé
British concurrence in U. S. view regarding the Extraterritorial Commission as explained in the Secretary’s note of August 5, and willingness to adopt the new U. S. draft as a basis for an identic reply to the Chinese Government.
819
Aug. 19 (753) From the British Chargé
Indications that the Japanese Government may be inclined to question the inclusion of Chinese tariff autonomy in the agenda of the forthcoming conference, thus causing divergence of view among the powers and consequent delay in replying to the Chinese note. British willingness to concur if the United States and Japan agree to omit mention of the tariff or agree on a compromise formula.
820
[Page CX]Aug. 22 To the British Chargé
Information that the Japanese Government is willing to accept the U. S. modified draft with an amendment; U. S. willingness to accept the Japanese change provided it is acceptable to the other powers. Transmittal of the U. S. proposed draft embodying the modifications offered by the British and Japanese Governments.
821
Aug. 26 (766) From the British Chargé
Information that, while in the opinion of the British Government the American draft embodying the British and Japanese modifications is not wholly suitable for an identic note, the British representative at Peking has been instructed to confer with his U. S. colleague with a view to reaching a definite agreement.
822
Aug. 26 (353) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Agreement reached with interested colleagues on a number of amendments to the draft note, all of which are matters of mere form. Information that certain of the representatives must await instructions from their Governments before sending the amended note.
822
Aug. 31 Statement Issued to the Press by the Department of State
Text of speech by the Secretary before the annual meeting of the American Bar Association, Detroit, Mich., September 2, dealing with the present situation in China and U. S. policy in relation to Chinese affairs.
(Footnote: For release by the press after delivery.)
823
Sept. 1 (371) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that all interested representatives have been instructed to send identic replies to the Chinese note of June 24 in the form agreed upon as reported in telegram No. 353, August 26.
830
Sept. 4 (41) From the American Minister to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs
Reply to the Chinese Government’s note of June 24, expressing willingness to consider the modification of existing treaties in measure as the Chinese authorities demonstrate their willingness and ability to fulfill their obligations and to protect foreign rights; and readiness to appoint delegates to the Special Conference on the Chinese Tariff, as provided for in the Washington Conference Treaty, February 6, 1922, and a commissioner to sit on the Commission on Extraterritoriality, as provided for in Resolution V of the Washington Conference.
(Footnote: Presentation of identic notes by representatives of the other Washington Conference powers.)
831

The Special Conference on the Chinese Customs Tariff

Date and number Subject Page
1925 Apr. 23 (167) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s desire to call the Special Conference on the Chinese Customs Tariff for September 1 at Peking, dependent upon French ratification of the nine-power customs treaty.
(Footnote: Instruments of ratification of the customs treaty deposited at Washington August 5.)
834
[Page CXI]Apr. 27 (85) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Belief that after the customs treaty comes into foree following its ratification by France, it would be appropriate for the Chinese Government to call the Special Conference; willingness to accept September 1 as the tentative date.9
834
July 1 (195) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Perkins: Foreign Office concurrence in the view that the Special Conference should convene at an early date. British emphasis on the importance of concerted action by the United States, Japan, and Great Britain.
(Footnote: Mahlon F. Perkins, sent to London to confer with the Foreign Office regarding the Special Conference.)
835
July 1 (118) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Report of general views on certain points regarding the customs conference as expressed by the U. S. Minister to China (en route to his post) in an informal conversation with the Japanese Foreign Minister; Foreign Minister’s agreement with the views as stated.
836
Aug. 8 (320) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that the Senior Minister has raised the question of preparing definite agenda in advance of the conference. U. S. Minister’s expression of preference for going into the conference with a program based strictly on the treaty; inquiry if Department approves this view.
838
Aug. 10 (198) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Approval of the Minister’s views as to the agenda of the conference.
839
Aug. 19 From the Chinese Minister
Invitation to the United States to participate in the Special Conference, to meet on October 26 at Peking.
839
Aug. 21 To the Chinese Minister
U. S. acceptance of the invitation to participate in the conference.
840
Aug. 22 (342) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Identic telegram from the representatives of the powers signatory to the customs treaty to their respective Governments (text printed), indicating desirability that the powers should confer at Washington in regard to the furnishing of full powers to the delegates at Peking.
841
Aug. 27 (222) To the Minister in China (tel.)
U. S. decision to issue to its delegates at the Special Conference full powers to confer with the other delegates, and to negotiate, conclude, and sign treaties for ratification by the United States.
841
Sept. 9 To the American Delegation
Instructions of a general character, including the opinion that the conference should discuss the entire subject of the conventional tariff, even proposals looking toward ultimate tariff autonomy; that the Chinese Government must be given an opportunity to present its plans regarding diminution and ultimate removal of likin; and that the conference should consider the advisability of using the surtax revenues for the refunding of China’s unsecured obligations.
842
[Page CXII]Sept. 10 (388) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Personnel of the Chinese delegation; outline of what appears to be the tentative program of the Chinese Government for the conference.
847
Sept. 12 (248) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Approval of the tentative Chinese program, or some similar program. Substance of letter to Mr. Strawn, U. S. delegate, expressing the Secretary’s desire that a plan be worked out, if possible, whereby tariff autonomy will now or eventually be given to China and extraterritoriality given up.
849
Sept. 18 (822) From the British Chargé
Information regarding instructions to the British delegation, namely, that the British Government has no intention of rejecting the Chinese request for eventual tariff autonomy, but feels that such autonomy can only come in stages.
850
Sept. 25 (418) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Mimeographed circular given to the Senior Minister by the Foreign Office for distribution, entitled, “Provisional Agenda for the Special Conference on Chinese Customs” (text printed).
851
Sept. 30 (423) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Foreign Office refusal to invite the Soviet Government and Germany to participate in the conference, as they do not have the eligibility requirement under the customs treaty. German Minister’s desire that Germany should be enabled to adhere to the Washington Conference treaties and resolutions concerning China so as to cooperate in the policies set forth therein, even if not participating in the conference.
851
Oct. 1 (425) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Identic telegram from the interested representatives to their respective Governments (text printed), suggesting modifications in the provisional agenda drawn up by the Chinese Government, as transmitted in telegram No. 418, September 25. Minister’s concurrence in advisability of the modifications; probable acceptability of the agenda as thus modified.
852
Oct. 3 (278) To the Minister in China (tel.)
U. S. inability to invite Germany and Soviet Russia to adhere to the Chinese customs treaty, as they do not qualify under the provisions of article 8; opinion also that neither country is qualified under Resolution V of the Washington Conference to participate in the coming meeting of the Commission on Extraterritoriality.
854
Oct. 5 (282) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Feeling that the Chinese Government’s provisional agenda, offered in response to the suggestion of the Senior Minister, should be accepted.
854
Oct. 14 (290) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Statement to the Belgian Chargé, who had expressed Belgium’s desire for inclusion of the Banque Beige pour l’Éitranger among the foreign banks to receive deposits of surplus Chinese customs funds, that if the question of deposit of these funds is brought up at the conference the U. S. delegation will hold that banks of all nationalities be treated on a basis of equality.
856
[Page CXIII]Oct. 15 (443) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Receipt of authorization by all but two of the interested ministers to approve the suggested modifications to the Chinese provisional agenda referred to in telegram No. 425, October 1; decision of the ministers to authorize Senior Minister to discuss the proposed modifications with the Foreign Minister.
(Footnote: Senior Minister’s statement, October 27, that agenda had been allowed to stand, because of insufficient time for making the alterations.)
856
Oct. 15 (292) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Approval of decision in regard to the Chinese tentative agenda reported in telegram No. 443, October 15.
857
Oct. 17 (449) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report that the practical purposes of the Chinese financial authorities are sharply contested by the diplomatic and political elements, with the resulting probability that Chinese will enter the conference without any definite program of action.
Request for instructions for guidance of the delegation in meeting any forms of discrimination that cannot be met by the most-favored-nation clause.
857
Oct. 23 (303) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to attain express assurance that there will be no discrimination and that when any benefit is granted to any country the other countries shall receive it unconditionally without request. Comments upon the possibility of disadvantageous treatment of American trade, despite acceptance of most-favored-nation treatment, resulting from either restrictions upon imports and exports, rate schedules, or classification of goods.
859
Oct. 24 (464) From the American Delegation (tel.)
Mandate of October 22 naming the Chinese delegates with full powers to the customs conference.
860
Oct. 26 From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report of opening of the conference; résumé of addresses by Chinese officials and various diplomatic representatives of the powers (extracts printed); list of delegates who made brief addresses.
861
Oct. 27 (5) From the American Delegation (tel.)
Acceptance, after considerable discussion, of the agenda as set forth in the Minister’s telegram No. 418, September 25, with U. S. and British reservation to the effect that any matter contained in the nine-power customs treaty or the resolution concerning board of reference should be open to discussion by the conference.
866
Oct. 28 From the Minister in China (tel.)
Customs tariff laws promulgated October 24 (text printed) and referred to by Dr. Wang, Chinese delegate, in his address at the opening of the conference on October 26. Press communiqué issued by the secretary general of the conference (text printed) reporting first meeting of the committee on program and procedure.
867
[Page CXIV]Undated [Rec’d Oct. 30] (6) From the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of meeting of committee on tariff autonomy at which China reiterated request for tariff autonomy to be effective with the abolition of likin, January 1, 1929. Submittal of a tentative working basis (text printed) and suggestion that reasonable concessions be made to meet the Chinese demands.
870
Oct. 31 From the Minister in China (tel.)
Substance of press communiqué issued by the committee on tariff autonomy (text printed), covering Japanese delegate’s statement of alternative plans (text printed), Chinese memorandum on the abolition of likin (text printed), and résumé of the statements and proposals of various delegates.
871
Oct. 31 (2) To the American Delegation (tel.)
Approval of the tentative working basis submitted by the delegation and of the suggestion for making reasonable concessions to meet the Chinese demands.
875
Nov. 4 From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report of second session of the committee on tariff autonomy, including texts of statement of the British delegation, proposals by the Japanese and American delegations, and declarations of the Chinese Government regarding abolition of likin.
875
Nov. 14 (10) From the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that the drafting of a formula embodying the sense of the conference regarding tariff autonomy and the abolition of likin was referred to a subcommittee, following presentation of Chinese resolution (text printed) and British proposal (text printed).
879
Nov. 17 (11) From the American Delegation (tel.)
Chinese delegate’s statement in press interview (substance printed), declaring that China, although determined to abolish likin, is unwilling that the restoration of tariff autonomy be made conditional on her ability to do so, as the abolition of likin is an internal problem.
880
Nov. 19 From the American Delegation (tel.)
Press communiqué issued by the conference (text printed) quoting resolution on tariff autonomy unanimously recommended by the subcommittee and adopted by the committees on tariff autonomy and provisional measures.
881
Nov. 24 (13) From the American Delegation (tel.)
Meeting of technical committee on likin, technical committee on other subjects, and subcommittee on rates.
882
Nov. 30 (5) To the American Delegation (tel.)
French Ambassador’s statement, in conversation with the Secretary, that apparently his Government thought the granting of tariff autonomy without making abolition of likin a correlate should be safeguarded by an agreement that no other kind of tax would be imposed in lieu of likin.
883
[Page CXV]Dec. 2 (14) From the American Delegation (tel.)
Probability that the situation is not fully understood by the French Ambassador; information that the delegates are waiting for China’s statement on her unsecured debts and her definition of likin; that they will insist on abolition of likin as a condition to conceding tariff autonomy, but that such condition might be waived under certain circumstances.
883
Dec. 4 (6) To the American Delegation (tel.)
Letter from the Committee of the American Material Creditors of the Chinese Government alleging intention of the Chinese delegates to repudiate claims of material creditors and to exclude them from any plan for consolidation or refunding of unsecured debts. Request for information.
884
Dec. 7 (15) From the American Delegation (tel.)
No information that the Chinese delegates intend to repudiate claims of material creditors.
885
Dec. 30 From Mr. Silas H. Strawn, of the American Delegation
Absence of train service between Tientsin and Peking December 8 to 24 because of the civil war; no meetings of the conference except two called by the Chinese to demonstrate to the people that the conference was still functioning.
885

Convening of the Commission on Extraterritoriality in China, Provided for by Resolution V of the Washington Conference

Date and number Subject Page
1925 July 2 (130) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Department’s opinion that the meeting of the Extraterritoriality Commission should not be put off until after the Special Customs Conference but should proceed at the earliest date possible.
886
Sept. 10 To Mr. Silas H. Strawn
Transmittal of Mr. Strawn’s commission as the American member of the Commission on Extraterritoriality.
886
Sept. 15 To the Chargé in Japan (circular tel.)
Note for the Foreign Office (text printed) stating that the United States has named Mr. Silas H. Strawn as its Commissioner, and suggesting December 18 as the date for the beginning of the Commission’s work.
(Footnote: Sent, mutatis mutandis, to certain European countries and to Peru.)
887
Oct. 20 (299) To the Minister in China (tel.)
List of countries having accepted December 18 as the day, and Peking as the place, for the beginning of sessions of the Extraterritoriality Commission.
888
Nov. 18 (103) To the Minister in China
Substance of a conversation between the Secretary and the Chinese Minister: Secretary’s opinion that it would not be wise to give the Commissioners plenipotentiary powers to negotiate a treaty for the abolition of extraterritoriality; Chinese Minister’s cable to his Government (text printed) as to the functions of the Commission.
888
[Page CXVI]Nov. 20 From the Norwegian Minister
Information that the Norwegian Government has acceded to the Washington Conference Resolution on Extraterritoriality.
889
Dec. 17 (532) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Delay in meeting of the Extraterritoriality Commission until the arrival of certain of the Commissioners detained at Tientsin because of the factional fighting in progress.
889
1926 Jan. 4 (3) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that all Commissioners have arrived, and the Commission will convene on January 8.
(Footnote: No meeting of the Commission until January 12.)
890

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 Dec. 24 From the Japanese Embassy
Summary of the points at issue between Japan and the United States in connection with the wireless contracts of the Mitsui Co. and the Federal Telegraph Co. with the Chinese Government. Proposal to adjust the controversy on a basis analogous to the four-power consortium arrangement, namely, that the contracts be pooled and superseded by a loan agreement for wireless enterprise in China, the Chinese Government to have control of the operation of the wireless telegraphy in question and a financial group representing U. S., British, French, and Japanese interests to supply the services of engineers and accountants.
890
Dec. 27 (317) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that Col. Manton Davis, attorney for the Radio Corporation of America, will sail for China to assist Barnes Moss, Federal Co.’s representative, in negotiations.
893
1925 Jan. 2 (3) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese desire that the Federal Telegraph Co. send a representative with extensive powers and accompanied by a fully qualified expert to take up technical questions. Continuation of strong Japanese opposition to the Federal contract.
894
Jan. 7 (4) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Information from the Radio Corporation that Colonel Davis will be accompanied by an electrical expert. Request for comment on the Japanese proposal of December 24, 1924.
894
Jan. 23 (39) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Certain obstacles with which the execution of the Japanese proposal would be confronted; assertion that any proposal to pool the Federal contract in a consortium would require the consent of the Chinese Government, which might be impossible to obtain.
895
[Page CXVII]Jan. 28 (16) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Possibility that the Radio Corporation may be unable to continue with the Federal Telegraph Co. project on the original plan; consequent reason to fear that the Japanese proposal may be the only available alternative. Department’s desire for further comment in view of these possibilities.
897
Feb. 5 (61) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Suggestion that a conference be held in Peking between representatives of the Chinese Government and of all the companies with which China has radio agreements, to consult as to how best to coordinate the contracts for the most desirable results.
897
Feb. 21 (72) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Arrival of Davis and Moss. Assertion that, according to Moss, it would seem that China, faced with the possibility of having to accept a radio consortium of four powers, may be willing to accept the Federal contract with a few minor changes.
Request for explicit instructions as to the support to be given to Davis and Moss.
899
Feb. 24 (24) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Instructions to employ complete frankness in discussions with the representatives of the U. S. interests.
Opinion that the radio conference proposal as set forth in telegram No. 61, February 5, might cause the Federal Co.’s valid legal position to be compromised without assuring effective results.
900
Feb. 28 To the Japanese Embassy
U. S. desire to be reassured as to whether the Japanese proposal of December 24, 1924, would be acceptable to the Chinese Government before giving it further consideration.
900
Mar. 12 (3) From Mr. Manton Davis to the Radio Corporation of America
Delay in official negotiations because of illness of Minister of Communications; satisfactory progress in unofficial negotiations. Strong Japanese effort to have Federal contract canceled. Outline of proposed traffic arrangement to serve as a basis for settlement of the controversy.
(Footnote: Information that Mr. Davis’ suggested traffic arrangement was approved by the Radio Corporation, the Federal Co. of Delaware, and the president of the Federal Co. of California.)
901
Mar. 23 (123) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Deadlock in negotiations, which the Federal Co.’s representatives attribute to Japanese influence in the Foreign Office and with the Chief Executive. Suggestion that strong U. S. representations telegraphed by the Chinese Minister in Washington might have an important effect at the Foreign Office at this juncture.
901
Apr. 8 To the Japanese Embassy
U. S. suggestion of the traffic arrangement as set forth in Mr. Davis’ telegram of March 12, as an alternative to the Japanese proposal of December 24, 1924.
902
[Page CXVIII]Apr. 8 To the Chinese Legation
Transmittal of copy of the memorandum to the Japanese Embassy, April 8, and expression of desire for Chinese approval of the suggested arrangement.
903
Apr. 23 (168) From the Chargé in China (tel.)
Efforts to hasten conclusion of negotiations with the Federal Co.; Foreign Minister’s assertion that the Chinese Minister in Washington had had negotiations with the State Department and that it was now necessary to await the Japanese reply to the U. S. proposal of April 8 before executing contract.
904
Apr. 28 (87) To the Chargé in China (tel.)
Instructions to inform Foreign Office that there are no negotiations pending with the Chinese Minister in Washington.
905
May 28 (566) From the British Ambassador
Information that, subject to the safeguarding of the prior rights of the Marconi Co., the British Government would welcome in principle the formation of a consortium such as proposed in the Japanese memorandum of December 24, 1924, to the United States.
905
June 1 From the Japanese Embassy
Assertion that the plan suggested in the U. S. memorandum of April 8 is simply an operating arrangement and assumes abandonment by the Mitsui Co. of its legal position, without any corresponding concession by the Federal Co.; also that such an arrangement would not make for fair and impartial treatment of the other powers interested. Suggestion of possible desirability of a meeting of representatives of the U. S., British, French, and Japanese radio interests to examine the feasibility of the Japanese proposal of December 24, 1924, and to work out detailed terms of adjustment.
906
July 1 (117) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Report of a conversation between the Foreign Minister, the U. S. appointed Minister to China (MacMurray), and a representative of the Mitsui Co., in which U. S. objections to the Japanese proposal and Japanese objections to the U. S. counterproposal were discussed, and in which all parties expressed desire and necessity for cooperation in reaching a settlement.
909
July 22 (704) From the British Chargé
Inquiry as to U. S. attitude toward the question of the future development of wireless telegraphy in China; British readiness to support the Japanese proposal to the United States of December 24, 1924.
910
July 29 (299) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Interview with the Foreign Minister, at which U. S. Minister emphasized the impossibility of satisfactory adjustment between the U. S. and Japanese interests until the Chinese Government has enabled the Federal Co. contract to proceed. Report that China may take up the question with Japan if the U. S. and Japanese interests cannot come to an agreement; suggestion that the Chinese Minister at Washington might be persuaded to telegraph his Government as to the seriousness of subordinating valid American rights to the veto of Japan.
911
[Page CXIX]Aug. 6 (190) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Promise of the Chinese Minister to see what he can do by way of taking up the matter with his Government.
913
Aug. 14 (330) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Consent of the Foreign Minister, upon insistent request of the U. S. Minister, to arrange for an interview between the U. S. Minister and the Chief Executive for the purpose of discussing the Chinese Government’s position regarding the Federal wireless contract.
914
Aug. 22 (345) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report that as a result of Japanese pressure, the Chief Executive has directed that the interministerial committee must report in favor of the cancelation of the Federal contract. Reported intention of the Minister of Communications to recommend simultaneous cancelation of the Mitsui contract.
915
Aug. 25 (349) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chief Executive’s assurance that the Federal contract is recognized as valid and will be given effect; Minister’s inability, however, to obtain assurance as to the time and manner of giving effect to the contract. Proposed note to the Foreign Office (extract printed) requesting an early and definite statement on the subject. Request for authorization to present such a note.
916
Aug. 26 (218) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Authorization to present the note to the Foreign Office as suggested.
918
Aug. 26 (352) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report of the Chief Executive’s decision, at a secret Cabinet meeting, to cancel both the Federal and the Mitsui contracts. Minister’s intention to send his proposed note to the Foreign Office immediately, with a view to forestalling action on this decision.
918
Aug. 29 (360) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Aide-mémoire from the Foreign Office transmitting a proposal of the Ministry of Communications for replacement of both contracts by an arrangement whereby both parties would jointly make a loan to China for the development by it of a wireless system; Davis’ consideration of the plan as wholly unacceptable; note to the Foreign Office (substance printed) reiterating request for an early and definite statement whether China will give effect to the Federal contract, and if so, what date such action may be expected.
919
Aug. 29 (361) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Message from Davis for the Radio Corporation (text printed), transmitting the Chinese proposal summarized in telegram No. 360, August 29.
920
Sept. 2 (374) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Recommendation that the Chinese Minister be informed that the U. S. Minister’s notes of August 26 and 29 call for a definite reply and corresponding action by the Chinese Government.
921
[Page CXX]Sept. 3 (231) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Chinese Minister’s statement that he had informed his Government that the U. S. Minister’s note of August 29 was supported by the Secretary.
922
Sept. 12 (249) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Letter from the Radio Corporation requesting Department to consider the desirability of giving the corporation liberty to make such arrangements with foreign associates as it can to assure American participation in the wireless communications of China. Information that the Department is awaiting report of results of the Minister’s representations to China before answering the letter.
923
Sept. 15 (399) From the Minister in China (tel.)
No reply as yet to the representations of August 26 and 29, and no indication as to what attitude the administration may take.
924
Sept. 15 (255) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Acknowledgment of Radio Corporation’s letter with statement that the request is being carefully considered. Desire that Minister continue to impress upon the Chinese Government the importance which the United States attaches to this opportunity for China to demonstrate good faith.
925
Sept. 18 (404) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Arrangement for a further interview with the Chief Executive to urge a prompt answer to the representations. Suggestion that a message from President Coolidge be cabled for delivery to the Chief Executive.
925
Sept. 19 (258) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Secretary’s desire that the Minister have an interview with the Chief Executive and urge him to recognize the Federal contract.
926
Sept. 19 (260) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Opinion that it would not be wise to have the President send a personal message to the Chinese Chief Executive.
927
Sept. 21 (405) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Chief Executive’s assurance that the Federal contract will be carried out and that China will give whole-hearted support to the open-door policy. Minister’s renewed assurances, upon inquiry by Tuan, of U. S. readiness to discuss a mutual accommodation of interests between the Federal and Mitsui Companies as soon as the Federal contract has been put into effect.
927
Sept. 22 (263) To the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that if the Japanese Ambassador makes inquiries regarding the Chinese wireless situation, as indicated by a press report from Tokyo, the Secretary will tell him that he is waiting to learn the results of the negotiations at Peking.
929
Sept. 29 (422) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Message from Davis for the Radio Corporation (text printed), stating that an agreement will possibly be signed soon.
929
[Page CXXI]Oct. 5 (426) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Agreement reached for an interchange of notes, in which the Chinese Foreign Minister will state his Government’s intention to give effect to the Federal contract, and the U. S. Minister will confirm assurances that following the first steps in the carrying out of the contract, the U. S. interests will discuss an arrangement for cooperation with the Chinese and Japanese; the interchange of notes to be accompanied by a procès-verbal in respect to certain details.
930
Oct. 8 (430) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Information that the notes have been exchanged and the procès-verbal initialed.
932
Undated [Rec’d Oct. 9] From the Japanese Embassy
Assertion that the Chinese proposal of August 28 (summarized in the U. S. Minister’s telegram No. 360, August 29), is in substantial agreement with the Japanese proposal of December 24, 1924; hope that the basic principle for adjustment now found acceptable to both Chinese and Japanese Governments will be favorably received by the United States.
932
Undated [Rec’d Oct. 9] From the Japanese Embassy
Renewal of the suggestion of June 1 that the Japanese proposal of December 24, 1924, be submitted to a meeting of representatives of the radio interests of the various countries concerned to be examined as to its feasibility.
934
Dec. 29 (550) From the Minister in China (tel.)
Report that no progress has been made since the exchange of notes reported in telegram No. 430, October 8, because of absence of certain Cabinet Ministers from Peking and political instability.
935

Executive Order by President Coolidge Remitting Further Payments by China on the Boxer Indemnity

Date and number Subject Page
1925 July 16 Executive Order No. 4268
Providing for the remission of further payments of the annual installments of the Chinese indemnity.
935
[Page [CXXII]]