441.11 W 892/10
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (Olds)
The British Ambassador came in [today] to discuss the pending legislation in Mexico. …
As the Ambassador arose to go he mentioned casually the subject of the blockade claims. He said he hoped that his telegraphing London on that subject after his informal conversation with me had caused no complications or embarrassments. I assured him that on the contrary it seemed to us in every way desirable to have this subject considered and all risk of any misunderstanding eliminated as soon as possible. He went on to say that the matter had come to his attention some time before his conversation with me, and that he had been on the point of talking to the Secretary about it. My [Page 217] mention of the claims had brought the subject again forcibly to his mind and he had accordingly cabled London. Proceeding, he said that naturally it would be very difficult indeed for them to get the British public to understand why the United States should have any claims growing out of the blockade, since we had afterwards come into the war with England and participated in the maintenance of the blockade on a more extensive scale than before. The Ambassador also said that the British had been led to believe that the blockade claims would be dropped. The subject had been broached in Paris by President Wilson who first stated definitely that the claims would be presented against England. Later, according to the Ambassador, President Wilson intimated that the claims would be dropped. I pointed out that so far as I had been advised the State Department had never had any other intention than that of presenting the blockade claims and said I was sure that the course of action between the two Governments had always been based upon that assumption. I referred to Sir Cecil Hurst’s conversation with Mr. Hyde last spring to the effect that the British Government itself had, by direct negotiation with the claimants, dealt with some of the claims, and to the existence of some notes which had passed referring to such claims. The Ambassador said that he was quite certain Sir Cecil Hurst in talking with Mr. Hyde never had in mind blockade claims, but was referring only to general claims. I then asked the Ambassador what he thought about the suggestion made by Sir Cecil for referring all claims between the two Governments to a joint commission. He agreed that the principle was sound, but he refrained from expressing any opinion as to whether the blockade claims should be dealt with in that way or in any other way.
I inquired whether there had been any further developments since he had read Mr. Kellogg the note from his Government, and asked whether any note had been delivered to the President. He replied that there never had been any idea of delivering a note; he was simply directed to read over textually a telegram which he had received. He did not say whether he had read it to the President.