711.417/722
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State (Grew) of a Conversation With the Second Secretary of the British Embassy (Balfour)
I telephoned today to Mr. Chilton of the British Embassy to say that I was prepared at his convenience to answer the note of April 8 from the British Embassy,16 but preferred to do it orally and therefore suggested that somebody from the Embassy come to the Department. Mr. Balfour came. I told him that the proposal of the Japanese Government for a revision of the Fur Seals Convention had been tentative up to the present and that our negotiations with the Japanese Ambassador had been entirely informal and oral and it therefore seemed preferable to inform the British Embassy of the present status of the matter orally instead of in a formal note. Mr. Balfour replied that this would be entirely satisfactory.
I then said that the situation is as follows: The Japanese Government had suggested a conference between Great Britain, the United States, Soviet Russia and Japan for the purpose of drawing up a new convention for the protection of fur seals on the ground that these seals were invading the seas of Japan in such numbers as to destroy and displace great quantities of fish, a circumstance which was inflicting great damage and harm to Japanese fishermen. In view of this situation, the Japanese Government felt that the regulations protecting fur seals should be made less stringent in order to decrease the number of seals entering into Japanese seas.
[Page 468]In my first conversation with the Japanese Ambassador, I had made it clear that as the United States had not recognized the Soviet Russian regime, it would be impossible for us to sign a convention with representatives of that régime. The Japanese Ambassador after consulting with his Government then inquired whether we had not signed the Universal Postal Convention in 1924 with the Soviet Russian régime and whether this would not constitute a precedent for similar action in the present case. To this I replied that the negotiation and signature of the Universal Postal Convention could not serve as a precedent which could be followed by this Government in the matter of the revision of the Fur Seals Convention as the Postal convention was an arrangement of an administrative character having no political significance and was signed by administrative officials. The non-political character of the Universal Postal Convention is further evidenced by the fact that it is signed by numerous entities which are not recognized as sovereign states, such as the Philippine Islands, Belgian Congo, Spanish Colonies, French Colonies, Korea, etc. The Fur Seals Convention, on the other hand, is a formal treaty involving in the United States the full treaty-making power.
The Ambassador had then suggested that two separate conventions might be drawn up at a conference of experts at which the United States and Soviet Russia would be represented only by observers, for which the conference of Lausanne furnished a precedent, and that the two separate conventions could be concluded, one between the United States, Great Britain and Japan, and the other between Great Britain, Soviet Russia and Japan. To this suggestion I pointed out to the Ambassador that this would leave a serious loop hole in the effectiveness of control, because no power would be conferred upon the American authorities to arrest Russians conducting pelagic sealing within the waters under their control, and, similarly, no power would be conferred upon the Russian authorities to arrest American citizens conducting pelagic sealing in Russian waters.
I had then informed the Ambassador that while we could not enter into a new convention we desired to approach the matter with the utmost good will and I asked if he could not tell us exactly what modifications in the existing convention his Government desired, so that we might ascertain whether a means of meeting the wishes of the Japanese Government, without holding a conference at this time, might not be found. I had pointed out to the Japanese Ambassador that under Article XIII of the present convention, the Japanese Government could adjust the size of the Robben Island herd by killings on land which would seem to be an effective method of cutting down the depredations upon the fisheries. The Ambassador had then said that while he had had no precise information on this point [Page 469] from his Government he believed that the Japanese fishermen in the inland seas desired to kill the seals in the water. The Ambassador had then intimated that in view of the attitude of the American Government which he would bring to the attention of his own Government it was possible that the matter might be dropped, although he had no information from his Government to confirm this. For this reason he had suggested that the matter be kept in its present informal status.
Mr. Balfour said that his own Government had been approached similarly by the Japanese Government and that the British Government had replied asking exactly as we had done, for the precise modifications which the Japanese Government desired to have made in the convention. Up to the present no reply from the Japanese Government had been received. The situation, so far as the Government of the United States and the British Government are concerned, would therefore appear to be similar.