711.417/801

Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (Johnson)

Mr. Sawada27 called and referred to previous conversations, particularly to the conversations which the Japanese Ambassador had [Page 154] with the Undersecretary on November 26, 1926 (November 29),28 and later with the Secretary on May 24, 1928, during the course of which Mr. Grew had stated that the United States Government would be willing to consider changes in the laws or regulations to meet the wishes of the Japanese in this matter. Mr. Sawada said that his Government had directed him to say that they would like to be more fully and completely informed as to what measures we would be willing to take either by a revision of regulations or otherwise in order to meet the wishes of the Japanese Government. I pointed out to Mr. Sawada that what Mr. Grew had said to the Ambassador was this, “that it was our desire so far as possible to try to find means to meet the Japanese viewpoint concerning the fur seals situation if this could be done short of altering the Convention and that as I had told the Ambassador before we would gladly consider and study any points the Japanese Government might raise with a view to ascertaining whether the situation could be improved by administrative regulations rather than by new treaty provisions”. I reminded him that up to the present time we had never been informed as to just what the Japanese Government desired in this matter and that until the Japanese Government informed us of their desires short of the question of the revision of the Convention we could not tell just how we could meet the situation. I reminded him that we had informed the Japanese Ambassador that we could not change the Convention and that subsequently as it had developed in the exchange of views the Japanese Government considered that American seals were destroying Japanese fish, we had suggested a joint investigation on the part of the American and Japanese authorities into the feeding habits of the seals with a view to finding out the facts and with a view to enabling us to determine what might be done to remedy that situation, if it exists. I said that we were still willing to take on this investigation.

The Japanese Chargé said that he had given this question a great deal of thought and that he recalled within the course of discussions of the matter that a suggestion had been made to the effect that the killings on land be increased and he asked whether I thought that this might not be a suggestion that would take care of the situation. I told him that this suggestion had been made in connection with the statement that seals were destroying the Japanese fisheries; that it being our understanding that the Pribilof Island seal did not visit Japanese waters and therefore was not preying on the Japanese fish, the damage must be done by seals from Robben Island or from the Russian Islands and that this could be very easily regulated under the Convention, which did not provide as to the number of seals to [Page 155] be killed on land each year, by increased killings at Robben Island and on the Commander Islands. I got out and showed him the statistical table covering the operation of the American seal service from 1923 to 1927, which the Secretary had given to the Ambassador on May 24, 1928, and I pointed out to him that killings on land of the Pribilof seals were increased year by year as the herd increased; that these killings were scientifically adjusted to the ratio between males and females on the islands as no females were killed and sufficient males had to be preserved in order to provide for the normal increase and growth of the herd and that I did not know that it would be possible for us to increase killings at the Pribilofs any faster than was already being done. I pointed out to him that under the present Convention as the Pribilof herd increased, the Japanese profited, naturally because the increased killings increased the amount of money to the Japanese Government for seals taken on the Pribilofs.

The Chargé stated that there was increased feeling among the people in his country in favor of the denouncement of the Convention.

I stated to the Chargé that of course if the Convention was denounced we would be right back where we were when we started out at the time the Convention was signed in 1911; that prior to that time we had possessed this herd and it was gradually being destroyed by pelagic sealing; that we had been helpless in the face of pelagic sealing and had tried by every means we could think of to obtain the consent of the countries interested in international cooperation for the purpose of doing away with pelagic sealing. I said that at one time we had seriously considered the question as to whether we should, not only in our own interests but in the interests of humanity, kill off the herd at the Pribilofs and thus end the whole question, as we had a perfect right to do, but eventually we had succeeded in getting the nations to agree under the Convention of 1911 to prohibit pelagic sealing on the understanding that we would give to the Japanese and British a share of our herd which amounted to 30%, leaving 70% to us; that since the signing of that Convention our herd on the Pribilofs had grown normally and well and that we were satisfied with the situation, although it was true that we were still out of pocket on the whole adventure while Great Britain and Japan were receiving without charge to themselves a share of our adventure in the shape of money. I said that we were so interested in the whole scheme that we were prepared to make up this deficit every year for preserving the herd not only for ourselves but for the world. I said that if, of course, we had to go back to the old situation which existed prior to 1911, we would once more have to consider whether it would not be wise to destroy our herd and thus prevent its inhuman destruction by means of the cruel methods of pelagic sealing.

[Page 156]

The Chargé said that apparently there was a great deal of sentiment in this country in favor of preserving the Convention and in future rid the world of pelagic sealing. I said this was so according to my estimate of the situation.

The Chargé reminded me that in the conversation which the Ambassador had on May 24, with the Secretary, the Secretary had stated that he had mentioned the possibility of an investigation into the feeding habits of the seals with the British and that the British Government had stated it was not interested in participating and that the Secretary had promised to find out whether this view was shared by the Canadians. I said that I had communicated this request to the Canadians at that time and that only the other day Mr. Beaudry of the Canadian Legation had been in to see me and had told me that the Canadian Government was not interested in the proposed investigation and that the Canadian Government was interested in seeing the present Convention continued indefinitely.

The Chargé stated that he would report this conversation to his Government and state that we were prepared to give consideration to any suggestions which the Japanese Government might have to make with a view to discussing whether or not by amendment of our laws or regulations we could meet their desires.

N[elson] T. J[ohnson]
  1. Setsuzo Sawada, Japanese Chargé at Washington.
  2. See memorandum by Under Secretary of State Grew, November 29, 1926, Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. ii, p. 472.