500.A15a3/8

The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Japan ( Neville )

No. 573

Sir: This is to inform you that I received a call on June 11, 1929, from Mr. Katsji Debuchi, Japanese Ambassador at Washington. During the course of the conversation the Ambassador asked me whether we had any further plans in regard to a naval conference. He said he understood that Admiral Jones was preparing a formula and was at work and he asked what our procedure would be.

I told the Ambassador that we were rather waiting to see how other nations felt and asked him how he would feel toward a proposition [Page 132] that the authorized representatives of Great Britain, Japan and ourselves should each separately with the advice of their naval officers try to work out a formula from the lead which Mr. Gibson’s speech had given, namely to work out a method by which the equivalent value of different sized cruisers could be obtained, taking into consideration their tonnage, their caliber and their age.

Mr. Debuchi said that he had supposed that we were going to do that first and then give it to them. He agreed with me that there would be small hope of agreement if the work were left to the naval representatives alone. I told him I felt very clear about this; that every such agreement upon a formula would involve sacrifices and compromise on the part of each country and that in my opinion could be better done by the work of responsible representatives of the government advised by the navy rather than by the navy alone. He agreed. I told him that we were at work on this and that when I came back to Washington I would take it up again with him; that we hesitated to impose our formula upon the others first and would rather have them do it and work simultaneously. He indicated that he thought that our country was going to do it first and seemed to prefer that way.

He then said that in this connection he hoped that I would remember that Japanese opinion was very sensitive on the question of the 5–5–3 ratio; that this had been agreed to as to capital ships but when it came to auxiliary vessels we would find their public opinion very keen, as he expressed it; that the reason for this was China; that China required the presence of a great number of auxiliary vessels of Japan in Chinese waters in the present troubled condition although it did not require any capital ships and therefore this served to affect the ratio 5–5–3 when it came to such smaller vessels. I reminded the Ambassador that we were discussing not the ultimate quantity ratio of such craft but merely a formula for determining their relative efficiency or value; that this must be taken as the first step and after we had done that then we could sit down and discuss 5–5–3. He said he recognized this.

I am [etc.]

H. L. Stimson