861.77 Chinese Eastern/608: Telegram
The Minister in Hungary (Wright) to the Secretary of State
[Received 4:10 p.m.]
26. Your circular December 5, 4 p.m.75 Department’s December 1, 4 p.m., received 3rd and brought on morning of 4th to attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs who stated that he concurred [Page 398] that this was an important moment in the application of the treaty and that a moral obligation rested upon the signatories to the pact again to express their adherence to the principle therein embodied and to take whatever action appeared proper to them according to their respective circumstances. He observed, however, that Hungary as a small power should perhaps await for a few days the action of other powers. After further conversation, however, he stated that he would seek an early opportunity to state the position of the Government at a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of either House of Parliament which would be made public as he considered such method preferable to an interview or statement by the Prime Minister. The question of addressing communications to the governments parties to the controversy must await further consideration. Hungary maintains diplomatic relations with neither. At my suggestion an officially inspired statement appeared in all morning papers of the 5th that I had informed the Government of the action of the American Government and the vital importance which we attribute to the serious application of the pact.
Prime Minister observed to me last night that the reply of Russia as reported in press here was about what was to have been expected, while Minister of Foreign Affairs characterized it as impertinent. Hungarian papers carry only press reports of controversy and of representations made by certain governments. Only editorial comment is that appearing 4th by Appomnivori [Apponyi?] who observes that this conflict emphasizes the contention advanced by him in private speech at Parliamentary Union in Geneva last August that the reservations made by certain powers signatories to the Pact of Paris in defining aggression have impaired its value.77