500.A15a3/760: Telegram
The Chairman of the American Delegation (Stimson) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received March 17—4:23 p.m.]
140. (1) A five-hour conference took place at Chequers yesterday between the French and British delegations. The true results of the situation are difficult to appraise, but Dawes and Morrow, both of whom have known Tardieu in past negotiations, share my impression that he hopes eventually to make a five-power agreement.
Tardieu is very stubborn in regard to his figures and is making great efforts to persuade both the British and us to help him to bring Italy down to a sufficient margin of naval inferiority. Whether he is doing this for domestic politics only or whether it masks some international order between the two nations, I am not yet able to determine. As our work progresses, the situation may be clarified. The French have stated the amount of tonnage superiority they demand over the Italians, and by taking old tonnage into consideration it is not impossible that such a tonnage superiority may be worked out from the status quo. Aside from this, however, Italy is trying to force France to concede formal naval parity, while [Page 65] France is trying to force Italy to concede formal naval inferiority. Neither can hope to win this issue, yet neither one will yield.
MacDonald and I are trying to suggest some formula of mutual reservations and agreement upon a modus vivendi which is not to represent real maritime interests. I believe that if any solution is reached, it will be along some such line as this. I am assuming in all of this, however, that there is no secret military issue involved, and as to that I am not yet sure.
(2) In further answer to your No. 207, March 13, 2 p.m., I have consulted the delegation and we are clearly of the opinion that the situation would not be helped on this side by any Presidential statement. We are strongly opposed to any appeal, either here or at home, for reduction. Assuming that Japan ratifies the Japanese agreement, we shall have accomplished a three-power settlement which should receive, we believe, the hearty approval of the President and of the American public. When it was submitted to the President in February (our telegram No. 35, February 4), its adoption received his hearty approval. For him now to appeal for reduction would give, almost inevitably, the impression that he is in sympathy with the recent criticism of the pacifist press, which has of necessity been ignorant of the details of the settlement and of the difficulties against which we have labored. A result of that sort would be most unfair to the delegation.
As far as a statement regarding the consultative pact is concerned, my decision has been expressly accepted by both Briand and Tardieu, and accordingly there is no reason for such a statement here. The matter is no longer an issue in the Conference. The press summaries received from you seem to indicate that my statement has been accepted fairly well by the American press, even papers like the Times and the World, their former attitude being taken into consideration; but if the President wishes to ram home the subject still further, I perceive no great objection, from this end of the line, to doing so, except for the danger which always exists in stirring up a dead issue. It is our general impression that it would be better to withhold all Presidential statements until our negotiations are concluded, when a statement from him will undoubtedly be very helpful in bringing home the character of such a settlement as we may accomplish and the reasons for it.