793.94/2212: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received 7:25 p.m.]
223. Consulate’s 217, October 18, 5 p.m. The concluding paragraphs of the telegram under reference indicated the probable nature of Briand’s reply to the latest Japanese note to the Council regarding the participation of the United States. This reply has now been [Page 259] issued in its final form and is found not to differ materially from that which Briand made to the first Japanese note of objection to American participation on legal grounds or from the indications of the reply given in the telegram under reference. The first exchange of letters regarding this point was summarized in the second and third paragraphs of the Consulate’s 210, October 16, 10 p.m.
Briand’s reply to the second Japanese note states in addition that at the Council meetings of October 15 and 16 he was careful to make it clear that “the object of the proposal laid before the Council was limited, being merely to supplement the arrangements already made to enable the Council to obtain information with greater ease.” Legal questions of a general nature to which the Japanese called attention did not arise “and should therefore remain entirely reserved.” Furthermore the reply states that Briand also added in the meetings of the Council that “it was not necessary for those questions to be settled before the Council could come to a decision of the proposal submitted to it.”
With regard to the reasons why and the conditions under which a representative of the United States was invited to sit at the Council table, the reply refers to Briand’s first letter summarized in the Consulate’s 210, October 16, 10 p.m.
With respect to a discussion of the legal questions involved the reply states that in view of the foregoing, “no useful purpose would be served by undertaking at the present time a judicial study of problems which, however important and interesting they might be in themselves, do not at the moment arise, though they can be examined later if the members of the League so desire.”
The reply then expresses the hope that the Japanese Government will for the reasons explained “agree that such a study would be in any case wholly unrelated to the vote given by the Council on October 15th” and since these texts will convince the Japanese Government that the most serious consideration has been given to the Japanese views and that the Council has been careful to take no action in contradiction to the Covenant.