The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received 6:49 p.m.]
20. From Davis. Your 16, October 3, 6 p.m., was received after adjournment of Organizing Committee but matter was immediately taken up with League Secretariat. They advised me that as a matter of convenience and to harmonize divergent terminology used in Lausanne resolution and correspondence of British Government regarding Conference the League Secretariat had employed term “economic and financial conference”, this title being used in the resolution of Organizing Committee described my 18, October 3, 9 p.m., which is circulated to all states invited to Conference. They state, however, that as Organizing Committee has taken no formal action they see no insurmountable obstacle to reconsideration by that Committee at next meeting in November.
League officials point out that term “monetary” is hardly broad enough to cover all questions which will be considered by Conference and they obviously prefer maintenance of present title unless we insist upon a change.
If question of title involves solely question of appropriation I trust that matter can be worked out in Washington without insisting upon change in name. If you anticipate serious congressional difficulties I believe that we could effect the change you desire. In this connection it should be pointed out that correspondence with British Government of July 13 and 28 and Lausanne Conference resolution employs both titles and that we can hardly take question up on the basis that League or British authorities have changed Conference [Page 827] title. All they have done is to select one of the names set forth in the original invitation to us. From consultation with League officials, I find that League has never formally received British note to us advising that invitation to Conference is extended on the understanding that certain questions, viz, reparations, debts, tariff rates, will be excluded from its scope and silver included. Hence League has never communicated this correspondence to other participating states. If you feel that communication of this correspondence is necessary or desirable I suggest you take the matter up with the British Foreign Office. You may consider that our position is sufficiently a matter of public record as a result of press statements to make such communication unnecessary. Further, our representatives on the Agenda Committee can safeguard our position. I felt that you should know above situation. I am leaving with Gilbert at Consulate a copy of your cable [No.] 16, October 3, 6 p.m., and this reply. [Davis.]