793.94/3761: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received 8:53 p.m.]
59. 1. Drummond this afternoon handed me the following aide-mémoire dated January 30:
“The British, French, German, Italian, Norwegian and Spanish Governments are instructing their official representatives who were present at Shanghai during the recent events there and in the neighborhood to form a committee to send to the Secretary General a report for consideration by the Council on those events, their causes and development. The formation of such a committee would allow information [Page 130] with regard to the incidents to be obtained on the spot and without delay.
This committee is a new emergency committee distinct from the original commission. It would not be expected to travel nor its creation in any way affect the mandate of the original commission. In view of the gravity of the situation and the cooperation already extended by the United States in this matter I have the honor to ask if your Government would be prepared to give similar instructions to their representative so that he may cooperate on the above with the representatives of the powers indicated above.
This request is put forward with the full agreement of the other cooperating states.”
2. At the same time he handed me the foregoing he requested that you be good enough to permit him to “withdraw” his communication of January 29 which I transmitted in my No. 52, January 29, 1 a.m. [p.m.]
3. As I indicated in my No. 53, January 29, 3 p.m., various elements in the situation here were very much confused at the time Drummond’s communication of January 29 was given me. This is in my opinion reflected in the communication itself which I believed was prepared in too great haste but in the hope that could an early intimation be obtained from the United States of its willingness to causing the contemplated investigations at Shanghai that project would thereby receive support and encouragement.
4. As will be noted from the Consulate’s 57, January 30, 3 p.m.,98 in the session of the Council held this morning the discussion chiefly turned on an interpretation of the technical situation created by Chinese appeal under article 15 particularly in its relationship to China’s appeal already taken under article 11 of the Covenant. It will be observed that Japan offered many juridical objections to action which the Council desired to take. It appeared, however, that these objections were not regarded as valid by the other members of the Council.
5. If I may venture to discuss what I consider the crux of the situation at issue insofar as the United States is concerned, I would say that it rested on a certain basic difference between article 11 and article 15 in that article 11 envisages the consent of both parties to the dispute in any action taken thereunder while article 15 contemplates action by the Council to which the consent of disputants is not essential. The relationship of the foregoing to the authority under which the Manchurian Commission is acting and under which the proposed Shanghai Committee will act and to the constitution, powers and functions of these respective bodies is, I think, evident. As the discussion in the [Page 131] Council had today seemed to reach a point where the opinion of the Council in these matters had become clarified, I, this afternoon, asked Drummond certain categorical questions. In his replies he stated that he was expressing not only his own position but that of all the members of the Council except perhaps Japan. The information which I derived from Drummond is as follows:
- (a)
- Articles 11 and 15 may be operative concurrently without prejudice to either.
- (b)
- From the foregoing it follows that action may be separately under each article in relation to the same dispute, action taken under one article being without prejudice to action taken under the other.
- (c)
- The activity of the Manchurian Commission of Inquiry is and will continue to be under article 11 and will have no reference to article 15.
- (d)
- The Shanghai Committee will act under article 15 and will have no reference to article 11.
- (e)
- The difference in function between the Manchurian Commission and the Shanghai Committee is that the former may concern itself within its competence with the more fundamental aspects of the question while the latter is purely fact-finding.
5. I would appreciate instructions as to the reply to be made to Drummond’s aide-mémoire quoted under paragraph 1 above.99
- Not printed; it reported the League Council’s public, then private, meeting of 10 a.m. that morning. For the minutes, see League of Nations, Official Journal, March 1932, pp. 343–350.↩
In telegram No. 34, February 1, 1 p.m., the Secretary of State instructed the Consul at Geneva as follows:
“Your instructions in 33, January 30, 6 p.m. cover the answer to be made to Drummond’s aide-mémoire.
Before issuing instructions to American representative in China I wish names and official positions of representatives designated by powers. Please telegraph these at earliest possible moment.” (793.94 Commission/56)
↩