793.94/4153: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 12—10:51 p.m.]
19. Continuing the memorandum concerning the private meeting of the Twelve this afternoon, the first section of which I read over the telephone the evening of February 12, Sweetser’s memorandum continues.
Boncour then said that the long discussion showed that all agreed that the Council itself could not for the moment summon the Assembly, that similarly it would not renounce its right of subsequent appeal to this more formal moral authority but that the Chinese themselves were undoubtedly free to take this action if they so desired. The only question then was one of the exact form, which Drummond suggested might be submitted to a meeting of the Twelve on Monday29 in anticipating a full session either public or private on Tuesday. Zulueta then with obvious embarrassment at the end of the meeting urged that he himself was greatly preoccupied with the substance of the affair whereas the discussion had borne only on the juridical complexities. However important these were the great problem itself was always present. He did not want to embarrass the negotiations in the slightest degree; on the contrary they should have the Council’s whole moral support. If the activities of the powers do not succeed at least in preventing hostilities, the Council must take action of some sort or other. The Council has had a great moral authority. Indeed that is all it has and it must exercise it. He feared that authority had already been seriously compromised and begged his colleagues not to forget the substance of the affair. Two members of the League were practically at war; the moment was coming when the Council must respond to a movement of world opinion which is thoroughly sound and right. At this moment at the end of the meeting Zaleski rose to leave. Colban said that in order that the silence should not be misinterpreted he wanted to express his cordial agreement with Zulueta with which Simon also concurred.
The balance of the memorandum which contains an analysis of the legal argument regarding the transfer of the question from the Council to the Assembly I am forwarding by mail30 with the exception of one paragraph in which Drummond outlines the Chinese point of view as explained by Yen. This paragraph follows: [Page 308]
“Drummond then explained that Yen’s purpose seemed to be to reserve his right to refer the matter to the Assembly which otherwise would have lapsed today. It was noticeable that his letter did not suggest a date for the convocation; indeed he had specifically added that he did not want to fix a date and in any case did not want an immediate meeting. He had no idea of pressing the matter but merely wanted an assurance that his right would not lapse. The question of voting he did not think very serious as the Council itself would have to have unanimity except for the parties and the only added difficulty would be the necessity of having a majority of the other members of the Assembly.”