724.3415/2414
Memorandum by the Chairman of the Commission of Neutrals (White)
The Argentine Ambassador called and discussed with me his note to me as Chairman of the Neutral Commission dated the 18th instant. He told me very confidentially that he had changed the note considerably from the way he was instructed to send it as not to do so would have caused even greater resentment than he presumed the note even in its present form had caused. There was one word which he had changed inadvertently and he would like to have it rectified because he feels that he will now be in open break with his Minister for Foreign Affairs and he does not want the latter to have any hold on him. I asked him to send me a memorandum asking that this be changed as a typographical error had occurred. I told him that this change would cause less comment if made in a memorandum, as a copy had already been sent to the Neutrals, than if I merely told the latter that Mr. Espil had personally requested that the change be made. He said that he would do so.72
He showed me cables from his Government indicating very considerable uneasiness on the part of Saavedra Lamas because of a United Press cable stating that the Neutrals had a long meeting to discuss the Argentine note. The cable asked Espil to try to avoid resentment on the part of the Neutral Commission on account of the note.
Mr. Espil said that he had changed very largely the note with regard to the authorship of the declaration of August 3 and also very materially the paragraph relating to Secretary Stimson’s position with regard to Manchuria. He had also left out entirely some references which had been made to the Drago doctrine.
I asked Mr. Espil why, if Saavedra Lamas was again taking so much pride in the August 3 declaration that he had incorporated a lot of statements regarding the authorship thereof in his note which Espil had said had been omitted by him, Saavedra Lamas does not ask the American nations to join with him in calling this doctrine to the attention of Peru and Colombia in their present conflict over Leticia.73 I said that that would give him a chance to take the initiative in an important matter. I told the Ambassador to think over [Page 209] whether he wanted to make such a suggestion as this to Saavedra Lamas or not. Mr. Espil said that as Argentina does not border on either Colombia or Paraguay [Peru] he thought perhaps Saavedra Lamas might do so and that he would think the matter over over the weekend. He was going to be out of town but would come on Tuesday morning and discuss the matter.