793.94/6665
Memorandum by the Secretary of State
The British Ambassador called and first stated that in conversation with an important United States official, not of the State Department however, he had indicated a violent state of mind in criticizing the recent statement of Sir John Simon in the House of Commons regarding the British attitude towards the statements about control of the Orient emanating from various Japanese sources during past weeks. The Ambassador said that he had called to inquire whether the State Department felt specially disappointed at the nature and the substance of this statement of Sir John Simon. I replied that the statement had not called for any special conference here in the Department on the part of myself and associates; that there was, naturally, some comment and speculation with reference to the clause in Sir John’s statement which proposed to make exception to some kind of rights of Japan in Manchuria or other portions of China. I stated that I myself was frankly somewhat disappointed to find this exception clause, which seemed somewhat enigmatical, in Sir John Simon’s statement and that so far as my impression went the matter was viewed by my associates with the same state of mind; that while there had been no general expressions in the way of adverse comment [Page 165] in the United States, I had observed from London press dispatches that the press of England was generally critical of this phase of Sir John’s statement. The Ambassador said that that was another matter which he was not dealing with, but that he was making his inquiry of me with respect to American sentiment and especially the state of mind of the State Department. I again told him that all in all the Department was not and had not been exercised about the matter; that England being more interested materially in the Orient than the United States, it was her fullest privilege to treat the Japanese publicity as her judgment thought best; that it was true all of the governments signatory to treaties operative especially in the Orient were in the same boat with respect to their observance; that I myself felt that since none of the countries such as Great Britain and the United States were planning pronouncements in any event that would call for the use of force, unequivocal and clearcut statements from each government relative to their rights, interests, and obligations, in the Orient—such statements being made separately and independently by each of the governments—would offer the best possible method of dealing with these Japanese utterances by arousing the moral sentiment of the world; that I would have been delighted if each of the governments signatory to such treaties had thus spoken out, but unfortunately only Great Britain, the United States and France had done so. The Ambassador said that it was thoroughly justifiable for Sir John Simon to insert the exceptional clause in his statement about the rights of Japan. My reply to this was that in stating a broad fundamental position relating to the rights, interests and obligations of all the nations signatory to the treaties involved, there was not any occasion whatever for singling out some one of numerous, purely minor or local conditions for the purpose of making an exception in favor of Japan and in favor of Japan’s alleged rights.
The Ambassador seemed entirely content when I stated to him that this government was not exercised or disposed seriously to complain at the particular or exceptional clause above referred to in Sir John Simon’s statement.