894.628/135: Telegram

The Chargé in Japan ( Neville ) to the Secretary of State

208. Department’s 119, August 3, 2 p.m.; and Embassy’s 163, August 7, 4 p.m.

1.
I have just been orally informed by the Foreign Office that the Japanese Government would prefer not to enter into negotiations on the question of salmon packing and crab fishing at the present time. The reasons given are as follows:
(a)
Japanese fishing interests in the Bristol Bay region are limited. The crab fishing is of no great importance although it does provide a livelihood to some of the fishing population. At present there are no Japanese authorized to engage in salmon fishing in the open sea anywhere except around Kamchatka. It appears unlikely that Japanese interests in this industry will develop to an extent that would be detrimental to American interests and that consequently there seems to be no sufficient reason for negotiating a treaty as the matters involved have too little immediate value.
(b).
The Japanese Government would in any event prefer to reserve its liberty of action in regard to an area as large as that indicated and while the authorities have no present intention to authorize Japanese floating canneries to take salmon in those waters the Government would prefer not to enter into negotiations for a fishery treaty which present conditions do not seem to require.
2.
I replied that my Government would be disappointed and inquired whether the compensation offered seemed inadequate; that is, whether they felt that salmon fishing had greater possibilities for development than crab fishing. I asked whether there were any possibility of the authorities reconsidering their decision; that my Government regarded the question of open sea salmon fishing very [Page 1079] seriously; that our land canneries represented a large investment which might well be impaired by open sea salmon fishing; and that finally it needed little imagination to picture the situation which might be created if Japanese fishing vessels came to be regarded as a menace to American shore canneries and that we wished to prevent such a situation arising by taking suitable measures beforehand.
3.
I was informed that the matter was simply of not sufficient importance from the Japanese point of view and that the Department of Agriculture and Forestry preferred at this time to retain their liberty of action in regard to the granting of fishing licenses over so large an area.
4.
My impression is that the authorities will probably continue to refuse applications for open sea salmon fishing by floating canneries in the eastern part of the Bering Sea for the time being and that they will notify us when the pressure for permits becomes too strong. I am unable to obtain a more definite statement than this at the present time but it is possible that they may adduce a counter proposal if sufficiently pressed. Please instruct.
Neville