711.008 North Pacific/1
Memorandum by Mr. Eugene H. Dooman of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs
The Canadian Minister, Sir Herbert Marler, called at the Department this morning accompanied by Mr. Hume Wrong, Counselor of Legation, and Mr. Charles Ritchie, Third Secretary of Legation.
The following officers of the Department were present:
Mr. Dooman (FE) [Far Eastern Affairs]
Mr. Hickerson (WE) [Western European Affairs]
Mr. Keating (TD) [Treaty Division]
Mr. Bonbright (WE)
The Canadian Minister stated that his Legation had received from the Canadian Department of Fisheries a memorandum setting forth views with regard to certain fishing problems, and that he thought that it would be helpful to him and to his Government if there could be had an informal discussion on these problems.
Mr. Wrong distributed copies of the memorandum referred to by the Minister (copy attached),96 the purport of which he outlined and amplified by certain observations. He said that the methods of catching fish and distributing fish had been revolutionized by the development of the so-called “mother” ships and by improvements in refrigeration. He understood that it was now possible for fish to be immersed in brine and frozen without injuring the cell structure of the fish and without materially altering its flavor. It was thus possible for ships now to be sent to all parts of the world to engage in fishing and also to distribute catches in widely separated markets. He thought that there was reason for reviewing the whole problem, with a view to determining new principles calculated to conserve the fishery resources of the various countries.
Mr. Wrong then referred to the specific question of Japanese fishing vessels operating along the coast of North America, and to the fear that operations of this kind would eventually deplete the salmon and halibut of the Pacific.
Mr. Dooman then gave in strict confidence an account of the discussions which have been held between this Government and the Japanese Government over the possibility of action being taken by the Japanese Government to prohibit Japanese nationals from fishing for salmon in the waters of Bristol Bay. He referred to the informal conversations which were held at Tokyo in 1930 and 1931, to the plan which was formulated at that time and which fell through, to the investigations carried out during the last four or five years by vessels of the Japanese Government with regard to the salmon resources of Bristol Bay, and finally to the inquiry made by this Government last year with regard to the possibility of a convention to provide for the exclusion of Japanese fishing vessels from operating in Bristol Bay. The Japanese Government expressed inability to consider any such convention until certain studies which were being conducted of the salmon resources of Bristol Bay were concluded. The Japanese Government had given assurances, however, that Japanese fishing vessels would not be licensed to operate in that area for the time being, and so far as this Government was aware there had been no cases of Japanese packing salmon in the waters of Bristol Bay.
Mr. Dooman went on to say that the studies which were being made by the Japanese Government would, he understood, continue for another [Page 949] two or three years, and that he thought it unlikely that the question under consideration would come to a head, either by the conclusion of a convention such as we have in mind or by Japanese operating in Bristol Bay, for several years to come. In the meantime, private suggestions had been put forward by Japanese officials to the effect that it might be desirable for the United States, Canada and Japan to conduct a survey of the fishery resources of the north Pacific with a view to the eventual conclusion of a fishery convention along the lines of the Fur Seals Treaty of 1911.
So far as halibut is concerned, Mr. Dooman did not believe that the possibility is imminent of Japanese being interested in halibut on an extensive scale, although it is true that a few Japanese fishing vessels had been catching certain types of ground fish for reduction into fertilizer and oil.
Mr. Hickerson expressed the thought that problems arising in the Pacific appear to be somewhat less difficult than those arising in the Atlantic, for the reason that in the former area only the salmon appear to be involved—and that only because of the possible interest of one other country—whereas in the Atlantic many types of fish and many countries were involved.
The Canadian Minister pursued that thought and said that it seemed to him that it would be wise to explore the possibility of a convention being concluded between the United States, Canada and Japan. If such a convention were concluded, a precedent and an example will have been created for the setting up of an agreement of the widest possible compass.
It was suggested to the Canadians that our approach to the Japanese might be made easier if it were possible for us to show that we on this side of the Pacific were making an effort to solve our own salmon difficulties through the Sockeye Salmon Convention of 1930.97 The Canadian Minister agreed and Mr. Wrong expressed the opinion that in the course of the next ten days we would probably know the decision of the Canadian Government regarding the acceptance or rejection of our Senate’s reservations to the Convention, which is not yet in operation.98
Mr. Dooman said that it did not seem to him that a pessimistic view with regard to the conclusion of a three-power agreement such as that suggested by Sir Herbert was called for at the present time: the salmon resources of Kamchatka were being rapidly depleted, due in large part to the policy of the Soviet Government in farming out the so-called “fishing stations” and the importance of canned salmon in [Page 950] Japan’s foreign trade are two reasons which should dispose the Japanese toward cooperating in conserving the salmon resources of the eastern Pacific. It would have to be realized that the conclusion of such a convention would require the making of sacrifices by both Canada and the United States to permit Japanese participation in salmon fishing, and that the uncompromising attitude of the salmon interests on the west coast would have to be taken into consideration.
There then ensued a discussion among the Canadians of the likelihood of the Japanese threat to the salmon resources of Canada being raised in the Canadian Parliament, and there seemed to be a consensus among them that the question would be raised. The Americans made the comment that it also seemed likely that some resolution, probably espousing the view of the American salmon interests that the red salmon found in Bristol Bay are property of the United States, would be introduced at the next session of Congress.
The Canadian Minister observed that the discussion had inclined him to the view that the course to be pursued by Canada and the United States should be to seek with Japan a solution of the Pacific problem, leaving the wider problems presented in the memorandum of the Canadian Department of Fisheries to be resolved at some later date. He added that he would recommend that the Canadian Government endeavor by appropriate means to support and reenforce whatever the American Government might seek to do by way of representations to the Japanese Government. Mr. Dooman said that an instruction to the Embassy at Tokyo is in the course of preparation, and that upon completion he would be glad to confer further with members of the Canadian Legation.
- Not printed.↩
- Signed at Washington, May 26, 1930, Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. i, p. 505.↩
- For protocol of exchange signed at Washington, July 28, 1937, see ibid., p. 512 (bracketed insertion).↩