711.008 North Pacific/306: Telegram

The Ambassador in Japan ( Grew ) to the Secretary of State

177. Department’s 92, March 16, 6 p.m.—Alaska salmon fisheries.

The second section of the Department’s telegram came in this afternoon and is now being degarbled. It will therefore not be practicable for me to see the Minister for Foreign Affairs today.
With reference to the clause beginning “if Japanese nationals have in the past taken”, the Foreign Office stated on March 12 that the Japanese Government could not agree to have attributed to it any statement which could be construed as an admission that Japanese have fished for salmon. I told Hirota on January 25 that we have evidence of such salmon fishing (Department’s 20, January 22, 3 p.m., paragraph numbered 4; our 54, January 26, 6 p.m., paragraph numbered 1). On the following day the Foreign Office invited us to present such (our 54, January 26, 6 p.m., paragraph numbered 3, subparagraph c). We have not done so. When I emphasize to the Minister the need for the insertion in the press communiqué of the clause quoted above, he will very likely respond by recalling the readiness of the Japanese Government to receive indisputable evidence of such fishing and point out that we have failed to proffer such evidence. I would welcome the Department’s suggestions for meeting this hypothetical point. In the absence of a reply from the Department before my appointment with Hirota, I shall merely observe that while my Government is in possession of such evidence it believes that settlement of the larger question would be promoted if detailed discussion of past activities of Japanese fishing vessels were omitted.
The Department’s telegram 92 would seem to indicate that the Department desires the omission of the final two paragraphs of the Japanese redraft since these paragraphs come under the phrase “what appears thereafter”. If I am wrong, please instruct.