711.008 North Pacific/437: Telegram
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
Tokyo, January 11, 1939—6
p.m.
[Received January 11—10:48 a.m.]
[Received January 11—10:48 a.m.]
19. Department’s 427, December 28, 7 p.m. and 5, January 5, 7 p.m., Alaska salmon fishery.
[Page 206]- 1.
- As there appears to be little prospect of any opportunity more favorable than the present from the point of view of Japan’s fishery relations with the Soviet Union and of Japan’s general relations with the United States presenting itself within the period of 3 or 4 weeks following the receipt of the Department’s telegram of December 28, Dooman today called on Yoshizawa and set forth at length the trend of opinion in the United States with regard to conservation of fishery resources, including introduction of the recent bill by delegate Dimond. He left with Yoshizawa an informal memorandum closely following the presentation set forth in the Department’s instruction 1589, October 17.
- 2.
- Yoshizawa was visibly agitated. He expressed inability to understand why, in the absence of any evidence following the agreement of March 2538 of Japanese operations in Alaskan waters, the question should be raised at this time. He asked what the American Government proposed should be done. Dooman made it clear that, although the American Government was not making any definitive proposal, it believes that further discussions looking toward a more comprehensive and permanent agreement than that of March 25 would be desirable, and that the American Government would be prepared to enter into such discussion at such time as might be agreeable to the Japanese Government.
- 3.
- Yoshizawa said that he would communicate to us the views of the Japanese Government in an informal letter but that he could not encourage us to anticipate a favorable response. It was his opinion that it would be impossible to obtain the approval of the Privy Council to any arrangement which carried renunciation of Japanese rights to fish on the high seas; that if the choice were to be between the enactment of the Dimond Bill and formal renunciation of Japanese fishing rights Japan would prefer the former because American domestic legislation as such would not necessarily be binding on Japan. He then went on to say that there have recently occurred in the United States developments which have created the impression in certain Japanese quarters that the economic screws were being tightened down on Japan (he mentioned specifically the refusal of the immigration authorities at Honolulu to permit a Japanese bank manager to land and the inclusion by the customs authorities at New York of rebated Japanese taxes in the dutiable value of Japanese cotton piece goods), and he considered it likely that if our present approach should become a matter of public knowledge the belief would prevail that this approach [Page 207] was caused by the present American-Japanese dispute over the Open Door in China.
- 4.
- Dooman emphasized that technological improvements in the catching and distribution of fish as well as the activity of Japanese fishermen in Alaskan waters were responsible for the sense of insecurity felt by the affected population in Alaska and on the Pacific Coast and that our present approach has no connection whatever with the question of the Open Door in China or with any other issue lying between the United States and Japan.
Grew