701.60D11/211½
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, by Mr. L. Randolph Higgs of the Division of European Affairs
Mr. Solanko4 telephoned me this morning regarding the Department’s note of today’s date which he had just received relating to movements of Finnish officials in the United States. Mr. Solanko said that he would like information regarding the exact meaning of [Page 22] certain aspects of our note. He inquired whether “personnel of the Legation” applied to everybody connected with the Legation, including the Minister, chauffeurs, and families of officials. I said all persons who had been officially notified to the Department as being officials of the Finnish Legation came within the purview of the note and the restrictions set forth therein. He then inquired whether honorary consuls were included and I said that in my opinion they were, since the Legation had notified us of their official status and also that it did not make any difference whether they were Finnish citizens. He inquired then as to the meaning of “Consular district”. I said that I did not know the exact boundaries of the various Finnish Consular districts in the United States but that I presumed this had been the subject of communications from the Finnish Legation in the past. He said that in that case the Finnish Consul General in New York could travel anywhere in the United States, since he had consular jurisdiction over the whole country. I said that if that were the case, the Legation would not have to make the inquiries mentioned in the note regarding his visits in the United States. (When we have had some experience with the procedure set forth in our note and how the Finnish Government will react to these restrictions, we might wish to consider amending the restrictions upon movements of Finnish Consular officers in the United States to make it necessary that inquiries be made regarding any visits which they may wish to make outside of the corporate limits of the cities in which their respective consular offices are situated.) Mr. Solanko then inquired whether inquiry would have to be made of the Department when his children desired to go to Glen Echo.5 I said that to give him a definitive answer I would have to give him a map but that I presumed that this would not be necessary in as much as there were no intervening suburbs. He replied that there were some intervening woods, to which I commented that I was sure that minor details of this character could always be worked out satisfactorily to all concerned.
Mr. Solanko then brought up the question of the First Secretary of the Finnish Legation, Mr. Mikkola, who was at the time in New York. He said that the Legation had endeavored to get in communication with Mr. Mikkola by telephone to order him to return to Washington immediately but so far had been unable to complete their call. I inquired when Mr. Mikkola was expected to return and upon learning that he was scheduled to be back in Washington on Monday, said that it would hardly be necessary for him to return any earlier; that in instances of such a character the Legation could assume our note was effective only in respect to future visits outside of Washington of Legation personnel. I took the opportunity then to inquire of Mr. Solanko as to the present whereabouts of Mr. Wrede, an Attaché [Page 23] of the Legation, who, so far as I knew, has spent very few days in Washington since his arrival in the United States. Mr. Solanko said that the Legation had already gotten in touch with Mr. Wrede who was in New York and had instructed him to return to Washington immediately. I did not suggest that the Legation might countermand this instruction so as to permit Mr. Wrede to return at a later date as in the case of Mr. Mikkola.
Mr. Solanko inquired whether we are acquainted with the precise details of Finnish restrictions upon the movements of American consular and diplomatic personnel in Finland. I said that I was not but that from what I knew of those restrictions they were similar in effect to those communicated to the Finnish Legation in its note under reference. We did not discuss this matter further.
Mr. Solanko suggested that considerable delays might be encountered from time to time in submitting and receiving written communications regarding proposed visits of the Legation personnel. He inquired what Division of the Department would be handling these matters. In reply I remarked that the Department would make every effort to expedite replies to any inquiries which the Legation might make in regard to these matters, but that any delays encountered would be the result of the pressure of work at the time inquiry was made. I said that several Divisions in the Department had to be consulted on each inquiry received from the Legation but that if the Legation so desired, they could bring the inquiries to me and I would undertake to expedite consideration of the inquiries by the other Divisions.
Throughout the conversation Mr. Solanko confined his inquiries and comments almost entirely to facts. There was, however, a discernible note of surprise at the terms of our communication. In only one instance did he depart from what might be termed legitimate inquiry. He made one reference to “prison regulations” which I quickly corrected.