formula to postpone or side-step facing the issues involved and defining the League's attitude and position. Moreover, honor and the permanent interests of the League itself demand that China should not be misled into believing that she can rely on forms of assistance which may not be forthcoming."

He thought it was impractical for the League in its present condition to proceed under article 17 but declared:

"The importance of article 11 at the present juncture, however, is clear and great. It is a means by which immediately the League may transcend the limitations of its present membership. In the conflict now being waged in East Asia not only League states but great states outside the League have direct and vital interests. Surely the action that would be, in the words of article No. 11, 'wise and effective['] at this stage would be for the Council to endeavor to arrange for a conference of the powers most vitally concerned in the position in the Far East, whether members of the League or not, with a view to such conference getting in touch with the countries concerned in the dispute and endeavoring to arrange some settlement or concerting such measures as may be necessary and practicable. This would also be, in my view, the only immediately possible step under article 10".

On economic questions he intimated that he would later in the Second Committee propose studies by the League (a) of methods of bringing about an improvement in living standards, (b) of means of avoiding or ameliorating the "next depression" and (c) of agricultural reorganization and credit particularly in Eastern Europe. He also made the following reference to the United States:

"The League's work for economic improvement has been facilitated and will in the future be further helped by the cooperation of nations not members of the League. In particular I would refer to the active cooperation of the United States of America in the I. L. O. 42 and on the Technical Committees of the League. In all our efforts in this direction we have the full support of President Roosevelt and his Secretary of State Mr. Cordell Hull. In this sphere we have also the encouragement of the definite cooperative action which was and is being taken by the United States of America, France and the United Kingdom in the triple monetary agreement.43 And we are all awaiting with great interest the report of Monsieur Van Zeeland ** on the important mission 45 which he undertook at the request of the Governments of Great Britain and France."

42 International Labor Office.

43 Dated September 25, 1936, Foreign Relations, 1936, vol. 1, p. 560.

"Belgian Prime Minister.

45

For correspondence regarding this mission, see vol. 1, pp. 671 ff.

BUCKNELL

793.94/10184: Telegram

The Minister in Switzerland (Harrison) to the Secretary of State

GENEVA, September 21, 1937-8 p. m. [Received September 21-5: 52 p. m.]

1. At the meeting this afternoon of the Advisory Committee of 23, since the Netherlands had had the chairmanship previously, Graeff mentioned the interest of his country in the question in view of the nearness of its colonies to the region of action and indicated the unwillingness of his Government to retain the chairmanship. He suggested Munters 46 of Latvia who was unanimously elected.

The Chairman suggested inviting certain powers not represented thereon to participate in the work of the Committee. Cranborne " suggested China and Japan who had not been included when the Committee was originally set up and added Germany. Delbos seconded these proposals and suggested Australia. The Committee approved.

It was decided to hold the next meeting Monday unless all replies to the invitations are received before that date, in which event the Committee will meet earlier.

After the meeting Munters informed me that if these four states accept the invitation they will be regarded as members of the Committee.

HARRISON

793.94/10183: Telegram

The Minister in Switzerland (Harrison) to the Secretary of State

GENEVA, September 21, 1937-11 a. m. [p. m.] [Received September 21-6:09 p. m.]

2. At the meeting of the Advisory Committee this evening, Delbos told me he intended at our next meeting to propose that the whole question be referred to a committee composed of representatives of states directly interested in the Far East. He gave me this, he said, as advance information in the most friendly spirit. He hoped that this plan would be agreeable to you. His purpose was to take the matter out of the Advisory Committee and have it handled by a more effective body as the Mediterranean question had been handled at Nyon.48 I asked him who would participate. He answered Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Australia, and Russia.

46 V. Munters, Latvian Minister for Foreign Affairs.

"Lord Cranborne, British Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 48 See vol. 1, pp. 387-421, passim.

He also suggested Germany but she might refuse to accept the invitation to participate in the work of the Advisory Committee, also Italy who was already a member of the Committee but was not represented at today's meeting.

After the meeting, I asked to see Cranborne who attended in lieu of Eden about the Delbos proposal. He has just telephoned me to say that Eden, who particularly desired to work with us and who wished to present the matter himself to us, would be surprised should we be the first to mention it. Consequently, he wanted, he said, to communicate with Eden before he saw me and asked if I would delay informing you until I had seen him. I am to see him tomorrow morning at 12:30 and will report further.

HARRISON

793.94/10215: Telegram

The Minister in Switzerland (Harrison) to the Secretary of State

GENEVA, September 23, 1937-10 a. m. [Received 10:50 a. m.]

6. Reference my No. 3, September 22, noon.49 Saw Cranborne last evening. He explained he had been delayed in reaching Eden and had had to see Delbos. He reiterated Eden's desire to cooperate fully with you and to do nothing to cause us embarrassment. Consequently they had decided to propose at the next meeting of the Advisory Committee that a subcommittee be set up composed only of the representatives of states directly interested in the Far East. The Committee he felt was too large for effective discussion and had many members with no direct interest. He hoped that you would be willing to be represented on the subcommittee, he presumed, he said, within the terms and on the conditions set forth in my communication of September 21. Eden he added thought that this procedure rather than the suggested separate Pacific conference would be the most agreeable to you. Cranborne therefore asked me to ascertain your views and also suggested that I get in touch with Delbos or Massigli 50 who had a message for me.

Later I saw Massigli who stated that it had been decided to propose the creation of the subcommittee, that the idea of a Pacific Nyon has been discarded at least for the time being, and that the matter would not be presented to you through the French and British Embassies at Washington.

40 Not printed.

50 René Massigli, Director of Political and Commercial Affairs, French Foreign Office.

205655-54-3

The membership of proposed subcommittee would presumably consist of Belgium, Great Britain, Canada, the United States, France, New Zealand, Holland, Portugal, Russia, and Italy, if she takes her seat on the Committee, as well as the states invited to participate reported in paragraph 2 of my telegram of September 21, 8 p. m. I asked Cranborne if he knew whether Germany would accept the invitation. He said he did not know but added that the German press had reacted favorably and he hoped Germany would accept. He did not expect Japan to accept.

When I asked him what he thought the subcommittee could accomplish, Cranborne mentioned possible pressure for peace by joint appeal to both parties, also possibility that the time might come when Japan would welcome some form of mediation of which subcommittee might take advantage.

Please instruct.

HARRISON

793.94/10329

Memorandum by the Adviser on Political Relations (Hornbeck)

[WASHINGTON,] September 23, 1937.

Conversation: The Secretary of State.

The Chinese Ambassador, Dr. C. T. Wang.

Present: Mr. Hornbeck.

The Chinese Ambassador called this morning at his own request. The Ambassador opened the conversation with reference to the Secretary's recent trip to Boston and New York; pleasantries were exchanged.

The Ambassador said that he had come to express appreciation of the American Government's "vigorous protest" against the inhuman Japanese bombing of Chinese citizens.51 He spoke especially of the bombing yesterday at Canton.

The Ambassador said that he had come seeking "light." It had been reported to him that if the League of Nations declared Japan an aggressor the United States would be forced to apply the Neutrality Act. He did not see why this was so. He wondered about it. The Secretary mentioned authority given by Congress in connection with the Chaco dispute, enabling this country to impose an embargo.52 He said that the controversy over the League of Nations question in this country had been bitter and had revolved around the question of the

51 Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931-1941, vol. I, p. 504.

52

See President Roosevelt's proclamation of May 28, 1934; 48 Stat. 1744.

aggressor and sanctions. President Wilson's administration had been swept out of office and opponents of the League had come into control. A part of the question had been the question of imposing embargoes. Here in the Department we have stood for the principle of executive discretion. Extreme nationalists have opposed the principle (of sanctions) which appears in the League machinery. The sentiment grew up with reference to Europe. In confidence, he himself had not been a supporter of it.

The Ambassador said that he understood that Mr. Bruce of Australia had put forward the idea of a conference of powers which have interests in the Pacific "basin." There followed some discussion of what powers this might comprise. The Ambassador said that he thought eight or nine had been mentioned. He said the idea had been supported by Great Britain and France. He wished to know what would be the attitude of this Government. The Secretary replied that we had not heard anything of it as yet. The Ambassador asked that when the Secretary has word of it he call him (the Ambassador) in.

The Ambassador said that the situation was growing very "hot" in China. He said that the Chinese were confident: the bombing raids do more damage to civilians than otherwise. He felt that the Chinese had stopped the Japanese at Shanghai (in fact, he spoke of their having "driven them away"). In the north, however, things had not gone so well. He did not know exactly what was the strategy, but apparently the idea is in the north to lead the Japanese into the interior and draw them away from their bases of supply.

The Secretary inquired how reports get into circulation among the Chinese that this country is favoring Japan. The Ambassador replied that it was not done by Chinese officials. He suggested that the American Ambassador in China might furnish the facts to the Chinese press: he (Wang) was furnishing them to the Chinese Foreign Office. The Secretary said that there are times when it was important to get the facts before the public. The Ambassador said that this was one of the reasons why he had come to express appreciation this morning. The Secretary inquired whether Mr. Hornbeck would care to say anything. Mr. Hornbeck said that he had been wondering when the Ambassador mentioned a report that in case the League declared Japan an aggressor the United States would have to apply the Neutrality Act,—he was wondering from what source the Ambassador had received that report. The Ambassador said that it came from the Chinese representation at Geneva. The Secretary remarked that action by the League would not make compulsory any course of action on our part. The Ambassador said that he understood that.