464.00 R 29/37: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Herrick) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, December 7, 1923-2 p.m. 444. L-16. For Logan. Your letter of November 8. The Department has noted the provisions of article 124, Treaty of Neuilly, and after considering the questions involved is unable to see how the Bulgarian treasury bills Hungary has turned over to the Reparation Commission could be realized on by the states parties to that treaty. Though the Government of the United States maintains its right to have an effective voice in the disposition of Hungary's assets, the title to which under article 196 of the Treaty of Trianon is transferred to the Allied and Associated Powers, this Government does not desire to have a part in the matter of disposing of these treasury bills. In an appropriate way you may make the position of this Government in the matter clear. HUGHES JAPAN CANCELATION OF THE LANSING-ISHII AGREEMENT OF 793.94/1406a supp. : Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Japan (Warren) WASHINGTON, January 20, 1923-3 p.m. 6. My telegram No. 1, January 2, 6 p.m.2 The Japanese Chargé d'Affaires speaking ostensibly in a purely personal way laid before me yesterday his difficulties in advising his Government as to the action to be taken in regard to the cancellation of the Lansing-Ishii notes, . . . The Chargé d'Affaires asked whether the cancellation might perhaps be postponed until the coming into force of the Conference treaties. He added that this suggestion had been informally discussed with you and had received your approval. I explained my view that the cancellation has already been effected by mutual agreement; but that to avoid creating embarrassment for the Japanese Government at this juncture I should be willing to consider postponing for a time the public announcement of the fact. I pointed out, however, that this postponement must be limited by the necessity for our submitting in the reasonably near future the list of our international commitments with regard to China, which list could not include the exchange of notes in question. The Chargé d'Affaires called attention to the danger that his Government might incur criticism by suppressing for any considerable period of time the announcement of the accomplished fact, and returned to the suggestion that the cancellation itself might be postponed. I indicated that this would not be possible but that the utmost I could do in deference to the situation of the Japanese Cabinet would be to consider postponing the announcement. I should appreciate your comment upon this matter from the viewpoint that, while not wishing to force the Japanese Government 1 Continued from Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. II, pp. 591–599. Not printed. 455 into a position of unnecessary embarrassment, I cannot surrender or compromise the position of this Government with regard to the cancellation of the notes. . HUGHES 793.94/1422: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Japan (Wilson) WASHINGTON, April 6, 1923—3 p.m. 31. Department's telegram No. 28, March 30, 2 p.m.3 Japanese Ambassador on April 3 asked me whether . . . I would be willing as a matter of formality to embody in an exchange of notes a formula setting forth the cancellation of the Lansing-Ishii notes, with a view to the presentation to the Throne and consideration by the Privy Council of this new exchange of notes. I expressed my readiness to accommodate the Japanese Government in the matter of form on the understanding that the substantial facts are not affected. On April 4th I submitted to the Japanese Ambassador tentative drafts of an exchange of notes, of which the following is the essential portion. "The discussions between the two Governments have disclosed an identity of view and, in the light of the more recent formulation of principles and policies with respect to China, arrived at by the Washington Conference on the Limitation of Armament, and incorporated in the conclusions of that Conference, the American and Japanese Governments are agreed to consider the Lansing-Ishii correspondence of November 2, 1917, as canceled and of no further force or effect." Mail copy to Peking for information only. HUGHES 793.94/1460: Telegram The Chargé in Japan (Wilson) to the Secretary of State TOKYO, April 11, 1923—4 p.m. [Received April 11-9:38 a.m.] 34. Your 31, April 6, 3 p.m. Count Uchida summoned me today to inform me that the final draft of the notes to be exchanged regarding the cancellation of the Lansing-Ishii agreement had been approved by the Privy Council this morning and sent to the Throne. He anticipated that the Prince Regent would give his approval before sailing for Formosa tomorrow. 'Not printed. Count Uchida stated consultation of Privy Council was necessary since the original Lansing-Ishii agreement had been submitted to that body. As soon as Prince Regent's approval is obtained Hanihara will be instructed to exchange documents with you. Count Uchida is most appreciative of Department's consideration shown in discussions concerning the publication of the cancellation. WILSON 793.94/1460: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Japan (Wilson) WASHINGTON, April 13, 1923—5 p.m. 33. Your No. 34, April 11, 4 p.m. Japanese Ambassador informed me yesterday that the Throne had approved proposed exchange of notes in a form substantially but not textually the same as indicated in my telegram 31, April 6, 3 p.m. Minister for Foreign Affairs will no doubt furnish actual texts upon your making request for them for confidential information. In that case telegraph to Peking for confidential information the text of the note which I am to address to Ambassador and confirmatory portion of his proposed reply. Notes are to be signed and exchanged on the morning of Saturday, April 14, but public announcement, which is to take the form of a mere publication of texts without comment, is to be released for publication in the papers on Monday morning April 16, both here and in Japan. Repeat to Peking for confidential information only as number 62. HUGHES Treaty Series No. 667 The Secretary of State to the Japanese Ambassador (Hanihara) WASHINGTON, April 14, 1923. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to communicate to Your Excellency my understanding of the views developed by the discussions which I have recently had with your Embassy in reference to the status of the Lansing-Ishii Exchange of Notes of November 2, 1917. The discussions between the two Governments have disclosed an identity of view and, in the light of the understandings arrived at by the Washington Conference on the Limitation of Armament, the American and Japanese Governments are agreed to consider the Lansing-Ishii correspondence of November 2, 1917, as cancelled and of no further force or effect. 145231-vol. II-38-37 I shall be glad to have your confirmation of the accord thus reached. Accept [etc.] CHARLES E. HUGHES Treaty Series No. 667 The Japanese Ambassador (Hanihara) to the Secretary of State WASHINGTON, April 14, 1923. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of today's date, communicating to me your understanding of the views developed by the discussions which you have recently had with this Embassy in reference to the status of the Ishii-Lansing Exchange of Notes of November 2, 1917. I am happy to be able to confirm to you, under instructions from my Government, your understanding of the views thus developed, as set forth in the following terms: The discussions between the two Governments have disclosed an identity of view and, in the light of the understandings arrived at by the Washington Conference on the Limitation of Armament, the Japanese and American Governments are agreed to consider the Ishii-Lansing correspondence of November 2, 1917, as cancelled and of no further force or effect. Accept [etc.] M. HANIHARA COURT DECISIONS IN THE UNITED STATES UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAND LAWS OF THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON' 811.5294/411a: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Japan (Caffery) WASHINGTON, November 17, 1923—6 p.m. 251. On November 12 the Supreme Court of the United States handed down decisions in two cases, Terrace et al vs Thompson, and Porterfield et al vs Webb, holding that the laws of Washington and California restricting rights of ownership and lease for agricultural purposes of land within those two states are constitutional and not in conflict with the treaty of 1911 with Japan.10 The Washington act, among other things, prohibits the ownership of land by aliens who have not declared, in good faith, their 7 For previous correspondence regarding the California land law, see Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. 1, pp. 1 ff. and ibid., 1921, vol. 1, pp. 319 ff. 263 U. S. 197. • 263 U. S. 225. 10 For text of treaty, see Foreign Relations, 1911, p. 315. |