Office of the Historian

893.51/2864: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (Crane)

Washington, July 15, 1920—8 p.m.

179. Your 180, July 11, noon.

The Department has found itself embarrassed by representations by the Japanese Ambassador that your action in communicating the Lamont notes was contrary to an understanding with other Ministers. To his remonstrances the Department has replied that “in order to bring the true aims and intentions of the consortium to the just appreciation of the Chinese Government, it would be advisable to communicate to that Government without reserve not only the consortium agreement as adopted by the banking representatives at Paris in May, 1919, and subsequently approved by their respective Governments, but also the letter of June 18, 1919, in which Mr. Odagiri proposed certain reservations in respect to Manchuria and Mongolia, and all subsequent official correspondence among the interested Governments with respect to the establishment of the new consortium.”

It is desired that you consult with your British, French and Japaness colleagues with a view to an arrangement for joint communication of relevant documents to the Chinese Government for its confidential information at the present time but on the understanding that they are eventually to be made public by agreement among the interested parties.

The official correspondence referred to above includes the following:

  • Department’s letter to bankers outlining conditions of consortium, dated July 9, 1918,44 for text of which see Department’s instruction 844, July 15, 1918;45
  • Department’s note and memorandum to French, British and Japanese Embassies dated October 8, 1918,46 see Department’s instruction October 9, 1918;47
  • Department’s note, May 31, 1919, to British, French and Japanese Embassies,48 see Department’s 985;47
  • Odagiri–Lamont exchange of letters regarding Japanese bankers’ reservations dated June 18 and 25 [23] respectively;49
  • Department’s note, July 3, 1919, to British, Japanese and French Embassies,50 see Information Series No. 193;
  • Memorandum to Japanese Embassy, July 30, 1919,51 see Information Series No. 193;
  • Japanese Memorandum, August 27,52 see Information Series No. 204, but omitting unofficial explanatory statement made by Japanese Chargé;53
  • Department’s reply, October 29 [28],54 see Department’s 1056, October 30;53
  • Japanese Memorandum, March 2,55 see Department’s 1149;53
  • Department’s memorandum to Japanese Embassy, March 16,56 see Department’s 1178;53
  • Japanese Memorandum, April 3,57 see Department’s 1178;53
  • Department’s reply, April 29th,58 see Department’s 1193;53
  • Japanese Memorandum, May 8,59 see Department’s 1196;53
  • Department’s reply, May 8th,60 see Department’s 1196.53

The Department has no information as to statements of Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs or Consul at Nanking referred to at the end of your telegram.

Colby
  1. Foreign Relations, 1918, p. 174.↩
  2. Ibid., p. 177.↩
  3. Ibid., p. 193.↩
  4. Not printed.↩
  5. See note of May 31 to the British Chargé, Foreign Relations, 1919, vol. i, p. 437.↩
  6. Not printed.↩
  7. See telegram no. 2324, June 18, 1919, from the Ambassador in Great Britain, and footnote 27, ibid., pp. 451 and 458, respectively.↩
  8. See note to the Japanese Chargé, ibid., p. 463.↩
  9. Ibid., p. 471.↩
  10. Ibid., p. 480.↩
  11. Not printed.↩
  12. Foreign Relations, 1919, vol. i, p. 497.↩
  13. Not printed.↩
  14. Ante, p. 500.↩
  15. Not printed.↩
  16. Ante, p. 512.↩
  17. Not printed.↩
  18. Ante, p. 523.↩
  19. Not printed.↩
  20. Ante, p. 536.↩
  21. Not printed.↩
  22. Ante, p. 539.↩
  23. Not printed.↩
  24. Ante, p. 541.↩
  25. Not printed.↩