711.9412Anti-War/42: Telegram
The Chargé in Japan (Neville) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 6—9 a.m.]
82. In conversation today the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs told me that the Foreign Office had issued instructions to the Japanese Chargé d’Affaires, Washington, to take up with the Department the question of a possible alteration of the phraseology in article 1 of the proposed anti-war treaty which reads, “declare in the names of their respective peoples”; that the Cabinet had approved the treaty and were completely satisfied with the substance of it but the Japanese Government would find some difficulty in promulgating a treaty with that phraseology; that Japanese laws and treaties are promulgated in the name of the Emperor, and the government had good reason to believe that the phrase “names of their respective peoples” would meet with very considerable objection in the Privy Council. The phrase as translated into Japanese seems to bear out this contention. He intimated that almost any other word other than “name” would be acceptable. Apparently the Japanese Government would have no difficulty in declaring “on behalf of their people”, or, “for the welfare of their people”, but for domestic political reasons “in the name of their respective peoples” is not entirely compatible with the form used in laws and treaties promulgated by the Emperor.
The Vice Minister said that the measure seems popular in Japan and represents a movement which appeals strongly to the Japanese but referred to the note from the Foreign Office dated May 26th, 1928 (a copy of which was forwarded to the Department in despatch number [Page 104] 868 of June 1st90) inviting attention to the statement therein in regard to a mutually acceptable text for such a treaty. He informed me that the Japanese Government had had the question of phraseology in mind at the time of writing the note but did not wish to make a point of it in the preliminary stages assuming that there would be a meeting of some kind to settle on final draft of the treaty.
While I do not believe that the Japanese Government would refuse to adhere to the treaty if the clause referred to cannot be altered, I feel that it represents a real conviction on the part of many influential people in the Government and that the Cabinet might have difficulty in obtaining the Privy Council’s consent to ratification. The domestic political situation is so uncertain and the last two Cabinets have had so much difficulty with the Privy Council in obtaining its assent to Government projects that the Prime Minister I think is extremely reluctant to place before it any measure which can be construed as shifting emphasis of governmental measures from the Throne.