711.4112Anti-War/60: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton)
119. For your information I quote below text of an Aide Memoire received yesterday from the British Embassy:
“Sir Austen Chamberlain has instructed His Majesty’s Ambassador to convey to the Secretary of State his thanks for the latter’s friendly message and particularly for the expression of willingness to reconsider the question of a conference of Ministers if it should ultimately prove necessary in order to secure agreement with the other Powers. Sir Austen Chamberlain entirely agrees with the Secretary of State that in no case should such a conference be held until the matter has been further prepared, and agreement is practically within sight. It was for this reason that, believing the Secretary of State to desire a meeting of Ministers, Sir Austen Chamberlain tentatively suggested that it should be preceded by a meeting of jurists including an American jurist, for he thought that an informal and non-committal discussion by them would, as in the case of the Locarno discussions, do the necessary preliminary work and bring the governments within sight of, if not actually to, an agreement of all six powers, which it is the desire of His Majesty’s Government, no less than the United States Government, to reach as rapidly as possible.
[Page 63]On hearing, however, from the United States Ambassador that Mr. Kellogg was not favourably disposed towards a conference either of jurists or of Foreign Ministers, Sir Austen Chamberlain at once withdrew his suggestion.”
The substance of the foregoing was communicated to me orally by Chilton on Wednesday. In reply I thanked him warmly for Chamberlain’s message and said that I was very much opposed to a Commission of Jurists; that this was largely a great political issue between the Governments raised above the mere legal opinion of jurists who, if they got together, would spend their time trying to find out some reason why it could not be done, but that each government would and undoubtedly had consulted its legal advisers. I added that I had expressed my opinion in my speech and believed that a preliminary meeting of this kind, which could decide nothing, would be an obstacle rather than a help.
As to the meeting of ministers, I told him I had avoided stating that I would not attend; that I did not care to assume the responsibility of refusing to attend if the time should come when such a meeting was absolutely necessary. I said I thought that the governments could get together on the form of a treaty as it was a simple proposition and, if so, it would be much better than having a general conference. As you know I have previously said to the Ambassador that if the time came when it was deemed advisable to impress the world with the importance of this matter, I would not oppose meeting the foreign ministers for the purpose of signing, but as you also know I am vigorously opposed to any preliminary conference of Foreign Ministers and Chilton so understands. Wire me fully what you learn from Fleuriau and the Polish Minister.