893.6363 Manchuria/177: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Bingham)
102. Department’s 96, April 26, 7 p.m.1 Following conference with Department on April 29 representatives Standard-Vacuum telegraphed their senior representative in Japan amplifying their previous message quoted in Department’s telegram under reference and in effect again recommending that procedure outlined in that message be followed. Company’s New York office feels that there should be salvaged by offer of sale to monopoly as much as possible of its investment in Manchuria; that such offer under existing conditions of force majeure would not conflict with company’s policy of avoiding dealings with monopolies; that in view of diplomatic and treaty background it would not be expedient for Embassy to file with Japanese Government copy of company’s offer to monopoly; and that if Manchuria [Page 912] authorities reject company’s offer or accept it only in part and it later becomes necessary to file a claim, American Government would be in better position to assist than if copy of company’s offer were now filed by Embassy with Japanese Government.
Department has informed American Embassy, Tokyo, of its assumption that if British oil interests are similarly minded the procedure suggested by Standard-Vacuum will be agreed upon and followed by both oil interests; that Department feels that best chance for ultimate success would lie at least as a first step, in a direct approach by oil interests to the monopoly and/or authorities in Manchuria; that such procedure would involve offers by the interests to sell, including all items, rather than presentation by governments of claims; and that until such time as possibilities of negotiation by the companies in Manchuria have been exhausted, presentation of claims by Embassies to Japanese Government would be unwise as that Government would probably at once disclaim all responsibility and, if it made any offer of assistance, would probably be disposed to insist that its sole capacity in the matter should be that of a mediator.
Department feels that its views and those of the company as indicated above and in Department’s 96, April 26, 7 p.m., are in no way a departure from or inconsistent with the principles and line of action hitherto followed by the American and British interests and governments in connection with this case.
You may in your discretion impart orally to Foreign Office substance of the foregoing, in which event you should express the hope that British Government’s view coincides.
Report promptly any indication of divergence of view.