Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1941, The Far East, Volume V

711.417/1093: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Japan (Grew)

Washington, March 13, 1941—3 p.m.

164. Department’s 457, November 8, 4 p.m.,² Embassy’s despatch no. 5207, December 12, 1940,³ and previous.

Unless you perceive objection, please convey to the Foreign Office in a formal note the following and telegraph the text of any reply received:

The appropriate authorities of the Government of the United States have given careful consideration to the views of the Japanese Government as set forth in communications addressed to the Embassy by the Minister of Foreign Affairs⁴ with regard to the Japanese Government’s notice of abrogation of the Fur Seal Convention concluded in 1911.⁵ The general views of my Government with reference to this matter, together with certain conclusions and suggestions, are now offered for the consideration of the Japanese Government.

From the substance of the oral statement made to the American Ambassador by the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs⁶ under date October 23, 1940,⁷ it is understood that the Japanese Government’s desire to abrogate the Fur Seal Convention is based on the grounds that the fur seal herds in the North Pacific Ocean have so increased in size as to result in both direct and indirect damage of a serious nature to the fishing industry, and that the Convention leaves entirely out of consideration the injury caused to the fishing industry. From the Foreign Office’s note of October 23, 1940,⁸ my Government observes that the Japanese Government while giving notice of abrogation of the Fur Seal Convention, “continues to be concerned with the preservation and protection on a reasonable basis of seals in the North Pacific Ocean” and is “prepared to conclude a new agreement on the basis of fundamental principles” which the Japanese Government has set forth. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicates, inter alia, in its note to the Embassy of December 2, 1940⁹ that “when a concurrence of views among the several parties to the Convention has been obtained in the matter of using the already proposed new principles for agreement as a basis for consideration” it is expected that arrangements will be made to hold a conference for the purpose of concluding a new fur seal agreement.

It has been noted with satisfaction that the Japanese Government is desirous of seeing the protection and preservation of fur seals continued. My Government on its part recognizes the vital importance of maintaining a conservation arrangement with respect to the fur seal herds in the North Pacific, and it regards the beneficial effects of the present Convention as outstanding in the field of conservation in that the Convention has effectively served to eliminate wasteful, uneconomic, and inhumane practices which prevailed prior to its conclusion in 1911.

Having carefully examined the proposals of the Japanese Government, my Government notes, with especial reference to the particular principles numbered 1 and 3 in the memorandum¹⁰ attached to the Japanese Government’s notice of abrogation, that two main questions are raised with respect to the holding of a conference for the purpose of concluding a new fur seal agreement: First, whether the several parties to the Convention are willing to consent to a return to the practice of pelagic sealing; and second, whether the idea of reducing the size of the fur seal herds in the North Pacific Ocean to the figure proposed by the Japanese Government is practicable from the standpoint of conservation and wise utilization of the commercial products of the fur seals.

With regard to the suggestion of the Japanese Government that the size of the fur seal herds in the North Pacific Ocean be reduced, the most efficient and economical method of accomplishing this purpose and the method most consonant with the aims of conservation would appear to my Government to be the taking of seals on land rather than at sea, as the latter method practically eliminates the possibility of selective killing. My Government is convinced that a return to pelagic sealing is highly undesirable and that the setting of a standard of size for the seal herds without first making careful scientific study of the matter might in the long run be against the best interests of all parties to the Convention. It may be observed in this connection that my Government has not been aware of the existence of a situation with respect to the relation of the seal herds to the fisheries such as that mentioned by the Japanese Government. The evidence in the possession of the American authorities indicates that the American fur seal herd does not frequent the waters of the Asiatic coast, but instead remain in the general area of the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the North American continent. Further, those authorities have not found that the fur seals feed upon salmon or other commercial species of fish to any appreciable extent but rather that the food of the seals consists chiefly of non-commercial species of fish and other marine matter of little or no economic importance.

In view of the foregoing, the Government of the United States anticipates that if a conference of the Convention powers were to be held, a considerable time would be required to make the necessary study and inquiry into the questions which the Japanese proposals raise. However, my Government, animated by a desire to bring about an adjustment of the situation which has arisen, offers for the consideration of the Japanese Government a procedure as follows:

1. Taking cognizance of the views expressed by the Japanese Government in respect to the fur seal situation, the responsible American authorities are prepared, beginning with the sealing season of 1941, to increase the take of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands in the amount of approximately 30,000 a year above the take for the past year (1940), which was 65,263.

2. While the information and data in the possession of the responsible American authorities with reference to the migratory and feeding habits of the fur seals do not give indication that the seal herds of the Pribilof Islands damage or constitute a threat to commercial fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean of especial interest to Japan, my Government is prepared to make a thorough survey of the fur seal situation, especially with regard to the expressed view of the Japanese Government that the existing Convention is no longer suited to the actual state of affairs and that the fur seal herds constitute a threat to the fishing industry. Upon the conclusion of such survey which, it is estimated, would cover at least the sealing seasons of 1941–42, my Government would be willing to consider with the Convention powers any need for adjustment that may be found to exist.

3. In view of the circumstances which have been indicated, my Government entertains doubt that it would be possible to convene a conference and obtain a concurrence of views on a new agreement prior to the expiration of the existing Convention. The suggestion is therefore offered that if the Japanese Government were prepared to withdraw its notice of abrogation, in consideration of the interim action which my Government is willing to take, as indicated above, time would be gained for preparatory work, especially investigation and analysis of data bearing upon the statements and suggestions made by the Japanese Government. The two governments would thus have opportunity, in collaboration with the other parties to the Convention, to prepare the necessary basis for a constructive solution to any problems which may be found to exist. Further, withdrawal of the Japanese Government’s notice of abrogation, in the circumstances indicated, would have the special effect of providing valuable assurance against possible expiration of the existing Convention without provision having been made for its replacement.

My Government is confident that the competent Japanese authorities will understand from the foregoing views and suggestions that no material objection is raised to such fundamental adjustment of the fur seal situation as the several governments concerned may find essential and practicable.

I would appreciate receiving for transmission to my Government the views of the Japanese Government upon the considerations and proposals herein set forth.¹¹

For discretionary use in discussion with the Foreign Office.

1. For background, reference is made to a memorandum transmitted to the Embassy under date of April 22, 1940¹² which indicates the nature of the information in the possession of this Government on the feeding and migratory habits of the fur seal herds.

2. The Japanese Government should be discouraged from any expectation that we could favorably consider taking part in a conference committed in advance to approval of pelagic sealing.

3. A study of the commercial aspects of the fur seal situation in collaboration with the commercial fur seal interests has revealed that the United States is now the only important fur seal market in the world and that the London fur seal market had lost its importance prior to the present European war largely, it is stated, through unsound competitive practices and ineffective sales promotion. In contrast, the fur seal market in the United States has been carefully developed on a sound basis. Marked progress appears to have been made in the processing of skins and a steady consumer demand has been created by a systematic program of advertising. The commercial interests which handle the seal skins on behalf of the Government assure us of their confidence that the market holds promise of still further development. Advantages from this favorable situation obviously accrue to Japan as well as to Canada and ourselves, and have important bearing upon our proposal to increase the annual take of fur seals.

4. The value of the Alaska seal herd is estimated at about $100,000,000 and the value of finished products at between 3 and 4 million dollars annually. Capital investment and employment are also substantially involved.

5. In the event that the Convention should terminate without agreement public opinion in this country would be disturbed, and in consequence it appears certain that this Government would be strongly pressed by affected interests to find a means to protect the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands from the obviously detrimental effects of pelagic sealing. Comment which has appeared in the press indicates that it may be urged, as in the case of the Bristol Bay salmon fisheries, that an important resource which has been developed and preserved primarily by the American Government would in a comparatively short period be destroyed; that no conceivable temporary economic gain could compensate the nationals of Japan for the destruction of the fur seal resources; and that as these resources have reached their present high state of development under American management, at considerable cost to the American people, a special interest and claim has been established in them.

6. The Department has given no publicity to details of the Japanese Government’s proposals, but fishery interests have inquired as to the possible effect of the abrogation of the Fur Seal Convention on the status of the commercial fisheries of the North Pacific. We foresee in this connection that the resumption of pelagic sealing by Japanese nationals, with or without the assent of this Government, would most likely cause serious apprehension among large sections of the American public with regard to the object and significance of such activities.

7. The Department has given consideration to the interests of Canada and the Soviet Union in this matter and is advising the Canadian Government and the Soviet Embassy here of the course of action this Government is taking.

Hull

2. Ibid., p. 987.
3. Not printed.
4. Yosuke Matsuoka.
5. Signed at Washington, July 7, 1911, Foreign Relations, 1911, p. 260.
6. Chuichi Ohashi.
7. See telegram No. 1040, October 24, 1940, 10 a.m., from the Ambassador in Japan, Foreign Relations, 1940, vol. iv, p. 984.
8. See telegram No. 1051, October 25, 1940, 11 a.m., from the Ambassador in Japan, ibid., p. 986.
9. See telegram No. 1281, December 6, 1940, 2 p.m., from the Ambassador in Japan, Foreign Relations, 1940, vol. iv, p. 992.
10. See telegram No. 1051, October 25, 1940, 11 a.m., ibid., p. 986.
11. The Ambassador in Japan transmitted this note to the Japanese Foreign Office on March 18; in telegram No. 431, March 19, 6 p.m., he reported to the Department that the Foreign Office had promised to study it and to communicate with the Embassy (711.417/1116).
12. Not printed.