711.008 North Pacific/212: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Japan (Grew) WASHINGTON, November 22, 1937-7 p. m. 311. Your 560, November 22, 5 p. m. Your paragraph 2. Department approves proposed method of presenting memorandum. Your paragraph 3. Paragraph 4 of Department's 308 is for your guidance in answering questions and not for inclusion in written communication. HULL 711.008 North Pacific/214: Telegram The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State TOKYO, November 24, 1937-5 p. m. [Received November 24-7:40 a. m.] 563. Department's 311, November 22, 7 p. m. 1. I called today on the Minister for Foreign Affairs and after a long oral explanation of the salmon fisheries situation in which the urgency of the matter was especially emphasized, I left with him the memorandum and aide-mémoire. The Minister made no comment except to express surprise that Japanese were still fishing for salmon in Alaskan waters in spite of the refusal of the Government to grant licenses. He said that he would immediately take the matter up with the Department of Agriculture and would give us a reply at the earliest possible moment. 2. No opportunity occurred to bring up the substance of paragraph 4 of the Department's 308. GREW 711.008 North Pacific/266a The Counselor of the Department of State (Moore) to President Roosevelt WASHINGTON, November 24, 1937. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: This refers to the salmon fishing industry on our west coast and particularly to the suggestions contained in your memorandum to me of November 21st and your memorandum to the Secretary and myself of November 22nd. For several weeks, at the Secretary's request, the problem presented has been carefully studied with the result of cables being sent Mr. Grew, copies of which are here with enclosed 76 for convenient reference 76 Telegrams No. 308, November 19, 6 p. m., p. 761, and No. 309, November 20, noon, p. 763. although you have perhaps heretofore seen them. The lengthy cable of November 20th containing a full statement of the case was discussed, before being sent, at a meeting here attended by Senator Schwellenbach of Washington (Senator Bone was unable because of illness in his family to be present), some of the Representatives in Congress from Washington and Delegate Dimond of Alaska, and it had their very full approval. They were advised that we would furnish Mr. Grew instructions and these are contained in the shorter cable of November 19th. They agreed with us that we should await information as to the reaction at Tokyo before determining what further should be done in the event the attitude of the Japanese Government is unfavorable, but as you will see from looking at the enclosed Bill recently introduced by Mr. Dimond," who has probably studied the situation more closely than any of the members of Congress from the Pacific coast, that such action is being thought of as you seem to have in mind. Of course, it will be urged by some, who adhere to the idea that government can be conducted on the strict basis of precedent, that such action is unwarranted and there will be others who think that it might involve us in trouble relative to the Bering Sea fur seals industry, and in our relations with such countries as Mexico where the right is claimed to control fishing much beyond the three mile limit. You will, of course, be advised of what we hear from Tokyo within the next few days, and then some of us would like to have the opportunity of taking up with you the question as to what legislation may be enacted. The attached is the best map 78 obtainable showing the depth contours of the the Alaskan coast, which, however, are conjectural except so far as concerns Bristol Bay. It seems very certain from the information available that a fifty mile limit or even a substantially higher mile limit would not effectively protect the industry. The run of the salmon into our rivers could be intercepted in Bristol Bay, for instance by Japanese fishing vessels using long gill nets, say seventy-five or one hundred miles off the coast. We can have no assurance of the industry being maintained unless the Japanese will forego their fishing activities a very considerable distance beyond the coast line. It seems to me that about the only new policy that can be thought of is one that will vest the President with authority to prevent any fishing activities that will imperil our industry which, as you state, involves among other things a very important food supply. Prior to the conference mentioned I had talked a good deal with Mr. Dimond about possible legislation and through him am keeping in touch with the other members of Congress who are manifesting "H. R. 8344, November 15, Congressional Record, vol. 82, pt. 1, p. 20. 78 Not attached to file copy. a great deal of interest, and also can tell you that we have talked with some of the best posted men engaged in the industry and a representative of the Fishermen's Union. It is proper to say that in dealing with the subject Assistant Secretaries Sayre and Wilson, Mr. Hackworth our Legal Adviser, and Mr. Sturgeon of the Far Eastern Division have been steadily in cooperation with me and that all of us must be regarded as being equally responsible for what has been done. This I say in order to avoid giving the impression that I am trying to put myself at the front. Yours very sincerely, R. WALTON MOORE PS: Since the above was dictated a cable has been received from Mr. Grew dated November 24th,788 a copy of which is enclosed. You will wish to know that since we communicated with Mr. Grew we have informally advised the Canadian Minister of what we have done. 711.008 North Pacific/214: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Japan (Grew) WASHINGTON, November 29, 1937-2 p. m. 320. Your 563, November 24, 5 p. m. 1. The Department is under continuous pressure from organized fishing interests, members of Congress, and the general public in regard to the Alaskan salmon fishing question. On November 26th we mailed you " a copy of a bill introduced in Congress by Delegate Dimond for the protection of Alaskan fisheries. You will appreciate, when you read this bill, which is gaining support in Congress, that its provisions are even more far-reaching than those of his previous bill. In addition to these forms of pressure, there is the continuous possibility of direct action against Japanese shipping on the Pacific Coast by labor elements sympathetic to the fishing industry. 2. In the absence of an early and favorable response from the Japanese Government to your representations there is every likelihood that the situation with reference to the salmon fisheries will become increasingly serious. 3. In view of the foregoing, it is desired that, in your discretion, you again call upon the Foreign Minister and emphasize once more the urgency of prompt action by the Japanese Government. 78 Telegram No. 563, supra. 79 Instruction No. 1383, not printed. HULL 711.008 North Pacific/225: Telegram The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State TOKYO, November 30, 1937-6 p. m. [Received November 30-10: 55 a. m.] 581. Department's 320, November 29, 2 p. m. 1. I received last week an intimation that the Foreign Minister is actively interesting himself in a prompt and favorable reply. In view of that fact and of the attention which the press has been giving my calls at the Foreign Office with regard to problems in China, I exercised the discretion which the Department gave me and did not personally call on the Foreign Minister to present the views of the Department as set forth in the telegram under reference. However, I did embody those views in a personal letter to the Foreign Minister which was left today by a member of my staff with a responsible Foreign Office official. 2. The latter said informally that the Foreign Office fully shares the Department's feeling that something must be done at once. He added that reply would be made as soon as the Japanese fishery authorities can decide whether a decision responsive to the desires of our Government would not adversely affect Japanese fishery interests in other quarters, notably in Siberian waters a new convention with regard to which is now under negotiation with the Soviet Government. GREW 711.008 North Pacific/229: Telegram The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State TOKYO, December 7, 1937-4 p. m. [Received December 7-7: 10 a. m.] 602. Our 581, November 30, 6 p. m. Intimation was given us today at the Foreign Office that the Japanese reply which would be sent in a few days would be substantially favorable but would involve no commitment on matters of principle. The Foreign Office realizes that any concession which the Japanese Government may make in order to meet our views will have to be given publicity in the United States if it is to serve its full purpose and desires that such publicity be delayed owing to its possibly adverse effect on the current fishery negotiations with Soviet Russia. It is expected, however, that those negotiations will be terminated shortly. GREW 711.008 North Pacific/229: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Japan (Grew) WASHINGTON, December 17, 1937-5 p. m. 356. Your 602, December 7, 4 p. m. In view of very great pressure by public men and others it is hoped that you can at once obtain some definite statement from the Japanese Government in response to the Department's memorandum and your representations in regard to the Alaska salmon fishery situation. You may in your discretion inform the Foreign Minister that the Department believes that if definite response of the Japanese Government is further delayed, it is likely to become increasingly difficult to satisfy Congress and private interests with regard to the steps this Government is taking. 711.008 North Pacific/239: Telegram The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State HULL TOKYO, December 18, 1937-8 p. m. [Received December 18-9:35 a. m.] 656. Department's 356, December 17, 5 p. m. 1. I called this evening on the Minister for Foreign Affairs and again explained to him the pressing importance as set forth in the Department's telegram of an immediate reply to our memorandum and representations. Hirota explained the reasons for the delay (our 602, December 7, 4 p. m.) but said that the Japanese response was now being drafted and would be delivered to us within a few days. I pressed him most urgently for an early and definite date and he finally promised that on Monday he would tell me definitely on what day the reply would be delivered. He said that the Ministry of Agriculture wishes to publish the reply here before it is published in Washington in order to explain the situation to the Japanese public. The Minister added that the reply would be conciliatory. 2. If the Department considers it important that the release to the press of the Japanese reply should be simultaneous in Tokyo and Washington please so advise me before Monday. 652 and 653 81 have been repeated to Shanghai for the Commander in Chief. GREW "Dated December 17, 7 p. m., and December 17, 8 p. m., respectively, p. 507. |