the British Government on the oil question because Clive writes me
tonight:
  "After you left I got from Washington the repetition of a telegram
to the Foreign Office to the effect that the latter were wrong in sup-
posing that Dr. Hornbeck suspected our attitude over the oil question
and adding his (Lindsay's) regrets at the wording of the previous
telegram which might have given that impression."
  4. Clive was very emphatic in assuring me that his Government re-
gards the oil monopoly in Manchuria as a most serious test case of the
future validity of the principle of the open door and counts implicitly
on our cooperation in pressing the matter. He regards the cases of
the Manchurian monopoly and the Japanese petroleum control law as
quite distinct on the ground that the first is covered by treaty rights
and the second is not.
                                                           GiREw

893.6363 Manchuria/121
Memorandum by the Consul General at Harbin (Adams) of a Con-
  versation With the Soviet Acting Consul General at Harbin
  (Rayvid) on November 22, 1934 58

  Mr. Rayvid asked whether Mr. Adams could confirm or refute a
telegram from Paris which he had seen to the effect that the American
and British oil interests had agreed to boycott Manchuria. Mr. Adams
replied that he had not heard of any such agreement. Mr. Adams
doubted the accuracy of the report for the reason that the American
and British oil interests could not undertake a boycott of Manchuria
with any reasonable chance of success without obtaining the coopera-
tion of the Soviet and Dutch oil interests and perhaps others. Mr.
Adams asked whether the Soviet oil interests had filed any protest
against the proposed monopoly. Mr. Rayvid replied that the Soviet
interests had not done so. He said that the Soviet government was
in a much weaker position with respect to such a protest than were
the other governments concerned because Soviet Russia was not a
member of the Nine Power Treaty. He said he thought that in any
event mere protests would accomplish nothing because he felt that
the establishment of an oil sales monopoly was part of the fundamental
policy of the Japanese military authorities. Mr. Rayvid thought it
would take more than protests to cause them to change their plans.
  Mr. Rayvid asked Mr. Adams what the annual loss to American
business would be if the monopoly were instituted. Mr. Adams re-

58 Copy transmitted to the Department by the Consul General at Harbin in
his
despatch No. 54, November 24, 1934; received December 28.



761



JAPAN