October 9. Japan rejected Chinese request of Oct. 5 and asked direct negotiation on fundamental points;
protested anti-Japanese movement in China.
(Boycott was not spontaneous- but “instrument of national policy under direction of Nationalist Party,
which,.in view of peculiar political organization in China., is inseparable in function from government.” Survey 1931, p. 48R.)
China asked immediate Council meeting. (In view of “serious information regarding further aggressive
military operations upon the part of Japanese armed forces in Manchuria.” Ibid., p. 488.)
Latvia concentrated( all foreign exchange transactions in the Bank of Litvia. (See Oct. 7, supTra, ibid., p. 293.)
Bank of Litvia. (See Oct. 7, supTra, ibid., p. 293.)
October 10. United States made oral representations to Japan and
China urging pacific policy and utmost restraint in keeping with
League resolution of September 30. Concern was expressed over
bombing of Chinchow by Japanese. Japan, vol. I, pp. 18-20.
Survey, 1931, p. 489.
October 11. Secretary of State Stimson protested to Japanese. (He
was disturbed that their commitments of the League resolution
of Sept. 30 were not being carried out. See, Oct. 10, supra.,
also their explanation of Chinchow bombing was quite inadequate.
Fleming, p. 402.)
October 13. Finland abandoned the gold standard. (See Sept. 24,
supra..)
October 15. Japan objected to invitation to American representatives
to attend Council meetings on the Manchuriain matter. (On
legal grounds: that only members of the League could sit with
the Council on matters affecting their interests; that nonmembers
could sit with the Council on matters in which they had a direct
interest only under Art. 17; that the interest of the League as a
whole ill the preserv’ation of peace was not an interest peculiar
to any member, much less a non-mirember; that if the United
States sat tn a, signatory to the Kellogg Pact, there were other
signatories; that to extend such an invitation required Ai unanimous vote. Survey 1931, p. 491; Japan feared the political effect
of a united front of opposition. Fleming, p. 408; Japan, vol. I,
p. 20.)
October 16. League Council invited the United States ‘-‘to be associated
with our efforts by sending a representative to sit at the Council
table so as to be in a position to express an opinion as to how,
either in view of the present situation or of its future development, effect can best be given to the provisions of the Pact.”
(The MAanchurian question concerned the fulfillment of obligations
of the Pact of Paris and “Forernost among the signatories . . . appear the United States.” State Reiease 1931, No. 107, p. 297.)
Consul Prentiss Gilbert attended as official United States
representative to “participate in your [Council] discussions in so
far as tfhe Pact of Paris . . . is concerned.” (Statement of
American Consul at Geneva. Ibid., p. 298.)
- salmaanyare723@gmail.com
