was tendered to him, but that even though it has been explained that the action of the police officer was not intended as an insult but was due to a misunderstanding, the incident has caused much feeling among the Portuguese in this country and has been widely discussed in the Portuguese press. Inasmuch as the matter has caused such widespread comment, and since any tampering with the National flag would almost certainly be considered in a very serious light by the Portuguese Government, I venture to suggest that it might be advisable for the State of Rhode Island to take some notice of the incident. I have reason to believe that, if you should consider it appropriate to send your Aide to the Vice-Consulate to express the regret of the Government of the State, Portuguese sentiment would be satisfied and the incident might be considered closed. I have [etc.] CHARLES E. HUGHES 853.015311/1 The Secretary of State to the Portuguese Minister (Alte) WASHINGTON, March 30, 1922. MY DEAR MR. MINISTER: With reference to our conversation of two weeks ago with regard to the action of a police officer in the City of Providence in hauling down the Portuguese flag flying over the Vice Consulate on February 22, I am glad to say that I have heard from the Governor of Rhode Island in the matter. The Governor of Rhode Island tells me that the action of the police officer, which was very unfortunate, was really due to his failure to understand that the Vice Consulate had a right to display the national flag on the Consulate. The Governor tells me further that he will send his Secretary, accompanied by his Military Aides, to call on the Portuguese Vice Consul to express sincere regret on behalf of the State of Rhode Island that the incident occurred. With this understanding of the matter in mind, I hope that you will feel that the visit of the personal representatives of the Governor may bring the incident to a close. I am [etc.] 853.015311/2 CHARLES E. HUGHES The Portuguese Minister (Alte) to the Secretary of State WASHINGTON, April 4, 1922. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I was very gratified to receive your letter of March 30, 1922, and I beg to thank you most cordially for your kind intervention in the incident occasioned by the hauling down on February 22 of the Portuguese flag flying over the Vice Consulate at Providence, R. I. I would esteem it a great favour if you would be good enough to convey to His Excellency the Governor of the State of Rhode Island the assurance that the Portuguese Government and I myself personally deeply appreciated the high sense of international courtesy that inspired his action in this matter. I am [etc.] ALTE OPPOSITION BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO THE GRANTING BY PORTUGAL OF CONCESSIONS TO AMERICAN COMPANIES FOR LANDING CABLES IN THE AZORES (See pages 359 ff.) RUSSIA FAILURE OF THE GENOA CONFERENCE TO ATTAIN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE OTHER POWERS1 550.E1/183: Telegram The Ambassador in Italy (Child) to the Secretary of State 3 [Paraphrase] GENOA, April 11, 1922—3 p.m. 1. There were no high lights at the opening session of the Conference with the exception of Chicherin's speech. This speech asserted too strongly what Soviet Russia could offer the world and demanded disarmament. It was considered so braggart that it gave the impression here that the Russians had come to Genoa more to carry on propaganda and to lay the basis for separate commercial agreements than with the thought of giving guarantees so that the Russian problem could be dealt with as a whole by the Conference. In reply to Russian suggestion of departing from the agenda, Barthou entered upon a provocative debate. This was in line with his whole conduct in all the preliminary and later conferences. It has led many to think that there will be an attempt to break up the proceedings or to render them futile. Lloyd George is reported as showing personal bitterness at the absence of America from the Conference, when he is not with persons associated with the United States. The reason given for this is that he desires support for an economic as against a political European program and that he is irritated at French independence and uncompromising attitude. There was a lengthy and dull speech by Wirth and from all the evidence it appears that Germany will show a completely supine attitude. Benes and the Japanese delegates Hayashi' and Ishii ® are not optimistic. It may be that they believe that the Conference 6 1See also section entitled, "Decision of the United States not to participate in the Genoa Conference," vol. 1, p. 384. 2 George V. Chicherin, acting head of the Soviet delegation. Louis Barthou, head of the French delegation. 'David Lloyd George, head of the British delegation. Joseph Wirth, German Chancellor, head of the German delegation. Edward Beneš, principal Czechoslovak delegate. Baron Gonsuke Hayashi, head of the Japanese delegation. Viscount Kikujiro Ishii. will finish with a sharp controversy that will be used by Lloyd George to show where the responsibility for the woes of Europe lies or that the Conference will become sidetracked on detailed academic discussions of economics, leaving untouched and unaffected the glaring fundamental troubles which no one has the courage to discuss as the real issues. You may reach me at the Hotel Bristol, Genoa, with the In using any other code address the Embassy at Rome. . . . .. code. CHILD 711.61/60: Telegram The Ambassador in Italy (Child) to the Secretary of State [Paraphrase] GENOA, April 24, 1922-2 p.m. 11. I have been given information that quite possibly, in case certain nation or nations block any conference agreement with Soviet Russia, the difficulty will be overcome by other countries entering into similar but separate treaties with the Soviet Government outside of the Conference as Germany has done. I have informally told the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs that should such a development come about I am confident that the same pains would be taken to protect American interests as would be done were the Conference to frame the agreements with Soviet Russia. I will state for the Department's information and that of any American company having interests in Soviet Russia that the general policy which the Soviet representatives have expressed so far and have firmly adhered to is to refuse recognition to former concessions whether they be foreign or Russian, which are now claimed to come under the nationalization of property. As far as possible, however, they will recognize those who held former concessions as having a prior right to substantially the indefinite use of the property under a plan whereby the Soviets will receive a small percentage of the product or of profits. Krassin 10 has made the proposal that a parent trust shall cover the entire petroleum industry in Soviet Russia with a government monopoly but operating various fields of deposits, including those controlled by foreigners, by means of private subsidiaries. Treaty of Rapallo, signed Apr. 16, 1922. CHILD 10 Leonid Borisovich Krassin, Soviet Commissar for Foreign Trade and member of the Soviet delegation. 32604 vol. 11-38-56 861.6363/52a: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Italy (Child) WASHINGTON, May 2, 1922-4 p. m. Your 11, April 24, 2 P.M. New York Times despatch from Genoa dated May 1 states that Royal Dutch Shell has concluded arrangements with Soviet delegation for extensive concessions in Russia. Investigate discreetly and report. HUGHES 550.E1/230: Telegram The Ambassador in Italy (Child) to the Secretary of State [Paraphrase] GENOA, May 2, 1922-5 p.m. 19. The Allied note to the Soviet representatives which is now being drafted will provide for recognition only after an indefinite period of probation. The note will insist upon Russian pre-war debts and a pledge for the restoration of property or indemnification for it. According to reliable information, the Russians will delay and then refuse to accept. The report of a monopolistic concession for the sale of exports follows intimations which I have received from French and German sources here that negotiations of that nature are taking place. The values of such former concessions as the Nobel 11 would be infringed upon by a monopoly of export sales. I have not found it possible to secure information sufficient to create an alarm [sic], because of my inability to interrogate Russians and also because of having been informed from British sources that if there were any negotiations they were not Anglo-Persian and were private. I am now seeking to secure confirmation of my information that a contract was signed Sunday. I wish instructions. It is probable that inquiry of the Russians would only yield the same sort of misinformation as was given to Logan.12 There is still reason to believe that Soviet Russia is reluctant to give offense to attitude of Americans. CHILD "Nobel Brothers Petroleum Production Company (Swedish). "Col. James A. Logan, Jr., American unofficial assistant representative on the Reparation Commission. |