ensure that such measures were,not made the subject of
public agitation in China.
5.
The possible objections to our mentioning the
International Court to the Chinese are the doubts as to
the strength of our case on purely legal grounds and the
possibility that the Chinese might adopt the same line
as the Guatemalans have done over the case of British
Honduras, and suggest that the Court should deal with
the question on its merits as well as on the purely
legal aspect, although such a suggestion might not in
fact prove to be contrary to our interests. On the
other hand a reference to the International Court seems
to offer the only hope of an eventual solution and, what
is perhaps more important, of reaching a position in the
{ meantime where administrative action can be taken with
some assurance that it will not be made the subject of
artificially inspired agitation in China. There is
also the point that if we refer to the possibility
of going to the International Court in the manner
proposed and at the same time indicate that this
was a question which we had hoped might be settled
amicably between our two great nations without
recourse to such a procedure, the Chinese may
think again and come round to our proposal for the
Garden of Remembrance.
6. I have noted from paragraph 5 of your
telegram No.259, which was received after fore-
going had been drafted, that your incline towards
international arbitration. Grateful for your views
4 on specific suggestion in paragraph of this
telegram and also on the three alternative courses
set out in paragraph 3. Of these alternatives my
own inclination is to proceed with the Garden of
Remembrance with an open invitation to the Chinese
to participate on the joint lines we have suggested
at
(187)