You may recall that President Eisenhower last October proposed a meeting in Washington to be held this Spring with the President of Mexico and yourself to discuss generally continental affairs. At that time you agreed, "en principe", to attend the meeting, subject to confirmation at a later date when more would be known about the President's health and your own timetable.

The United States confirmation has arrived. Mr. Heeney reports (his telegram no. 118? is attached) that President Eisenhower would like to invite you and President Ruiz Cortines of Mexico to make a visit of approximately two and a half days, from Monday, March 26, to Wednesday, March 28, inclusive. You would leave Washington at your own convenience on Thursday. A suggested programme is included in Mr. Heeney's telegram.

Mr. Heeney had dinner with Mr. Dulles last night and they discussed the proposed meeting. Mr. Heeney has the definite impression that the idea of such a meeting did not originate with the State Department but with the President personally. He also believes that if the dates suggested in the attached telegram do not suit you it might be possible to have them changed, although the President of Mexico would also have to be free at any new time you might wish to suggest. This being an initiative of the President makes the decision more complicated. As you know, Mr. Eisenhower came to Ottawa in December 1953 while your last visit to Washington was in May 1953.¹

The proposal for a tripartite meeting has a number of disadvantages. As formal visits of the Canadian Prime Minister to Washington recently have occurred only every two or three years, it is unfortunate that the proposed visit should take place in the rather artificial framework of North American continental affairs. Because of the participation of the Mexicans this visit could tend to take on more of a ceremonial character and less of a general exchange of views than we would hope for. Mr. Heeney pointed out, however, that the President might be interested in suggesting that the meeting be held outside Washington, perhaps in some Army post. This would be much more informal and possibly conducive to a more relaxed atmosphere.

I think that the invitation could be refused; on the other hand, because of President Eisenhower's personal interest in the matter, it is rather difficult to suggest that you do so. If you accept I think we should emphasize that the number and intimacy of Canadian and United States common interests suggest that an opportunity be given for you to have some private conversations with the President.

If you decide to accept, a telegram to Mr. Heeney is attached for your approval instructing him to assure Mr. Dulles that you will be glad to accept the President's formal invitation as soon as it is convened.

Mr. Heeney notes that the invitation includes me and assumes that I shall accompany you. I would be delighted to do that, particularly in view of the fact that Mr. Dulles, if the present dates are satisfactory, would have just returned from his tour to the Far East.

L.B. PEARSON