No. 108.
Mr. Morton
to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Paris , July 22, 1884. (Received August 4.)
Sir: Upon receipt, on the 18th instant, of your two cipher telegrams of the 17th, I arranged an interview with the president of the council that afternoon, when I informed him that while at Ragatz with my family, en route for St. Moritz, I received a telegram from you requesting me to return to Paris to confer with him with reference to the difficulty which had arisen respecting the concessions to the Commercial Cable Company.
I then stated that you had been informed, by telegraph and by mail, of the reply made to the representations of the legation by himself and [Page 168] by M. Cochery, that you could not see any difference in the situation of the Commercial and French companies, and that you insisted upon equal treatment for both. I called his attention particularly to every point mentioned in your telegram, namely, that the fact of touching at Ireland could not make the Commercial cable an indirect one, if the French cable, which touched at St. Pierre, was a direct one; that to touch at some point en route was a practical necessity; that to affix to the privilege of landing granted to the Commercial Company conditions not imposed on the French company, particularly the clause by which this privilege can be canceled upon one year’s notice, was to deny to us the reciprocal obligations of the agreement of 187; and finally, that the provision of this agreement in relation to future legislation by Congress could not be invoked, because such legislation would be general, whereas it was sought to place the Commercial Company on a different footing from that of the French company.
M. Ferry said that this matter was in the hands of his colleague, the minister of posts and telegraphs, to whose attention he would bring it at the cabinet meeting of the next morning; he had only a general knowledge of the subject, but he knew very well that the French Government had no intention whatever to claim unequal or unfair conditions of the Commercial Company.
I replied that I was pleased to receive this assurance; for my Government, last year, when the question was raised in Congress that the French company had forfeited its privilege by combining with other companies to establish uniform rates, did not press the investigation, but it might be forced to notice this plain violation of the agreement of 1879 should the question be brought forward.
M. Ferry made no reply to this remark, and it was agreed that I should see him in the morning, when he stated that the whole difficulty was caused by the fact that the Commercial cable was not a direct one; “but,” said I, “we contend that it is as much so as the French cable, which stops at St. Pierre.” “It is not,” he replied; “the Pouyer Quertier cable is a Franco-American cable; it connects directly no other countries but France and America, and it can transmit directly, without borrowing from any foreign country, French messages to America, or American messages to France; it stops at St. Pierre, not to receive a feeder. Whereas the Commercial Company is, in fact, an Anglo-American cable, with a separate branch line to France; it connects directly no other countries but Great Britain and America, and all French messages intended for America, or American messages intended for France, are received and retransmitted from British soil. It does not merely stop to facilitate the submarine transmission; it ends there practically for the purpose of taking the British traffic which is to be its principal source of income. In short, the particular cable which the Commercial Company intends to land at Havre is entirely out of the control of the United States. It cannot be laid without the consent of Great Britain, and France herself cannot give this consent, for she has granted to the English Submarine Company the monopoly of laying across the Channel all the cables connecting France with Great Britain, which monopoly expires only in 1889. If such is not the case, why has the Commercial Company been obliged to purchase from the Submarine Company the privilege of laying its cable between France and Ireland?”
To my inquiry, if he found there a justifiable motive for denying to an American company the reciprocal treatment promised to it in good faith through the agreement of 1879, he instantly replied that such treatment was not denied to the Commercial Company, that it was placed [Page 169] upon exactly the same footing as all the French companies to which, during late years, concessions had been made, and that even the Pouyer Quertier company was subjected to the condition (of which we complained particularly) of having its privilege canceled at the will of the Government, because it is a principle of law in Prance that all unlimited concessions can be ended at the pleasure of the state.
“If such is your right,” said I, “why do you insist upon affixing this obnoxious clause to the charter of the Commercial Company?” “Because,” he replied, “it is now a rule of this Government to do so in every instance; but,” he added, “I beg you to believe that we have not the remotest intention of taking advantage of this clause, which is made necessary under our European system, but which would never be applied except under, very pressing emergencies. To convince you, however, of our conciliatory disposition, we are willing to assure to the Commercial Company a delay of two years, or even three years, before this clause could be applicable.” I said my Government had more in view the question of principle than the particular interest of the Commercial Company, and that you claimed entire reciprocity. He repeated that we enjoyed the benefit of the full reciprocity contemplated by the agreement of 1879, and to be better enlightened in this respect he advised me to see M. Cochery, who, he was sure, would make the matter very clear to me.
I accordingly called on the minister of posts and telegraphs, with whom I have had two conferences, during which the subject was fully discussed in the most friendly manner. M. Cochery reasserted most emphatically each of the statements which the president of the council had made. He explained that the rules applicable to telegraphic lines are now liable to be frequently changed for the better; that in 1879 it was not deemed necessary to mention in the stipulations of the French company that its privilege could be suspended at the will of the Government, but that tor several years not a single telegraphic line had been conceded by France without this clause, and he produced many of the original contracts of such concessions, in every one of which I read, “The Government will have the right, at any time, to suspend or withdraw the right to use the line conceded without being bound to pay any indemnity, or to reimburse any cost.”
“Such being the case,” he argued, “the Commercial Company cannot expect to receive better terms than those actually made to others, and we are fully in accord with the spirit and letter of the agreement of 1879 when we grant to that company what we grant to our own people. But we have gone beyond that; in allowing that company to lay a cable across the Channel—if the Submarine Company to which this monopoly belongs does not object—we have given, through high regard for your Government and people, an exceptional favor, which has already been to me a source of many annoyances, and for which I am threatened with an interpellation at the Chamber. Should I remove from the stipulations of this company the clause of which you complain, what defense shall I make when charged at the Chamber with having given unnecessary facilities to a foreign company, established to compete with a French line through English channels? Let the Commercial Company establish a direct line, a line under the sole control of the United States and France, and I will instantly grant to it the identical terms granted to the Pouyer Quertier company (although we do not now grant such terms), because I would then be protected by the agreement of 1879, which binds me in one case, and not in the other.
[Page 170]“The claims you are pressing upon me,” he added with much warmth and feeling, “is an unjust one under the circumstances; it has no foundation in equity, and it is particularly painful to me, for it implies on your part the supposition that I can be party to an unfair arrangement. I give you my word of honor that we have not the slightest intention of embarrassing the Commercial Company or of loading it with burdensome conditions. This one year’s notice clause is now more a matter of form and of rule than anything else; it is a guarantee for the Government, and not a scheme to deprive an honest company of its legitimate property.”
Finally M. Cochery said that in deference to your and to my personal interposition, he will add to the stipulations of the Commercial Company a clause stating that the provision giving to the Government the right to cancel its privilege upon one year’s notice will not be applicable before the 12th of January, 1889, when the monopoly given to the Submarine Company for the Channel cables will expire, and when it will become necessary for France and England to establish new regulations for all submarine cables.
I must say that M. Cochery’s language struck me as being perfectly sincere, and that he, as well as M. Ferry, seems truly animated with the desire of treating this matter fairly and to our entire satisfaction.
They both declare that the reciprocal treatment we claim is more than secured to the Commercial Company; that the stipulations presented to this company are those to which every other company has subscribed, and that though the clause canceling the privilege granted at the option of the Government is not inscribed in the stipulations of the Pouyer Quertier company, it is nevertheless binding upon that company. They both also state, with equal positiveness of language, that the clause is not intended to work, and will not work, any injustice against the Commercial Company.
It seems difficult to doubt the sincerity of this language. I have had with both M. Ferry and M. Cochery intimate personal relations during the last three years, and I cannot but entertain a high opinion of their characters, of their sympathies for our Government and people, and of their true desire of being agreeable to us. I have had so many evidences that it is impossible for me to question, in this instance, their good-will and friendly intentions.
M. Cochery also said he would concede a special wire to the Commercial Company from Havre to Paris.
I have not accepted the proposition of M. Cochery, which is practically the proposition of the French Government, but I believe the conditions named are all the French Government can concede under the circumstances; it is really crippled by its commitments to the Submarine Company and by the precedents established by existing contracts with its own citizens; it feels that it is carrying out, in good faith, the spirit as well as the letter of the mutual agreement of 1879, when M. On trey gave “the assurance that the French Government would make no difficulty in according, in case of need, to American citizens the same privileges as to its own fellow-countrymen.”
I have, &c.,