The French Ambassador to the Secretary of State.
Washington, November 12, 1907.
Mr. Secretary of State: My Government, to which I delivered, on my last visit to France, your excellency’s letter and memorandum of June 19 last, concerning the commercial relations between the two countries, has examined, with all the care that the importance of the questions involved demanded, the propositions formulated by the Federal Government in reply to ours. The result of the examination has just been communicated to me, and I hasten to bring it to your excellency’s knowledge.
As stated in the above-mentioned papers, the American authorities declared they could not be satisfied with the reduction offered by us on Porto Rican coffee as an offset for the reduction on our champagne and sparkling wines of $2 per dozen bottles, provided in section 3 of the American customs tariff act of July 24, 1897.
The figures and arguments on which this declaration is based do not appear admissible to my Government.
In the first place, the assertion is made, in Paragraph I of your excellency’s memorandum, that the extension granted in 1902 to Algeria and Porto Rico of the reduced duties provided in the commercial agreement of 1898 could not be understood unless the clause respecting Porto Rican coffee were continued in force for an indefinite period, as the advantages derived from the extension would otherwise be too great for France and too small for the United States.
My Government finds it impossible to concur in this view. The granting of the minimum tariff to Porto Rican coffee was, under the arrangement signed August 20, 1902, by the representatives of both countries, strictly limited as to time, and whenever an extension of time was consented to, by a voluntary decision of the Government of the Republic (in the expectation that a commercial reciprocity convention which was finally set aside by the American Government without even coming before the Senate for discussion), the revocable character of the extension was always brought to mind.
The Federal authorities, far from considering at the time when the aforesaid arrangement was elaborated that there would be injustice and disparity in the reciprocal advantages if the concession granted to Porto Rican coffee were not indefinitely continued in force, expressly recognized that the granting of that concession as a finality should be made the subject of separate negotiations in which examination would be made into “the conditions on which “such a favor could be obtained. The State Department’s letter of August 2, 1902, is clear on that point. In reply to a proposition of my Government looking to the conclusion of a special convention to “determine the conditions on which the benefit of the minimum tariff might be finally extended to Porto Rican coffee” the Department of State declared that it “fully appreciated” the good will shown by the Government of the Republic, but deemed it expedient to postpone those negotiations owing to the sentiment prevailing in the United States in regard to reciprocity treaties.
[Page 305]Not only was there in fact no misunderstanding in this respect, but it is impossible to understand how there could have been any. It can not indeed be contended that there was disparity in the reciprocal concessions; there was none to the detriment of the United States, at any rate. Far from it. It appears from the American and French statistics, as shown in Statements I, II, and III hereto annexed, that on the basis of the average for the last two years French importations into Porto Rico profited by a reduction of duties amounting to 17,493 francs and Algerian importations into the United States by 10,951 francs. It is further found, without taking into account the Porto Rican coffee, that American merchandise imported in 1906 into Algeria profited, first, by a reduction of duties amounting to 16,330 francs, under the arrangement of 1898; second, by a reduction of duties on petroleum, amounting to 503,090 francs, under a decree issued by the French Government, proprio motu, under date of July 7, 1893. The decree is revocable, but was in force when the arrangement was signed and is still in force. So that the average reductions during the years 1905 and 1906 amounted to 372,505 francs in favor of American trade and to 28,444 francs in favor of French trade—that is to say, a difference of 344,061 francs in favor of the United States.
The connection with the same paragraphs of the memorandum endeavors to establish between the continuance of a minimum tariff in favor of Porto Rican coffee and the advantages granted to French still wines and vermuths by the commercial arrangement of May 28, 1898, has already been made by me the subject of express reservations at the time when the said document was delivered to me. By order of my Government, I have to renew them in the most formal manner. Such a connection could never have entered into the minds of the negotiators—first, because of the considerations I have just pointed out, which show that the Federal Government fully realized the necessity of a special negotiation on this point by which both parties would secure equal advantages; next, for the reason, sufficient by itself, that when the convention of May 28, 1898, was negotiated and signed Porto Rico was not American territory. Furthermore, the terms of the arrangement of 1902 are clear and it is quite obvious that the mere fact that the arrangement contained a special provision, of limited duration, concerning Porto Rican coffee proves that the Government of the United States itself did not believe that the terms of an agreement concluded by it four years earlier conferred the right to oppose the application of the general tariff to that article immediately upon the expiration of the period that had been set.
Again, your excellency, in Paragraphs II and III of your memorandum, directs attention to the loss the American Treasury would suffer from the reduction of duties on our champagnes, which would be considerable, while the trade of the United States is placed in France at a disadvantage by having to pay on a number of articles duties from 15 to 50 per cent higher than those collected on the same articles imported from several other countries. In consequence, and in order to put an end to such. “discriminations,” reductions of duties are asked in favor of a number of articles, which reductions would be all the more legitimate as the “whole of the American conventional tariff” would be granted us if our request in regard to champagne were complied with.
[Page 306]Without laying any stress on the fact that the “whole of the American conventional tariff” includes, in all and for all, five articles out of a general total of seven hundred and five, I can but recall to mind that France never practiced “discrimination” of any kind against the United States. She offered to negotiate, just as she did with the other countries mentioned by your excellency. The other countries assented thereto on the basis of reciprocal advantages. The United States also assented, but it is certainly through no fault of France that the ratification of the treaty thus concluded was put off from year to year and finally given up, whereby the very situation with which the Federal Government finds fault was created.
The statistics adduced by your excellency, in your aforesaid communication, would seem to prove that French commerce at the present time is benefited here by reductions of duties much greater than those now enjoyed in France by American articles. On this point my Government observes that the nomenclature of these last articles is incomplete and that, therefore, the whole argument based thereon is vitiated. No mention is made either in the memoranda or the accompanying statements of the favorable treatment accorded to American petroleum; the favor is revocable, to be sure, but, nevertheless, confers upon that product a considerable advantage, which, as a matter of fact, it has continued to enjoy since 1893.
By taking this into account, it is found, and the inclosed statement, No. IV, shows, that the difference in revenue caused by the minimum tariff being applied to the American product imported into France, as compared with the rates of the general tariff, amounted to 26,385,790 francs for 1905 and to 29,322,743 francs for 1906; that is to say, an average of 27,854,266 francs for both years, to which it is proper to acid the sum of 372,505 francs representing the average reduction of duties on American products imported into Algeria, making an aggregate of 28,226,771 francs.
The French and Algerian merchandise enumerated in the agreements of 1898 and 1902, imported into the United States, according to the average for the two fiscal years 1904–5 and 1905–6, have been favored as follows: The French merchandise imported into the United States by a reduction of 2,711,266 francs (Statement V), the Algerian merchandise imported into the United States by a reduction of 10,951 francs, and the French merchandise imported into Porto Rico by a reduction of 17,493 francs, which make up a total of 2,779,710 francs. It follows that the sacrifice made by the French Treasury in favor of American merchandise was greater by 25,487,061 francs than that of the American Treasury in favor of French merchandise and that, therefore, the present situation is to the full advantage of the United States.
Hence, my Government does not deem it possible to accept propositions the effect of which would be to intensify these differences in the most impressive manner, and to agree to concessions or consolidations of duties which have, for the greater part, already been refused to the countries with which France has concluded commercial conventions in recent years.
It is, however, disposed to modify, in a spirit of concilliation which the Federal authorities will appreciate, its original propositions. In return for the concession to champagne and our sparkling wines of the reduced rates of section 3 of the Dingley tariff, my Government [Page 307] will grant, as a finality, the concession of our minimum tariff to the colonial products of the United States as well as to Porto Rican coffee. It can not be alleged that there would not be a fair equilibrium between these reciprocal concessions. According to the annexed statements (Nos. VI and VII) the concession of the minimum tariff to those products would represent for the French Treasury a sacrifice amounting, on the average of the years 1905 and 1906, to 5,162,580 francs, while the concession of reduced rates to sparkling wines imported into the United States and Porto Rico would, according to the American statistics of 1904–5 and 1905–6, represent a sacrifice of only 3,752,228 francs for the United States. The United States would thus profit by a difference of 1,410,352 francs in reduced duties.
Apart from this advantage and in its desire to evidence its appreciation of the value of the customs facilities which your excellency was good enough to notify me would be applied to French merchandise, my Government is ready to agree that the French decree of July 7, 1893, now revocable at will, which extends to American petroleum the benefit of the minimum tariff, shall be especially dealt with in one of the stipulations of the contemplated arrangement, whereby the reduction of duty would assume a contractual character and an important advantage would in consequence accrue to the United States. My Government expects in return that the arrangement to be made will guarantee to French commerce, as already agreed upon, the benefit of all customs facilities granted to other nations.
With respect to the various other points mentioned by your excellency, I have the honor, by order of my Government, to submit to you the following remarks: Article V of the draft drawn up by your excellency’s direction provides that American products imported by way of a third country shall continue to enjoy the rates of the minimum tariff, if entitled thereto. Thus worded, the stipulation would preclude the application of the bonded warehouse surtax to American products coming to France from European ports. It would further defeat our regulations which deny the benefits of our minimum tariff to merchandise shipped through a country subject to the general tariff. For both these reasons my Government finds it impossible to accept that Article V.
As regards the provisions relative to the sanitary police of domestic animals and to protection against insects, cryptogamous and other noxious vegetables, the French department of agriculture can not admit, as specified in Article IV of the draft, that these questions be settled by means of a convention. That department has always positively refused to assume in a convention any obligation likely to restrict its freedom of action in that special field which involves the responsibility of the minister of agriculture alone. But the principle once accepted, the said department will be quite ready to examine with the greatest benevolence, and a sincere desire to comply with them as far as possible, such applications as may be submitted to it. For instance, it has already decided that salt pork meats from the United States shall, provisionally and while the negotiations entered into with the American Government are carried on, be admitted into France on the presentation of a certificate of the inspector of the Federal Department of Agriculture detailed by the latter to supervise the establishment in which the animals have been slaughtered or the [Page 308] meats prepared, which certificate shall state that the meats are from sound animals and are fit for consumption. No mention of microscopical inspection shall be required, provided the cases bear the stamp of the Government inspector who conducted the sanitary examination.
The French minister of agriculture, in this connection, has acquainted me with his desire to receive as accurate information as possible regarding the means employed in the United States for the purpose of ascertaining whether pork is free from trichinae, adding that if the inspection of imported meats should, on their entering France, disclose the presence of trichinae their importation would forthwith be prohibited.
In compliance with the desire of Mr. Ruau, who is of opinion that if the above-mentioned information were received the sending of a special commission could be dispensed with, I am forwarding to him an additional copy of the set of the several regulations and successive decisions bearing on the matter which I have been able to gather through the kindness of the Department of Agriculture. Any further explanations that the Federal Government should see fit to send to me would be most welcome and I shall lose no time in forwarding them to the proper French authorities.
As for the measures taken to prevent the introduction of the Aspidiotus perniciosus, or San José scale, into France, my Government deems it impossible to modify the provisions of the decree of November 30, 1898. Owing to the habits of that insect, the greatest precautions are needful to prevent the transfer of females to vegetables and fruits or their refuse. Cast off indiscriminately with fruit peelings, the insects would soon overrun our orchards and forests, all the more as the young larvae can live several days without food until they find the vegetable that suits them. American entomologists themselves admit that the strictest precautions must be taken to prevent the propagation of the San José scale, and, without succeeding in entirely checking the evil, the Department of Agriculture recommends that the most particular measures be taken for protection from the Aspidiotus, and that any tree showing traces of infection be burned.
Lastly, I am instructed by my Government to make special mention of the wording of the article in which the American products admitted to the benefit of the minimum tariff are to be enumerated, and to say that the present language of the French tariff, as it actually stands, describing all those articles, should be reproduced, which does not appear to offer any difficulty, as the differences that can be noted undoubtedly are the result of clerical errors.
The foregoing are the terms on which my Government is ready to sign an arrangement sanctioning the reciprocal concessions the two countries would make in the interest of both, and which might be put into effect, on both parts, without delay. I am fain to believe that the propositions I am instructed to lay before your excellency will prove acceptable and that their early execution will contribute to promote between the two countries a commerce that is already prosperous, thus carrying out the wishes of the Federal Government, which are, I know, identical in this respect with those of the Government of the Republic.
Be pleased to accept, etc.,