File No. 763.72112/2837
The Consul General at London (Skinner) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 14.]
Sir: Referring to my No. 2326 of July 251 on the above subject, I have the honor to report that while the Department note to the British Government dealing with this question has been published here, the newspapers generally abstained from comment. The one noticeable exception to this rule is the Manchester Guardian, a newspaper which exerts wider influence than many better known London publications. I am enclosing cuttings favorable to the American viewpoint from the paper named.1
I observe that the Department, in its note on the statutory black list, enters upon no discussion of the general black list, the names in which are not publicly announced, although efforts to prevent trading with such firms are of the same character as in the case of firms in the statutory list. Apparently the only difference between the two lists is one of legal responsibility, the penalties provided for trading with those in the statutory list being fixed, while firms named in the general list are subjected to a far-reaching boycott.
In the case of Albert Herskovits and Company of New York, whose London correspondents desire to engage with them in a perfectly normal British-American transaction, the Foreign Office said that Messrs. Albert Herskovits and Company were not regarded as desirable consignees. I asked, through the Embassy, for a more definite statement, and particularly whether the Foreign Office declaration was an expression of opinion, or, if trading were persisted in, whether such acts [Page 429] would subject the British correspondent to prosecution. The reply was in the following terms:
With reference to the note which you were good enough to address to me on the 7th instant, I have the honor to inform your excellency that, as Messrs. Herskovits and Son are not regarded at present as suitable consignees for British goods for the reasons stated in my previous note, firms in this country have been advised not to trade with them. His Majesty’s Government are unable to contemplate the possibility of such advice being disregarded by any British firm.
In the case of J. Aron and Company of New York, a firm in the general but not in the statutory list, they have been allowed to give bail for certain lots of coffee in the prize court, with permission to sell the released coffee for delivery in Great Britain; but as they are still on the general black list, local buyers will not give consideration to their offers, and unless the Foreign Office can be induced to grant some measure of relief, for which application is pending, they are in the position of being allowed by the Government to sell their goods if they can find a buyer, while all possible buyers are warned not to deal with them.
Apparently this attitude towards J. Aron and Company, unless altered in consequence of the pending application, is in contravention of Article 1 of the treaty of 1815, the concluding words of which are that:
Generally the merchants and traders of each nation respectively shall enjoy the most complete protection and security for their commerce, but subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries, respectively.
I have [etc.]