File No. 656.119/388
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain ( Page)
[Telegram]
Washington,
May 4, 1918, 5 p.m.
7585. For Sheldon [from War Trade Board]:
No. 422. Your No. 485, Embassy No. 9737, April 26, 6 p.m. We approve of the declaration proposed to be made to the Netherlands, with the following understanding and exceptions: [Page 1485]
- 1.
- We assume that the ration proposed to be offered is that without feeding stuffs. We strongly oppose the inclusion of this item in the proposed ration.
- 2.
- In respect of bread cereal we feel that the item of 400,000 is very excessive, in view of the fact that it is understood existing stocks in Holland will suffice until July. If proposed ration were to cover period until the harvest following the coming harvest, then the figure might be reasonable, but we doubt the advisability of attempting at the present time to fix a ration for such a period as we cannot judge accurately as to the character of the coming harvest. We feel that in respect of bread cereal the Associated Governments should content themselves with reaffirming the existing offer of 100,000 tons and expressing their willingness to consider favorably further imports if developments show this necessary.
- 3.
- We regard it as essential that the understanding regarding Belgian Relief include a clearly expressed intention on the part of the Netherlands to set aside for use of Belgian Relief surplus tonnage, if any, in her ports, up to 100,000 tons. While the proposed general agreement contemplated this, it does not seem to us clear from text of proposed declaration that this must become an obligation of the Netherlands since the clause regarding tonnage for Belgian Relief was a part of the tonnage portion of the agreement which will not become effective.
- 4.
- With regard to the phraseology you suggest relative to requisitioning of Dutch ships, we would prefer to say that Associated Governments have now no intention of requisitioning further Dutch ships. We fear language you suggest would be construed as permanent guarantee against requisition. We do not feel that situation arising as result of German demands on Holland should be allowed to influence us to give any such sweeping guarantee as we do not believe German belligerent intentions would be modified by an extension of our guarantee beyond our position set forth in our 378, Department’s 7379, April 22.1 We also call to your attention the fact that it is the Dutch ships not covered by existing guarantee which are now chartering to us most freely. It is the ships as to which we have given explicit guarantees which are lying idle. We do not feel therefore that an extension of existing guarantee is necessary to put Netherlands tonnage in neutral ports into active service. State Department has been asked by Dutch Chargé in Washington for formal guarantee against requisition for all Dutch boats not already requisitioned. Guarantee has been given along lines of our 378 but no further up to the present time.
Phillips
- Not printed.↩