File No. 763.72113/489
The French Ambassador ( Jusserand) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 20.]
Mr. Secretary of State: In view of the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act which at present prevent the Federal Government from adhering, as it had been earnestly entreated to do by the French, British, and Belgian Governments, to the draft of declaration adopted by those three Governments at the Paris conference of October 9, 1917,1 to secure the protection of private interests in territory occupied by the enemy, I had orally inquired of the Department of State whether the act could be amended. Inasmuch as this is an urgent question, and as the enemy, believing he has no serious consequences to fear, continues his depredations, I had asked whether immediate publicity could not at least be given to the fact that the Federal Administration, for its part, stood in favor of the principles stated in the Belgian Minister’s communication of January 10 last2 and commended to Your Excellency’s attention by my note of the 19th of the same month.3
My Government has just made known to me the great value it attaches to having action taken on that suggestion, both for the effect it is likely to work on the Germans and from the standpoint of public opinion in France, which is alarmed at the announcement of the liquidation of German property in the United States and fears that the measure may involve the liquidation of French property seized by the German authorities.
In this connection, the Government of the Republic wishes me to point out to Your Excellency that such a liquidation of enemy property may be fraught with serious consequences to the French and Belgians. If the relative proportion of seized property be taken into account, American and English interests stand in inverse ratio [Page 291] to the Belgian and French interests, and while it is deemed necessary for the common good to take measures that run counter to the last-named interests, it is no less indispensable, in my Government’s opinion, that a palliation of their effects be sought by the Allies. A public declaration by the American Administration above mentioned, expressing a desire to hold jointly with France, England, and Belgium enemy property as a common surety, would be regarded by us as one of the most effective means of achieving that object.
I am in position to add that the French Government is now drawing up a bill which places a lien upon enemy property sequestered by us as security for French property seized by the Germans, and, in the event of a convention, as security for all Allied property now in the hands of the enemy.
Under the circumstances, I venture again to commend to the benevolent attention of the Government of the United States the suggestion previously offered by me. I should be glad if the Federal Government would at the same time consider whether it cannot immediately adhere to the other resolutions in the declaration adopted at the Paris conference of October 9, 1917, and in particular, to that which relates to the Governments’ communicating to one another information concerning enemy property lying within their respective territories.1
Be pleased to accept [etc.]