462.00 R 29/417: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Wallace)
Washington, January
11, 1921—5 p.m.
28. Your 2013, December 15, 10 p.m.
For Boyden. Department’s B–190.51 Your B–352.52
- One, your second. Armistice of November 11 prolonged by agreements of December 13, 1918, and January 16, 1919, and finally by agreement of February 16, 1919, for a period, “the date of expiry not being given”. Department, after consulting War Department is aware of no subsequent armistice agreements affecting matter. For this Government’s notice of continuation of armistice see Department’s [Page 344] 7051 and 7152 of January 9, and 95 of January 13,51 to Embassy, Paris, and Embassy’s 110, January 12.51 Formal notice also sent German Government through Swiss Legation on January 13 that United States regards the armistice as continuing in full force and effect.
- Second, your seventh. Department considers Rhineland agreement of June 28, entered into in pursuance of Article 432 as supplemental to treaty. This agreement submitted to the Senate prior to treaty coming into force as to other Powers on January 10, and has not been ratified. This Government, pending ratification of treaty and agreement, not bound thereby. Agreement cannot be considered an armistice agreement since it regulates occupation after conclusion of peace.
- Third. Under armistice which is still in force as to United States, this Government clearly has right to collect costs of occupation direct from Germany. In certain eventualities it might become desirable to collect directly. Department, however, has interposed no objection to apparent desire of Reparation Commission to make collections on this Government’s behalf.
- Fourth. This Government cannot, of course, at this time, claim benefits of treaty as a ratifying Power. It has inchoate rights in assets of Germany disposed of under treaty, which cannot be defeated by other Powers. Furthermore, under Article 248, Germany agrees that cost of reparation and all other costs arising under the treaty—or “under arrangements concluded between Germany and the Allied and Associated Powers during the armistice or its extensions”, shall be a first charge on all the assets and revenues of the German Empire or its constituent States. By Article 249, Germany agrees to pay total cost of “all armies of the Allied and Associated Governments in occupied territory from the date of the signature of the armistice of November 11”. Article 251 provides that such cost, (a) during the armistice and its extensions, (b) after the coming into force of the treaty, shall have priority over other charges. This priority charge on her assets is a definite obligation on Germany, which is now bound by treaty, and cannot be denied by her or other principal Allied Powers also bound by the treaty. Since it covers costs of “all” Allied and Associated armies in occupation, it clearly applies to United States forces which were placed in occupation under the armistice and in pursuance of understanding with Principal Allied Powers. (In this connection see statement of Mr. White, November 24, 1919, H.D. 99 Annex F,51 that Allied Powers repeatedly requested United States Government to consent to use of American forces for purposes of occupation.) [Page 345] Therefore, irrespective of ratification of treaty by United States, this Government is entitled to benefits of this lien and priority for its occupation costs. This Government cannot admit that either Allied Governments or Reparation Commission can dispose of assets thus pledged without taking into consideration interests and rights of United States in respect thereto. Since Germany is definitely bound by lien created for the cost of all armies of occupation, and Powers ratifying the treaty are also bound to recognize this lien, no further agreement would seem to be necessary, and for foregoing reasons, Department does not consider that payment of American costs by Commission would be, as indicated in your paragraph fifth, a waiver of security and priority of other Powers.
- Fifth. There apparently has been no disposition either on part of Reparation Commission or Allied Powers to question right of United States to participate in disposition of ex-German property under treaty. Indeed, it would appear from your B–194 of August 10, as well as from Allen’s telegram referred to in Department’s B–132 of October 1, that Reparation Commission expected to present claims for costs of occupation on behalf of United States. Also, when it was desired to extend scope of Reparation Commission to cover financial section of treaty, assent of United States was requested. (See Rathbone’s R–437 of March 19 and Department’s R–294 in reply.53) Furthermore, United States has been given share of dyestuffs, aeronautic materials, et cetera, also offered share of German war vessels, and at recent conference at Washington preliminary to the future world conference on electrical communications,54 at which disposition of German cables was considered by representatives of Italy, Japan, Great Britain, France and the United States, claim of United States to rights under the treaty, in common with principal Allied Powers, to German cables ceded under Annex 7 of Part 8, was recognized specifically.
- Sixth. Unnecessary to accept Spa Agreement55 to obtain priority of costs of occupation. This priority not only provided by treaty, but the agreement of the Committee of Four, approved by Council June 24, 1919, concerning certain priority to Beligum, expressly provides that such priority granted Beligum only “after the priority accorded by Art 235, in respect of the expenses of the Armies of Occupation and the payments for the supply of Germany”. Department unaware of any basis for a claim by Belgium to priority over occupation costs.
Davis