462.00 R 29/334: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Wallace)
[Paraphrase]
Washington, August
31, 1920—7 p.m.
1429. For Boyden. B–102.
Your B–220, August 27.
- 1.
- Department suggests following revision of your proposed protest regarding inter-Allied Spa percentage arrangement. There are two principal reasons for the changes. First: We cannot consistently take a position that is opposed to all changes in the treaty as we have already agreed to and even encouraged certain changes in it. Without our approval such changes should of course not be made. Second: Wilson-Lloyd George Agreement regarding shipping and certain other understandings of Allied and Associated Governments represented on Council of Ambassadors, make necessary a qualification of the statement that the Reparation Commission is an entirely independent judicial body.
- 2.
- Proposed redraft is:82 “In connection with the inter-Allied agreement signed at Spa (Annex 345), which has been presented to the Reparation Commission, the United States unofficial delegate desires to place on record a formal reserve with respect to the rights and interests or claims of the United States, id est, which, either in case of ratification or non-ratification of the Treaties or any portion of them, may be affected thereby. Subject to the foregoing reserve he states further that certain indications of the agreement constrain him to decline to assent thereto and even to protest against its acceptance by the Commission. In explanation of the foregoing and without [Page 425] attempting to make a complete statement of objections he desires to point out: First: Parts of the agreement are in his opinion in conflict with the provisions of the treaty with Germany. In view of the emphasis that the Allied Powers, both at the beginning and since the end of the war, have placed on Germany’s failure to respect her treaty obligations, any tendency on the part of the Allied Powers materially to alter the Treaty without obtaining the consent of Germany would undoubtedly weaken their position, particularly if such changes were made without the complete concurrence of all the principal Allied and Associated Powers. Second: Parts of the agreement limit certain judicial and administrative powers entrusted to the Reparation Commission by the Treaty. Such powers were undoubtedly agreed to by Germany and by the Allied and Associated Governments in reliance on the purport of the Treaty that the decisions of the Commission, when they affected the rights of Germany or of the lesser Allied and Associated Powers, would be based on independent judgment, unprejudiced by special interests of the Principal Powers. The United States has emphasized the necessity of preserving the independence and prestige of the Commission for this very purpose, believing it an essential factor in the establishment of a permanent peace and a just administration of the Treaty. The influence which such limitations inevitably exercise upon the personal opinion of the members of the Commission is in itself objectionable. If to that influence is added the pressure of direct instructions to the delegates, the status of the Commission under the Treaty is threatened. It is no longer a judicial body, it has become a mere registering machine controlled by certain governments in their own interests. Specifically, the provisions with respect to ex-enemy ships prescribe an arbitrary method of valuation which conflicts with the Treaty provisions, is unfair to ex-enemy powers, and has no relation to established principles either of law or equity on which the decisions of the Reparation Commission should in general be based. The provisions of Articles 6, 7 and 8, denying to Germany credit for certain property and for the use of certain ships, attempt to deprive the Commission of jurisdiction in matters over which the Treaty makes the Commission the sole judge. The provisions of Articles 7 and 8 are in direct conflict with opinions rendered by its Legal Service.”
- 3.
- Department approves last two paragraphs of your telegram, but believes these statements should be oral rather than written. It should also be pointed out that before making material changes in the treaty the consent of this Government, as well as of ex-enemy countries, should be obtained.
Davis
- The following quoted section is not paraphrased.↩