462.00 R 29/335: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Wallace) to the Secretary of State
[Received 7:28 p.m.]
1676. B–238 for Davis. Your B–102, Department’s 1429, August 31st.
- 1st.
- Proposed protest working so well ought not to be changed unless absolutely necessary. Also has been discussed by delegates with governments, therefore changes would attract special attention, be unduly emphasized. Also my purpose is definite, namely, to write something which will make Allies hate thought of possible publication. This makes desirable blunt statements without attempt absolute completeness or delicate shading.
- 2d.
- Broad language at beginning reserves United States rights in every contingency. Not desirable attempt specification though later may be desirable make some specific statements. Will discuss this later cables. Protest states specifically we believe in changing treaty if necessary but by proper methods. Qualification my statements of judicial nature of Commission best obtained by slight change making last part article 2 read “status of the Commission which under the treaty is intended to await [resemble] in certain respects a judicial body is threatened. It is no longer a judicial body; it has become”.
- 3d.
- Last two paragraphs do not prejudice United States position, first, because of broad reservation at the beginning [of] protest, second, because they in themselves constitute specific assent United States of which assent I had no doubt and which confirmed by your cable. Think important include them in protest itself, first, because emphasis on fact that Spa agreement constitutes change in treaty makes Powers contemplate possible publication without pleasure, also worth while take opportunity hint strongly United States willingness go on record concerning fixation of indemnity.
- 4.
- English Delegation tell me their Government since seeing proposed protest takes position Spa agreement effective only as regards signers, not effective against Germany until accepted by Germany. This thought entirely new to them as well as to me and contrary to language of agreement. They seem personally grateful for protest.
- 5.
- In view of foregoing emphasis on possible publication will add have no intention of using publicity. If developments show necessity would of course consult Department. But I want protest in such form that they will worry some about possible appearance in print.
- 6.
- Since preparing foregoing cable have received this morning
from British Delegation following suggestion for resolution to
be passed by Commission on presentation inter-Allied Spa
percentage agreement.
“The Reparation Commission takes note of the agreement arrived at between the Governments of Belgium, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Portugal at Spa on the 16th July, 1920, with regard to the distribution of receipts from Germany under the reparation provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, methods of valuation for purposes of the accounts as between those Governments and procedure in connection with the settlement of such accounts, and it will cause the necessary steps to be taken to give effect thereto, due regard being paid to the rights and interests of other Powers signatory to the Treaty of Versailles which are not parties to the above mentioned agreement.”
- 7.
- This is merely suggestion intended to express thought that Spa agreement is only bookkeeping arrangement between Allies parties to agreement which is proper solution. I understand Dubois has expressed acquiescence subject to further reflection, also English Delegates [expect] suggestion to be satisfactory to English Government. I should accept foregoing language possibly repeating what has been already said at Commission meetings that agreement can only affect rights of parties who actually sign. Boyden.