462.00 R 29/318: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Wallace) to the Secretary of State
Paris, September
10, 1920—6 p.m.
[Received September 11—2:26 a.m.]
[Received September 11—2:26 a.m.]
1683. B–241 for Davis. Your B–104.85
- 1st.
- Language about internal requirements has no special significance. Probably had in mind food and raw materials. In conversation delegates mentioned necessity of interesting Germany in any loan project by allowing her keep part of proceeds.
- 2d.
- Seems probable Commission accounting service must shortly start accounts of army costs regardless of article 3 [4], Spa agreement, which relates particularly to situation May 1, 1921. This article does not seem to affect credits to Germany. Agreement has not yet been discussed. Cannot be sure I understand effect these provisions but at present seem to me to mean no cash payments of any kind, not even interest to Commission by virtue of these provisions of article 3 [4] until short paragraph beginning “any balance not required for above purpose shall be paid to the Reparation Commission” takes effect. Looks like very remote possibility and everybody understands one purpose agreement was to avoid necessity of paying back cash if value of receipts by any power on account reparation exceeded its percentage of total receipts up to given date.
- 3d.
- Agreement does not seem give Belgium priority over army costs. Theunis originally told me this was error in hasty drafting and would be readily rectified. But British clearly think otherwise and Theunis now says language inserting [inserted] late draft without being called to Belgium’s attention and in confusion of last moments they failed notice change. Assume from foregoing there [sic] will be thrashed out on this point.
- 4th.
- Note rest of cable.
Wallace