862.85/933: Telegram

The Commission to Negotiate Peace to the Secretary of State

5200. There was a long and very unsatisfactory discussion of the tanker question this morning. I proposed that in view of the fact that the action of September 27th63 was taken without a full knowledge of all the facts the action should be rescinded and the 9 ships should be held in Hamburg pending negotiations between the French, British and myself. This was vigorously opposed by Bérenger representing the French and by the British. I pointed out that [Page 568] the ships had been exempted from allocation in March and spoke of the understanding Hoover, Davis and Dulles had had with the various representatives and urged for political reasons that the action be rescinded. I pointed out that there was considerable agitation [irritation] in the United States now growing out of the fact that it was believed these ships were really the property of a United States company; that the allocation to the French had been made as the result of an agreement between the British and French whereby the French were to receive tank ships and the British passenger ships and that the French had organized a company to operate the ships. Bérenger in his reply read the various resolutions that had been passed; said he had no recollection of any such agreement as we claim and then referred at length to the [seizure of the] Imperator group of ships by the Shipping Board and the refusal in spite of the decision of the Reparation Committee to deliver the ships. He spoke of the great shortage of oil in Europe; dwelt on the fact that the Standard Oil Company had attempted to divest itself of title by sale; pointed out that all these questions were questions that required the most thorough investigation and said that he could not see why we should object to the operation by Allies of these ships in the meantime, first primarily for benefit of Germany and [then] for Europe pending a decision.

I pointed out that the question of ownership was not one I was discussing at the moment but at the same time my attempt to keep the Standard Oil Company out of the discussion was futile as the whole fight seems to settle around that point. The British objected to my statement that there had been a secret agreement with the French covering the allocation of passenger ships and tank steamers. They said they had an understanding with the French that they would waive their claim to any share in temporary allocation of the tank steamers in view of the great need of France, The British representatives dwelt on the fact that Germany had been directed to deliver the ships; that the delivery had been prevented by the agents of the Standard Oil Company in Germany; that this really amounted to a defiance of the Supreme Council by a private corporation; that it would make an extremely bad impression on Germany and on the world if it appeared that the decisions of the Supreme Council were subject to modification at the election of a private individual; that it would show to Germany a division among the Allies and therefore they said they could not consent to the [revocation] of the order. This view was shared by the French and by the Italians. Their proposal is that the 14 tank steamers should be delivered immediately at the Firth of Forth; that the 9 Standard Oil Company ships should be held there pending a decision as to their temporary allocation [Page 569] and if that could not be determined then they should be held until the question of title should be finally settled, the other 5 ships if seaworthy to be temporarily allocated to Allies. The French however laid great stress on the fact that this arrangement was conditional upon the immediate delivery of the Imperator ships in accordance with the decision previously reached. They also laid great stress on the fact that we were objecting to a temporary allocation on the ground that it might prejudice the final disposition of [the] ships but at the same time we were setting an extremely bad example by jeopardizing [keeping] by force without any authority whatever the Imperator class.

I told the Supreme Council that it would be necessary to refer the matter to my Government to see if this arrangement would be satisfactory but I indicated in order to protect myself that it was an open question as to whether it would be satisfactory or not.

During the course of the debate Sir Eyre Crowe stated that he had been instructed by his Government on three occasions to bring before the Supreme Council the question of the detention of the Imperator and request that the Council direct the Shipping Board to deliver the ships immediately. He said there was great feeling on the subject in Great Britain and his Government was pressing us for action. He and Clemenceau agreed however that the consideration of the demand on the Shipping Board in the Imperator case should not be taken up today. Both the French and British dwelt on the fact that the decision of this case would have serious political and popular effect in their countries.

In order to sum up the point on which I wish instructions please let me know whether it would be satisfactory to have the 9 tank steamers claimed by the Standard Oil Company delivered in the Firth of Forth and there held pending an arrangement for their temporary allocation or until the question of the title can be finally disposed of. It is an [our] impression that if we release the Imperator and other ships our task will be much easier and some think that we surely would be able to secure the [operation] of these ships by the Americans. Polk.

American Mission
  1. See telegram no. 4409, Sept. 28, 1919, p. 547.