637.116/160
The Minister in Cuba (
Long
) to the Secretary of State
Habana
,
October 8,
1920
.
[Received October 14.]
No. 445
Sir: Referring to previous correspondence
on the rice matter I have the honor to enclose, herewith, a copy of
a letter which I addressed to the President of Cuba on the 4th
instant urging that some satisfactory solution be arrived at
immediately in this case.
As reported in my telegram (No. 234) of October 7th,84 the representatives in
Habana of the California Rice Association were informed by General
Agramonte that licenses have been issued to cover the importation of
29,500 bags of rice contracted for before September 6th, and that
other requests for licenses of the same category are now pending
decision. With full knowledge of this the representatives of the
Rice Association came to an agreement with General Agramonte for
remedial action to be taken within the first 10 days of
November—that is after the Cuban national elections. The rice
representatives are most anxious that the fact that this arrangement
has been come to, and the details thereof, should be kept strictly
confidential. I have, therefore, reported the details only in my
personal and confidential letter to the Honorable, The Secretary of
State, of the 7th instant.85
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure]
The American Minister (
Long
) to President Menocal
Habana
,
October 4,
1920
.
Dear Mr. President: I am in receipt of
an urgent instruction from Washington in relation to rice, the
substance of which I should like to bring to your personal
attention at an early date, but having been told that Secretary
Agramonte has indicated to Doctor Bustamante [Page 81] a desire to confer with the rice
people on the 5th instant, and assuming that you have no
objection thereto, it would appear to be preferable to await the
result of that conference.
There seem to be three ways in which it can be settled. First,
issue the decree as agreed upon by the Secretary of Agriculture,
the rice people and your office on August 17th; secondly, issue
the decree recently prepared by Doctor Bustamante; thirdly,
modify the decree promulgated September 6th by prohibiting
importation for six months, i.e., to March 6, 1921, by saying
applications for licenses must be countersigned by
President—that decree is not retroactive—and if possible remove
preamble and cancel article six. Maybe if Doctor Agramonte had a
word from you he could settle the matter in tomorrow’s
conference.
I was considerably depressed to learn from you last Thursday
morning, that there were objections to parts of the new decree
as prepared by Doctor Bustamante. I inferred, however, that the
question of extending the decree of September 6th to provide for
six months license of importations was acceptable, which meant
that no new rice would be licensed for import until the present
stocks had been consumed or reduced to normal.
You told us at “El Chico” on the 21st ultimo also, that you
thought the old decree should not be retroactive, which meant
that the importers need not remove from the docks rice in port
prior to the promulgation of the decree.
As this is a personal letter I see no reason why I may not say
that the introduction to the decree of September 6th is most
objectionable. Doctor Montoro is understood to have promised Mr.
White that it would be deleted, and it would be a happy
circumstance if this might now be accomplished.
If the old decree were modified to provide for an airtight
prohibition against importations of rice for six months, and if
the clauses relating to the removal from the docks were not
retroactive and clause six were removed, the old decree might
prove to be acceptable to the rice people. After these months of
negotiations I am sure both you and I would be glad to see a
settlement reached.
I am [etc.]
