711.62119/19: Telegram
The Commissioner at Berlin ( Dresel ) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 28—3:37 p.m.]
638. Department’s 1305, July 23, 3 p.m. Rosen has handed me a memorandum explaining German construction of fourth paragraph of his letter to me addressed July 22nd. This reads as follows:
“If the terms of any treaty provision under which a right, privilege or advantage is claimed by the United States of America expressly include a condition or limitation in favor of Germany in respect to such right, privilege or advantage, or are inseparably connected with other German treaty rights, it is expected that the United States Government will not insist on such right, privilege or advantage without also recognizing such condition, limitation or rights.”
This follows a brief memorandum which I gave Rosen asking whether I was correctly interpreting the paragraph and which only differs from that now given me by the German Government in that the latter inserts the words “or are inseparably connected with other German treaty rights” before the words “it is expected[”], and adds the words “or rights” at the end.
As justifying the additional advantage Rosen pointed out that in some cases the right on the one hand and the condition or limitation on the other hand are provided for in different articles or paragraphs. [Page 10] As an example he states that America in claiming the right of compensation provided for by article 297(e) would have to limit itself to compensation of damages determined by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal because the procedure of the tribunal is provided for by this same article while on the other hand it could claim from articles 264 to 267 an indefinite right to most-favored-nation treatment because the limitation of right to definite period is only provided for by a later article, namely 280. Rosen further pointed out that the treaty contained series of important provisions connected in such a manner by their substance with other provisions that they cannot be separated from each other. Thus he states that connection exists between the reparation clauses and those concerning evacuation of the occupied Rhineland. He believes it might be doubted in spite of this connection whether the American evacuation would have to be regarded as an express condition or limitation of reparation duty.
Rosen gave it as his opinion that it would be advisable to include in the protocol specific enumeration of the rights, privileges and advantages claimed by United States together with their conditions or limitations in favor of Germany.
As to American decision that a declaration in regard to Alien Property Custodian fund was impossible at present, Rosen expressed regret but stated that he understood the reasons for American attitude.
He agreed that it would be sufficient if a summary of the German note of July 22nd were given to the press. Am I authorized to agree on such a summary with him or will the summary which will be published in America be transmitted to me before publication together with proposed time of release?