462.00 R 296/11
The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 8.]
Dear Mr. Secretary: With reference to my telegram No. 423 of October 23, 7 P.M., the distinct impression that I received from an hour and a half conversation with M. Poincaré was that he had no definite plan, but was anxious to initiate or have initiated some policy of reorganization. I told him that it was the concensus of opinion among leading business men and bankers in our country that it was not too late to formulate a reconstruction plan that would be feasible and effective. In response to his inquiry as to what methods could be employed towards this end, I cited the case of the rehabilitation of our railroads after the panic of ’93 when some 33% of them were in the hands of receivers and explained how one by one they were set up by Reorganization Committees, etc. I told him, that in my opinion the situation here at the present time was analogous, that the time had come when Reconstruction and Reorganization Committees could be appointed and would be effective.
We spoke of the Bradbury plan and of the discussions thereon which seem to be leading to something concrete. I observed that he appeared to hope that something good will come out of the appointment of M. Barthou on the Reparation Commission.
During our conversation, I spoke of the disappointment of the Bankers’ Meeting of last spring and referred to the fact that Mr. Morgan’s ardor had been somewhat dampened because of the action of the French Reparation member under orders.
Far from being in the spirit of an obstruction, M. Poincaré is simply going along the lines of his nature which makes him rather reluctant to take the initiative. Like most Frenchmen he is looking behind rather than ahead to see if he will be backed up, but I do believe, as I have told you before, that he is the right man in the right place. While he appeared to be tired and worn when I left [Page 178] Paris two months ago, he now seems in the best of condition and under no nervous strain.
He asked me to put my suggestions in the form of an aide-mémoire, but I stated that there was much in our conversation that was in the nature of a general talk; that while I felt that my Administration was in sympathy with what I had said and that I felt I had the approval of my chief, I did not feel justified in putting the matter in writing. I added, however, that he could regard as final the opinion expressed regarding the view of the United States Government that there was no relation between the question of Interallied debts and that of reparations.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .