462.00 R 294/199: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 1—9:25 a.m.]
227. W–41.1 presented the new wording at once in view of your conversation with the French Ambassador and your intimation to [Page 173] him that you would make the concession as outlined in your new wording of paragraph 2, article 6, as I felt sure that it would be understood by Tannery and probably others that there was such an available concession.
The paragraph was discussed for two hours, both the British and Belgian representatives stating that they had instructions to insist upon the right of abrogation. I took the position that the paragraph as written was the last word, the Allies suggesting that we give up our right of abrogation.
The question whether your wording would mean that the whole agreement was in abeyance unless in the discussion of equities an agreement was reached or drawn up by the Allies and to cover this point the following changes were made in paragraph 2 of article 6: Substitute for “reaching” “endeavor to reach” and add at the end of the paragraph “the inauguration of such discussion or failure to reach an accord shall neither suspend nor terminate the operation of the present agreement”. Will you inform me whether this is satisfactory. I stated that the United States considered the agreement satisfactory except for this paragraph. The representatives of the Allies will consult their Government and from Bradbury’s remarks the suggestion that the paragraph be eliminated may be brought back by them.
Bradbury seems to be leading the opposition [which?] is full of juridical points. I have informed the newspapers that the Allied representatives have referred to their respective Governments an important legal point bearing on the future operation of the agreement. Wadsworth.