462.00 R 296/87: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Herrick)
[Paraphrase]
Washington, November 30,
1923—8 p.m.
436. This is for you and Logan and is in reply to your 481, November 28, 4 p.m., L–40, and your 482, November 29, 4 p.m.43
Department must have clear understanding of the precise situation. This Government cannot commit itself on indefinite proposals.
- 1.
- Department has received nothing from Poincaré since time of Secretary’s last conversation with Jusserand. Refer to Department’s 414 dated November 9. We cannot regard Barthou’s statements as changing attitude of Poincaré since they appear to be vague, personal, and informal. If the French Government wishes in a confidential way to inform us of the proposed enlarged scope of inquiry, it could do so in the same way it informed us of the limitations which Poincaré intended to propose.
- 2.
- Department has heard nothing from the British Government. The last information we had from Harvey indicated that consideration of French proposal would be postponed until the British elections were over.
- 3.
- This Government has no invitation of any kind before it.
- 4.
- Two questions seem obvious. First, what precisely is the proposal? Second, what can be done in view of it? The Department cannot answer question two until question one is answered.
- 5.
- From the practical standpoint it would be difficult to proceed under an undefined secret authority. Naturally, experts want to know the extent of their authority, and if important American men were to take part in such an inquiry, obviously they must know what the inquiry was about before giving their consent.
- 6.
- Refer to Logan’s suggestions in his L–40, paragraphs 7 and 8. It would be impracticable to have American experts confidentially named without the support of the Government of the United States. They would not lend their services without the approval of this Government. Knowledge of that fact could not be concealed from the public. In any case this Government did not intend to designate technical experts to make the inquiry. It merely intended that if invitations were issued to American experts it would indicate its acquiescence in the acceptance of these invitations. Before any plan could be put into effect the matter of the invitations would necessarily have to be considered by the Department.
- 7.
- The question that must be met is whether Americans are to participate in the inquiry or not. This must be decided from the point of view of Poincaré’s last statements to the Department. These were oral but definite and have not been modified or withdrawn.
- 8.
- Apparently Department has nothing upon which it can act. Obviously other Governments or their members on the Reparation Commission cannot expect this Government to give its acquiescence, when all it has before it is some vague whispered suggestion. We are unable to state our position until the respective Governments or the Reparation Commission have defined their position and have developed some plan which we can intelligently appreciate.
Phillips
- Latter not printed.↩