462.00 R 296/707: Telegram
The Chargé in France (Whitehouse) to the Secretary of State
[Received 10:13 p.m.]
512. L–255, from Logan.
(1) Referring to our technical position at the coming finance conference. While it is obviously advisable to stand on broad equitable ground, do we not also have the legal answer to Allied position on section 11 of the Dawes Plan to the effect that London Conference, which formally accepted plan, thereby altered Treaty of Versailles to that extent and put everyone on a parity, just as the Versailles Treaty was amended in other respects, such as the extension of the period for deliveries of dyestuffs, creation of transfer committee, etc.?
The answer to the suggestion that the word “Associated” was inadvertently included in the experts’ report last April is that the London Conference unanimously accepted the text without change on August 16 after our claims position had been notified officially to the conference by Ambassador Kellogg’s note of August 5.73
(2) By the Allies’ own argument our treaty gives us at least a second mortgage on assets of Germany. Under London protocol, can a third party, so to speak, seize principal part of these assets without considering second mortgagee’s rights? The seizure is especially apparent in regard to railway system and assigned agents.
(3) While I agree that the broad basis of equity is the strongest, I do not think that we should permit the Allies to take the position that they have all the legal rights and that we have none, so that any concessions which might be made, might, from their point of view, be regarded as something in the nature of a courtesy.
(4) Telegram repeated to Embassy in London with request for expression of Kellogg’s views for benefit of this office and the Department. [Logan.]