462.00 R 296/816: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to the Secretary of State
[Received 11:20 p.m.]
11. L–301, from Logan. I doubt whether Bradbury22 had seen final text of British note,23 though I am satisfied that he knew the general nature as the context indicates that it was drafted largely by Leith-Ross and Fisher Williams of Bradbury’s staff. Bradbury’s comment, expressed somewhat cynically, was (1) that the Army Costs Agreement of May 25, 1923, was extremely difficult for the Allies in that it would absorb all the foreign exchange that transfer committee would probably be able to accumulate in the next 10 years, a longer time, in his opinion, “than Dawes Plan would last”; (2) that our willingness to extend period of the Army Costs Agreement and thereby to reduce the annual cash priority in exchange for recognition [Page 127] of our claims position carrying with it only reichmark [payment?] was too good a business arrangement to be ignored, and that this was the only basis of his support and the reason why the British Treasury officials had taken more kindly to our importunities.
Kellogg agrees to the presentation of the memorandum24 and in modified form it was handed in my name today to Leith-Ross in London by the Embassy. I presumed that this action was approved by the Department; I had felt some embarrassment from the fact that we had not previously presented some definite scheme of settlement. Logan.