Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1926, Volume II

462.00 R 294/523: Telegram

The Ambassador in France ( Herrick ) to the Secretary of State

[Paraphrase]

Paris , May 21, 1926—7 p.m.
[Received May 22—12:04 a.m.]

204. H–107 [from Hill]. Department’s H–50, May 19.

1. May 26 is date set for new informal meeting. I do not think that there will be any difficulty over agreement on very substantial reduction in the allotment for the Rhineland High Commission and for the Military Commission of Control. Opposition will be centered on any reduction in cost of Armies of Occupation. The French will naturally desire to retain at least present figures. Belgians probably will take same position. British would like reduction to 120 millions but would be content with 140 millions. The Italian assistant delegate called yesterday and after saying that he had the support of the Japanese delegate who was absent, suggested that Italian, Japanese, and American delegates endeavor to agree upon substantial reduction cash priority payments on army costs. Signor Corsi was not in position, however, to submit any figures. He seemed to hold view that while British would prefer reduction they might not insist, in view of concessions on other matters. I said that, while I was sure my Government would be pleased to have allotments reduced, lacking any instructions I had no authority to commit it in any way on this point.

2. With reference to British note Department might reply that it concurs in constitution of a committee, as was done last year, to negotiate on these points, and might add that I have been designated to attend meetings on behalf of Government of the United States.

3. Situation with respect to allotments for army costs, etc., which interest us directly and immediately, is different from questions raised in British note. Article 8 of the Finance Ministers’ Agreement of January 14, 1925,⁵ provides that if Secretariat should establish that these claims are to be met from annuities “the Allied Governments will concert together as to manner in which they should be dealt with”⁶ under paragraph C, article 3. We should be interested in these claims only if others were inclined to admit them as charges against annuities so as to reduce our share in sums to be distributed as reparations. We could answer in two ways:

(a) In view of our possible ultimate interest to agree to sit in Committee from start with view to using influence to see that these claims are not charged against the annuities in any way to reduce our share.

(b) To refer to above-mentioned provision of article 8 and to indicate that we would not desire to be represented on Committee when this question should be under consideration, pointing out that our agreement would be necessary only in event that it was desired to admit these charges against Dawes annuities in manner which would reduce amounts to be distributed as reparations.

4. I believe that British strongly oppose admitting any of these charges so as to reduce annuities and French also oppose admitting Poland to participate in annuities particularly in view of her large outstanding indebtedness; it is possible that Allied representatives will work out some scheme whereby present shares in annuities would not be affected, and thus we would be able to avoid mixing in matter.

If, on other hand, we refused to sit on committee and its members should decide to admit any of these charges against the annuities we might find it difficult to refuse our consent.

5. I should like Department’s instruction on point set forth above as question of our participation in Committee to consider claims mentioned in British note will probably arise at May 26 meeting.

6. I am not aware of any outstanding questions which relate to distribution of the Dawes annuities besides those mentioned in British note; Department’s reply to it might call attention to this, and state that if there are other questions then the Department after being informed of their nature would decide whether it wishes to be represented.

7. At the meetings the question may arise whether allotment for costs should be fixed for other annuities in addition to the third. I should like to be informed whether Department prefers to limit discussion to third annuity alone. Hill.

Herrick

5. Foreign Relations, 1925, vol. ii, pp. 146, 152.
6. Quoted passage not paraphrased.