Papers Relating to the Foreign relations of the United States, 1927, Volume II

651.003/284: Telegram

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

[Paraphrase]

Paris, May 2, 1927—2 p.m.
[Received 2:22 p.m.]

182. From Young.²⁸ After discussion with the Embassy and the commercial attaché I have following comments to make on the tariff situation.

1. During the Economic Conference the French negotiations were practically suspended with other countries. It would be to our advantage to have American draft of treaty submitted to French Government as soon as possible. Advantage would lie in action pressing for most-favored-nation basis being simultaneous with efforts of similar nature by Germany and Belgium against commercial discrimination which the American as well as other members of the Economic Conference will make. The treaty draft might be accompanied by a brief explanatory statement pointing out the great importance which the United States attaches to placing commercial relations which are not at present regulated by definite understanding on the most-favored-nation basis.

2. I suggest that at least the draft of the main features of the treaty be made available here as soon as possible. Later on amendments or comments could be telegraphed or sent by mail, or perhaps in submitting the draft a reservation could be made in regard to possible changes.

3. In conversation on April 29 a member of the Foreign Office modified position previously held and expressed personal belief that most-favored-nation treatment de jure might be arranged if some concessions were made to France. The French are apparently not convinced of finality of Embassy’s statements that section 315 of tariff act is not a provision that would facilitate an exchange of concessions. Informal statements have in addition been made that the United States will occupy same relative position under new French tariff.

4. If the new French tariff is for bargaining, representations may merely tend to show that pressure is being felt. The emphasis laid on individual items tends to divert negotiations from the broad ground of seeking most-favored-nation treatment to the limited ground of dealing with individual items. Private action may be more helpful than by Embassy. I believe it not desirable to do more than to authorize the Embassy orally to point out the adverse effect that the rates would have on trade, and by way of illustration refer to particular items on which there have been specific complaints. The Embassy and the commercial attaché concur in this view.

• [Young]
• Herrick

28. Dr. Arthur N. Young, Economic Adviser of the Department of State, and one of the advisers of the American delegation to the World Economic Conference at Geneva; for correspondence concerning the Conference, see vol. i, pp. 238 ff.