560.M3/28: Telegram
The Chief of the American Delegation ( Wilson ) to the Secretary of State
2. Following is text of speech, summarized when possible, which I suggest making with respect to restrictive measures on films.
Paragraph 1 refers to letter of French Government to League Secretariat dated January 2729 (see C. I. A. P. number 23).
Paragraph 2 contains tribute to the bona fides of the French Government and to Serruys.30
Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, contain brief summary of French decree of February 18 and French regulations of March 12 and May 9.
Paragraph 6. Now, gentlemen, what is the meaning in simple words of this dry material which I have been forced to inflict upon you. To speak as directly and concisely as I can, it means nothing but this: That over and above a fixed percentage of the number of films introduced last year (and this percentage is good for this year only) an American producer of films must obtain the right to expose those films in France in one of two ways, either by the purchase and showing of a French film or by arranging with a French producer to obtain one of his seven visas which the producer has obtained for making a French film; furthermore, the total number of foreign films which may be shown in France within a given period is fixed.
7. Gentlemen, I have not hitherto used the words prohibition or restriction. It is difficult to perceive, however, how anyone can make known such a situation without using the words prohibition or restriction as applying to the action which the French are undertaking.
[Page 384]8. Let me turn to article 10 which I mentioned above and let us envisage for an instant what such regulation might mean. Suppose an American film, the scene of which was laid in any country of the world, introduced as a character a Frenchman whose conduct might be obnoxious to the 32 gentlemen sitting on the commission, under this regulation not only could that film be refused a visa for French territory, but every film produced by this company, or any film handled by any person who had even handled this film, might be refused a visa for all time in France. Surely, gentlemen, I who am a very rare visitor to the films have frequently seen my countrymen put in a position and represented in a way which is objectionable to me as an American citizen. France is not alone in suffering from this misrepresentation. And yet has it occurred to any other nation to endeavor to take such drastic measures to protect their reputation abroad? Naturally no one deplores more than I do the bad taste of an American producer who will caricature or falsify the characteristics of a member of any foreign nation, and I the more deeply deplore this in that I am persuaded that one of the best forms of mutual understanding and one of the best lessons in comprehension between nations is conveyed by means of the motion picture films. However, this must be produced by mutual satisfaction and by mutual good understanding on the part of producers and foreign governments and cannot, it seems to me, be produced by the application of force. Carry this thought to a possible extreme and you must envisage the possibility of the exclusion, or at least the restriction, of foreign books, magazines, plays and in fact any form of artistic or intellectual productions.
9. One of the complaints most frequently heard against the system of import and export restrictions and prohibitions, a complaint which was brought by chambers of commerce of all nationalities as was shown by the speeches in the First Conference, lay in the fact that international trade must have a definite and accurate basis for a foreseeable period in advance in order to lay its plans and carry out its business. To eliminate this state of fluidity and uncertainty was one of the primary purposes for which we were summoned 6 months ago to write a convention. Such action as is authorized by the French decree which established a commission which from day to day or from hour to hour may change its rules goes back to that uncertainty and to those fluid conditions which make it nearly impossible to do business with success. In the motion picture trade as in others a considerable investment is necessary in order to sell goods abroad. There must be offices, there must be distributing centers and showing centers, and a hundred other expenses. Under these French regulations our producers are asked to undertake this expense with no certainty that the field will even be open to them in the future. They may establish a distribution service on the basis fixed for a year’s distribution and as [Page 385] soon as their expense is consummated the whole basis on which they have built up their service may be altered over night.
10. For the sake of clarity I must ask you to subdivide this question in your minds into two very distinct and separate categories; the first, the right of a nation, based on the very reasonable contention that a state must maintain public morals and order, to censor the films shown to its own people. With this right we have of course no opposition to raise. We fully recognize such right in any state. The second category has to do with the handling of this question for economic purposes for the purpose of protecting industry. It is the action of France in relation to this second category to which we take exception and which I hope to be able to demonstrate to you gentlemen is clearly contrary to the purpose of this convention.
11. Gentlemen, when we drew up our convention last autumn it was to do away with restrictive measures on importation—certain specified exceptions were allowed but it was certainly the spirit, more than that it was the intent—of the instrument to do away with all other types of formalities and regulations of a nature to restrict importation.
12. Now, I ask you, what does importation mean?—in our minds, in the minds of businessmen, in the ordinary conception of the word? Does it mean, I ask you, merely the passing of a frontier or the passing of a frontier for a useful purpose? Does it mean that we Americans are free to ship wheat and cotton to the world, to enter the states freely, but still may be prevented from distributing this wheat and cotton by so-called internal regulations? Does it mean we can send typewriters, motorcars, or any other form of our products freely to the world but that the other states may in their discretion decide which ones of these motorcars and which ones of these typewriters may be distributed and sold within their frontiers? On [Eliminate] the question of public order and public morals, and [the] cases are not only analogous but identical.
13. I cannot conceive that any body of men who have the welfare of commerce at heart and who have given the labor that you, my colleagues, have given to this convention are willing to see it vitiated by a legalistic interpretation which makes it not worth the paper it is written on. If it should be decided that our convention has to do with the mere crossing of frontiers for articles of trade but leaves foreign nations free to prevent the disposal of these articles within their frontiers, then what, I ask you, is left of this convention?
14. The word films was not mentioned through our debates in October. No nation having similar restrictions brought up this question. I wish this conference would consider this point—it is an important one—that is, why was this question not raised in the [first] conference? Gentlemen, I have made careful inquiry among the representatives of states having [similar] restrictions and I have ascertained [Page 386] from at least two of these representatives that they did not raise the question because they assumed that once this convention was put in force those questions [restrictions] must automatically be dissolved by the states or at least after six months as provided by article 1 of this convention. There was no question in their minds as to whether a restriction on importation meant only the crossing of the frontier or meant crossing the frontier for a useful purpose.
15. The point may be brought out that large film interests of the United States have dealt with the French Government on the basis of these regulations and have reached a satisfactory agreement and therefore why should the Government of the United States enter into this question.
16. I should like to deal with this phase of the question now. In the first place, such film interests as have dealt with the French Government have acquiesced [in] and not agreed to the procedure of that Government. They have so acquiesced because they were faced with a condition in which they stood to lose heavily. They were confronted with a state of facts with which they had to deal and under force majeure they took the best they could get in order to enable them to continue to do business temporarily. It obviously does not mean that the case of the United States Government is in any way prejudiced in dealing with the convention, which has not yet come into effect, and in discussing what interpretation may be put to [upon] that convention in the future.
17. I mentioned earlier that this question was broader than the action of France alone and I earnestly beg you to consider the consequences implied in the acceptance of the French thesis that their action does not violate the convention. Warning has already been served by certain states which implies that they will consider the decision as to France as a precedent and as I endeavored to make clear before, this matter must not be considered alone but as a precedent by which any state which is embarrassed on economic grounds by importation may set up a machinery by way of internal regulation by which it may act in harmony with the convention and still against its purposes. It seems to me, gentlemen, that this is one of the most vital questions with which the Conference has been confronted because we must decide not a simple question of one exception, but a question of principle by which we establish a precedent which may save or wreck the future operation of this convention. I most earnestly hope that this question will be examined in the broadest spirit and with the fullest comprehension of the dangers which lie in acquiescing in the French contention.
18. I cannot reach my conclusion without again paying tribute to the spirit of loyalty which animated the French Government in bringing this matter before the Conference. If anything that I have [Page 387] said has raised a shadow of doubt as to my belief in the sincere good faith in which the French Government has acted, I can only assure you that nothing could have been more remote from my intention than to [carry] such an implication. The French Government said, “Although these measures cannot be described as prohibitions within the strict meaning of the convention”. My government is not prepared to agree with the French Government even as to this contention, in which the French Government itself seems to have considerable doubt, but leaving aside for a moment the question of strict interpretation, I beg you will not consider this affair merely as one of strict legality but on a broader and more comprehensive basis and one calculated to accomplish the broad purpose for which we have written this convention, namely, to increase the facilities of international trade.