Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1929, Volume II

Press Release Issued by the Department of State, May 15, 1929¹⁴

May 15, 1929

(For the information of the Correspondents)

summary of correspondence between the governments of canada and the united states on the subject of commercial smuggling across the international border.

On October 1, 1925, the Secretary of State addressed a note to the Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of Great Britain, at that time in charge of Canadian affairs, with reference to two Conventions between the United States and Great Britain in respect of Canada, one of which was signed on June 6, 1924,¹⁵ and provides for the suppression of smuggling operations, and the other, signed on January 8, 1925,¹⁶ provides for the extradition of persons charged with crimes and offenses against the narcotic laws of the respective Governments.

The Secretary of State pointed out that as the result of the consideration which had been given to these subjects since the Conventions were signed, it would seem to be desirable to make further provision for restricting and suppressing illicit smuggling operations, particularly in view of the fact that ships with cargoes of liquor on board were being cleared from Canadian ports for places in the United States when it was well known that the importation of such cargoes into the United States is prohibited by its laws. He expressed the hope that it would be found possible to take measures whereby clearances of ships with cargoes of liquor destined for the United States might be refused by the Canadian authorities, since it is evident when such clearances are requested that the object of the expedition is unlawful. He also stated that it would be helpful if provision might be made for extradition between the United States and Canada of persons guilty of Violating the customs laws of either Government and seeking refuge within the territory of the other.

He therefore suggested that a Convention supplementary to the Convention of June 6, 1924, be concluded between the United States and Canada to provide for the refusal of clearances to shipments of prohibited merchandise by water, air or land from any of the ports of either country to a port of entrance of the other, unless there has been complete compliance with the conditions of the laws of both countries.

In order to provide for extradition in cases of persons charged with violations of the customs laws, the Secretary of State suggested that a Convention supplementary to the Extradition Convention of July 12, 1889,¹⁷ be concluded.

The receipt of this note was duly acknowledged by the British Embassy which stated that copies thereof had been forwarded to the Government of Canada.

On December 8, 1925, the Secretary of State again addressed a note to the British Embassy to inquire whether he might be furnished with the views of the Government of Canada regarding the proposals.

In the meantime, Mr. Chilton, the Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of the British Embassy, in a note dated October 13, 1925, transmitted copies of an Order-in-Council containing regulations governing the execution of the Convention of June 6, 1924, between the United States and Canada for the suppression of smuggling, to have effect in so far as they relate to Canada and to Government employees or officers of the Canadian Government. The receipt of this note was acknowledged with thanks by the Secretary of State in a communication dated October 17, 1925, forwarding at the same time copies of the Executive Order of September 19, 1925, containing the regulations on the subject to govern the acts of officers of the United States.

In a note dated December 11, 1925, the British Ambassador expressed regret that he had not as yet been furnished with the views of the Government of Canada on the contents of the note of the Secretary of State dated October 1, 1925, but stated that the matter was again being referred to the Dominion Government. Similar information was contained in a later note dated April 8, 1926, from the British Ambassador. On June 19, 1926, the matter was orally brought to the attention of a member of the staff of the British Embassy who promised to take it up urgently.

As a conference had taken place in London in July, 1926, between officials of the British and American Governments to discuss administrative measures to prevent smuggling,¹⁸ the Secretary of State in his note dated September 10, 1926, informed the British Embassy that it had been suggested by the British representatives at the conference that certain matters should be taken, up separately with the Canadian authorities. As no Canadian representative was present at the conference, the Secretary of State suggested that it would be very helpful if such a conference with the Canadian authorities could be held at an early date and, if possible, provision made to put into effect between Canada and the United States the arrangements worked out in London. He stated that it was also desired to consider the interpretations of certain provisions of the Convention of June 6, 1924, between the United States and Canada and to ascertain whether amendments are necessary in order to make it effective in preventing smuggling operations between the two countries.

A reply to this note was received from the British Embassy dated October 11, 1926, in which it was stated that the Dominion Government would be pleased to take part in a joint conference, as suggested, but attention was called to the fact that a Royal Commission which was appointed to continue inquiries into the customs administration, had been instructed to make an inquiry into the operation of the Convention of June 6, 1924, and particularly as to whether the Convention is being carried out according to its declared intention and as to whether any amendment is necessary or desirable to insure the suppression of smuggling. The Canadian Government was therefore of the opinion that it would be desirable to await its findings before setting a date for the proposed conference between representatives of Canada and the United States.

Under date of October 22, 1926, a further communication was received from the British Embassy stating that it was the desire of the Canadian Government that Mr. N. W. Rowell, who had been appointed Counsel to the Royal Commission, should have an opportunity of conferring with a representative of the United States Government regarding the operation of the Convention of June 6, 1924, and inquiring whether the United States Government would be disposed to appoint a representative with authority to confer with Mr. Rowell.

In reply the Department stated on November 10, 1926, that a communication had been received from the appropriate authority of this Government suggesting that Mr. Rowell meet the heads of the various divisions dealing with the situation as well as certain officials of the Department of State and the Department of Justice who could furnish him with information as to the operation of the Convention. It was believed that this arrangement would in all probability be highly preferable to a conference with one representative, and it was suggested that the meeting be held in Washington on November 13, 1926.

In a note dated November 12, 1926, the Secretary of State informed the British Ambassador with reference to his note of October 11, 1926, that the interested authorities of this Government concurred in the suggestion that the fixing of a date for the proposed conference should be deferred pending the findings of the Royal Commission. However, on account of the growth of smuggling operations it was considered desirable to suggest that the conference be held at the earliest practicable date following the submission of the report and recommendations of the Royal Commission.

Under date of December 7, 1926, the Secretary of State informed the British Embassy that as it appeared that the investigations being carried on by the Royal Commission would not be completed until February, 1927, and as this Government hoped that the Canadian Government would find it possible to enter into further treaty arrangements to prevent smuggling operations between the two countries supplementing those contained in the Convention of June 6, 1924, it was felt that the preliminary discussions should take place not later than January, 1927. He urged this in view of the fact that the session of the Congress of the United States which had convened on December 6, 1924, would adjourn on March 4, 1927, and a further regular session would not be held until December, 1927. The Secretary of State also suggested that some difficulties might be dealt with under existing laws and treaties and stated that this Government desired to discuss with the Canadian authorities the extent to which the arrangements worked out at London during July, 1926, could be applied to the smuggling operations being carried on from Canada.

To this the British Ambassador replied on February 21, 1927, that the Dominion Government concurred in the advisability of holding a conference to consider the various proposals put forward, but desired that the discussions should not be confined merely to the question of the illicit liquor trade but should cover all forms of commercial smuggling across the international border. It was also suggested that the conference should consider whether any of the recommendations which they may make to their respective Governments as a result of their discussions could be more appropriately carried out by a supplementary convention, by concurrent legislation, or by administrative regulations. It was added that as the Royal Commission had not yet made its report, the Government of Canada were of the opinion that the date of the proposed conference should not be settled until later.

The reports and recommendations of the Royal Commission having been completed, the American Minister to Ottawa addressed a communication on November 27, 1928, to the Prime Minister of Canada inquiring whether it would be agreeable to have the proposed informal conference take place at Ottawa during the first week of January, 1929, to which the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada replied on December 12, 1928, that the Canadian Government would be prepared to arrange for participation in a conference to discuss the advisability of taking further action for the prevention of commercial smuggling between the two countries.

It was decided not to discuss the matter of extradition during the Conference, in view of the fact that there was no connection whatever between the two proposals advanced in the note of the Secretary of State dated October 1, 1925, which formed the basis for the Conference. The amendment to the Extradition Treaty proposed therein would apply to actual customs offenses and would not cover cases involving conspiracy to violate the customs or other laws. The proposed amendment to the Smuggling Convention provided for the refusal of clearances to shipments of commodities from either country destined to the other, when the importation of the commodity was prohibited in the country of destination.

The matter of the refusal of clearances to prohibited commodities is of a great deal of importance in combating smuggling and the informal conference was proposed primarily in order that United States officials might discuss the subject at length with the Canadian authorities. It was felt that the subject of extradition, being a separate matter, would doubtless be dealt with independently by the two Governments in due course.

An informal conference to discuss further measures for the prevention of smuggling between the two countries consequently took place in Ottawa January 8–10, 1929, which was attended by the following Canadian and American delegates:

• American delegates:
  • Admiral F. C. Billard, Commandant, United States Coast Guard, head of group,
  • James M. Doran, Commissioner of Prohibition, Treasury Department,
  • E. W. Camp, Commissioner of Customs,
  • Ferdinand L. Mayer, Counselor of American Legation, Ottawa,
  • Irving N. Linnell, American Consul General at Ottawa.
  • Francis Colt de Wolf, Assistant to Solicitor, State Department,
  • Harry J. Anslinger, Liaison Officer between State and Treasury Departments,
  • Arthur W. Henderson, Special Assistant to the Attorney General,
  • Lynn W. Meekins, Commercial Attaché, Ottawa,
  • Frank J. Murphy, Treasury Department, Technical Assistant,
  • Elmer J. Lewis, Treasury Department, Technical Assistant,
  • Miss Clara Borjes, Secretary to Delegation.
• Canadian delegates:
  • Doctor O. D. Skelton, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs,
  • W. Stuart Edwards, Deputy Minister of Justice,
  • R. W. Breadner, Commissioner of Customs,
  • G. W. Taylor, Commissioner of Excise;
  • C. P. Blair, Assistant Commissioner of Excise,
  • F. W. Cowan, Chief, Customs-Excise Preventive Service,
  • William Ide, Acting General Executive Assistant,
  • E. Hawken, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Marine,
  • C. H. L. Sharman, Narcotic Division, Department of Pensions and National Health,
  • H. L. Keenleyside, Third Secretary, Department of External Affairs.

Admiral Billard, the head of the American delegation, submitted his report of the Conference to the Secretary of State under date of January 21, 1929. The American delegation explained to the Canadians the importance of the Canadian Government’s discontinuing the existing practice of clearing liquor direct from Canadian to American ports, and thus refusing to allow its instrumentalities to be used by persons engaged in breaking the laws of this country. They outlined what is being done in the United States for the enforcement of Prohibition and pointed out the physical impossibility of controlling the movement of small speedy craft across water only a mile in width. They asked the Canadian delegation to report to its Government that the opinion of the United States Government is that nothing short of the discontinuance of the existing practice of issuing clearances or other official documents permitting the exportation from Canada to the United States of goods, the importation of which into the United States is illegal, would be of material assistance to the United States in dealing with the problem of smuggling, or would be of material assistance in preventing further development of unfavorable conditions along the border, which affect both countries alike.

The Canadian delegates, on the other hand, explained the general system of control of exports of liquor from Canada and, while they evinced a readiness to issue more stringent regulations under the existing treaty, they were inclined to foresee difficulties in any attempt to refuse to allow liquor to be cleared from Canada to the United States. They promised, however, to lay before their Government the proposal of the American delegation and to point out the importance attached by the United States to its acceptance by the Canadian Government.

On March 15, 1929, the Prime Minister of Canada addressed a note to the American Minister at Ottawa, forwarding a copy of the report of the Canadian delegation to the Anti-Smuggling Conference. In this note the Prime Minister stated, inter alia, that “without making at the present time a final decision on this proposal, the Canadian Government is in accord with the opinion expressed by the Canadian representatives that the problem of enforcement facing United States officials, particularly on the Detroit and Niagara border, might in large measure be solved by a further extension of the system of furnishing information of shipments of liquor provided by the Convention of June 1924.” He then makes the following offer: “To cooperate with and assist further the Government of the United States in the effective enforcement of its laws, the Canadian Government is prepared to permit the United States officers to be stationed on the Canadian side of the border, at ports of clearance to be determined, in order to enable the United States officials themselves to transmit immediately to the appropriate authorities in the United States information to be furnished by the Canadian customs officials as clearances are obtained, as to the clearance of all vessels for the United States carrying liquor cargoes”.

While the Government of the United States appreciated the graciousness of the offer made by the Canadian Government, it was the view of the competent authorities that the proposed arrangement would not be a solution of the problem, and the American Minister at Ottawa was accordingly instructed to inform the Canadian Government which he did under date of April 20, 1929, that the information provided for in Article I of the Convention of June 6, 1924, between the United States and Canada, has been promptly furnished by the Canadian officials, except in a very few cases which were speedily adjusted by the Canadian Government as soon as its attention was called to the matter. But the necessary information to identify the vessels engaged in liquor smuggling has not been available because the data furnished to the Canadian authorities and transmitted to the American officials, were in most cases fictitious. Mr. Phillips added that Canadian officials have faithfully discharged their duties under the Convention, and there is no reason to believe that the information would be more accurate or more helpful if transmitted through American officials stationed on the Canadian side of the border.

He concluded by saying that, “While the Government of the United States appreciates the gracious offer of the Canadian Government to permit American officials to transmit information of this kind from Canadian soil, it remains convinced that the only effective means of dealing with the smuggling problem along the border is the conclusion of a treaty amending the Convention of June 6, 1924, to the end that clearance be denied to shipments of commodities from either country when their importation is prohibited in the other.”

14. Correspondence released to the press with this press release for publication in papers of May 16, 1929, not printed.
15. Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. i, p. 189.
16. ibid., 1925, vol. i, p. 542.
17. Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. i, p. 740.
18. See Joint Report of Discussion Between British and American Officials With Regard to Liquor Smuggling, Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. ii, p. 350.