882.5048/65: Telegram
The Chargé in Liberia (Wharton) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 23—6:20 p.m.]
42. Reference my 41, August 22, 9 p.m., first paragraph. Yesterday Barclay inadvertently mentioned, in referring to paragraph (d) of the terms of reference, that the anti-slavery convention of 1926 had not been ratified yet by Liberia and he was thinking by what standard the Commission should judge facts. Promptly I recalled to him the fact that Liberia was a signatory and also that my Government in the original representations had advised his Government of the necessity of prompt ratification. Barclay said then that in the terms of reference his Government had accepted the definitions of the 1926 convention, which would be before the Liberian Senate in October for ratification.
As I was not satisfied, I again called today to clear up this point. Barclay says that the Commission may use the standard of article V in investigating compulsory labor for public purposes; that his Government claims to maintain the standard set by article V; and that his only objection to the Department’s emendation of paragraph (d) was that it seemed to set up for the Commission a prejudgment of fact in the terms of reference. He requested that I consider his remark yesterday as personal, adding that there was no fear and merely a desire for the Commission to act judicially in the investigation and not to listen to persons carrying false information tending to cause prejudice. I said I was sure that the foreign members of the Commission of Inquiry would be men of a high type.
He reiterated Liberia’s belief in the friendly feeling of the United States Government in the present discussions. From the foregoing I gather that the Liberian Government is concerned about formal action and that possibly Barclay may have thought of taking the position that the 1926 convention is not the law of the land until it has been ratified.
. . . . . . .