711.429/265
The Chargé in Canada ( Riggs ) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 24.]
Sir: With reference to my despatch No. 1388 of April 29, 1930,7 covering the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the draft of a proposed convention to supplement the Anti-Smuggling Convention between Canada and the United States of June 6, 1924, I have the honor to transmit herewith an outline of the counter proposals advanced on behalf of Canada in the course of a two hour discussion which took place between Dr. Skelton, Mr. Beaudry and myself yesterday afternoon at the Department of External Affairs. References by line and page will be made in this despatch to the draft transmitted with the Department’s instruction No. 819 of April 16, 1930, (file No. 711.429/263a). Line numeration will begin with No. 1 for the first line of each section of the Convention, namely, the Preamble and each of the various Articles, so that each one will have its own line numeration.
Preamble
In line 2 of the Preamble, in the expression “the British dominions beyond the Seas” the Canadian Government desires to write the word “dominions” with a small “d”. The reason given is that in the King’s title the word “dominions” refers to the whole of the King’s domain and was in use before Canada came into existence. It is therefore desired to draw by this means a distinction between the King’s dominions and the various Dominions which are members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Likewise, after the expression “Emperor of India” in line 3, it is desired to insert “in respect of the Dominion of Canada” in order to conform with present Canadian treaty practice.
[Page 495]After the expression “desirous of” in line 3 the Canadian Government desires to change the language of the Preamble to the following: “supplementing the provisions of the Convention of June 6, 1924, between Canada and the United States of America, for the suppression of smuggling operations along the border,” to replace the language in the American draft from the point indicated above down to and including the date “June 6, 1924” in line 8 of the Preamble. The Canadians do not like the expression “more effective … than” occurring in the American Preamble, since they feel that it makes an invidious comparison between the proposed Convention and that of 1924, by suggesting that the latter was ineffective. Although it was not actually stated, I believe that the substitution of the expression “along the border” instead of “between the territories” is preferred by the Canadians to avoid any suggestion that the Convention could be construed to cover indirect smuggling via a base on the territory of a third party.
In line 9 it is desired to insert after the word “concerning” the expression “the transportation of”, since the Canadians desire to emphasize that that is the particular phase of the question covered by the Convention. They also prefer the word “additional” instead of the word “supplementary” in line 10.
Article I
In line 3 the Canadians point out that the expression “High Contracting Parties” in so far as it refers to the Canadian side, refers to the King. They therefore prefer to refer to “the ports of the Dominion of Canada or of the United States of America” and to eliminate the word “territory” in this Article. They state that “territory” as used in the American draft must inevitably refer to the King’s territory and that unfriendly critics and legalistic opponents might raise the contention that by using such phraseology the Dominion was unconsciously passing legislation which could be construed as affecting portions of the King’s territory other than the Dominion of Canada. They also desire this change since they claim it to be a reversion to the original American draft presented to them in 1925.
After the expression “denied if” in line 5, the Canadians desire to change the rest of Article I as shown in their enclosed draft. I gather that they do not wish to undertake the responsibility of having to guarantee the absence of prohibited articles in an apparently regular and bona fide shipment of merchandise. This is in line with the replies made in Parliament in the course of the discussion of the Liquor Export Bill and the proposed Convention. They therefore prefer the expression “shipment of merchandise” instead of “shipment comprises articles the introduction of which is prohibited.”
[Page 496]They also desire the elimination of the word “restricted”. Dr. Skelton stated that his understanding was that the word “restricted” had been inserted to cover goods such as narcotics and sacramental wines which are normally articles of prohibited importation, but which may, under certain conditions and for certain purposes, be imported under special Government permit. The Canadian authorities fear that the word “restricted” could be construed to cover articles which are subject to tariff restrictions, such as countervailing duties, et cetera, and they prefer that there should be no ambiguity. Consequently, in the Canadian counter draft, lines 8, 9 and 10 also disappear.
It will be observed that they also desire to include in the Convention under Article I mention of lists of articles of prohibited importation in both countries, to be changed from time to time by communication between the two Governments. They have also inserted in this Article a paragraph incorporating in the Convention a provision covering the prohibited admission of articles included under Item 1201 of the Canadian Customs Tariff, namely, “books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, photographs or representations of any kind of a treasonable or seditious, or of an immoral or indecent character”. This is an effort to meet the difficulty explained by Dr. Skelton as related in my despatch No. 1388 above mentioned.
Article II
In line 2 it is desired to restore the word “attached” instead of “attach” in order to conform with the language of Article VII of the Convention of 1924. Likewise and for the same reason it is desired to eliminate “from one place in Canada to another place in that country” in line 5 and to substitute “under guard by Canadian authorities” instead of “under such guard as the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America may require” in lines 6 and 7. There is also a slight change in the language of lines 9 and 10, which does not, however, apparently affect the sense and is considered better phraseology by the Canadian side. They also contend that the “c” should be eliminated from the spelling of the name “Stikine” in line 9.
Article III
In line 2 it is desired to substitute the word “attached” instead of “attach” as explained above under Article II. In lines 4 and 5, the Canadians desire the substitution of “under guard by Canadian authorities” instead of “under such guard as the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America may require”, for the reasons explained above in Article II.
In lines 6 and 7, it is desired to eliminate “between Montreal, Quebec, and St. John, New Brunswick”, and to substitute therefor “from Canadian territory to Canadian territory” since Dr. Skelton stated that Montreal is not the only possible point of destination and that [Page 497] shipments might also be made to such points, for instance, as Sherbrooke or the city of Quebec. He also desires to eliminate in lines 9 and 10 the phrase “such liquor to be destined only for the Liquor Control Boards of the several Provinces of Canada”. He pointed out that this is an internal Canadian matter and that difficulties might arise in connection with the Convention if, for instance, one or more of the Provinces were to abolish Government control. He also pointed out that the expression “Liquor Control Board” does not apply in every Province, since in Quebec, for instance, these authorities are officially termed “Liquor Commissions.”
Dr. Skelton also asked me whether there is any reason for the discrepancy between the expression “under seal” in lines 13 and 14 of Article II and “under Canadian and United States customs seals” in lines 8 and 9 of Article III. His rough draft had eliminated this expression entirely. I pointed out that there might well be some good administrative reason for this provision in Article III due to a possible difference in the activities of smugglers and “hijackers” in the State of Maine. He told me that he would be willing to allow it to stand in the Convention if it were considered essential but he requested that I ask for an explanation of the discrepancy between the reference to seals in Articles II and III.
The Canadians desire to eliminate the whole of the last sentence of Article III comprising lines 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22. Dr. Skelton says that the matter of payment by the Canadian Pacific Railway is understood as a matter of course and that the Government does not see the necessity for mention of it in the Convention.
Article IV
In lines 9 and 10, after the word “given” the Canadians desire to substitute the words “notice to the other of a desire to terminate the Convention” instead of “such notice to the other party.” This change is preferred in order to revert to the phraseology of Article VIII of the Convention of 1924, and is in conformity with the disposition manifested by Dr. Skelton and Mr. Beaudry throughout the discussion of yesterday afternoon.
I desire to apologize to the Department for not preparing a draft text with suitable lining and underlining, showing at a glance the alterations proposed in the Canadian counterdraft; the necessity to get this draft off at the earliest mail has rendered the preparation of such a text impossible.
I am also advised by Dr. Skelton that the Prime Minister has received from London the full power necessary for the signature of this Convention and is disposed to sign it as soon as agreement can be reached as to the text.
I have [etc.]
- Not printed.↩