651.116/320
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs (Boal) of a Conversation With the French Commercial Attaché (Garreau-Dombasle)14
Mr. Garreau-Dombasle came in this morning in order to discuss commercial matters between France and the United States and, as he [Page 213] put it, to correct impressions in regard to French policy as it had been outlined in the newspapers recently. He stated that France had adopted a quota policy because of the abnormal influx of goods into France. This influx he laid to the fact that France is a good market in which foreign interests could expect to obtain cash in return for goods. The quota system was adopted as an “exceptional remedy for an exceptional situation”. Garreau-Dombasle alleged that there was no basis for allegation of discrimination because quotas were established on “scientific bases” and that the basis used was normal French consumption of the product in question. As an example of a great influx of goods into France, second-hand radios from the United States were cited. In answer to Mr. Boal’s query with regard to refusal to consult American interests before the establishment of quotas as was done with representatives from other countries, Mr. Garreau-Dombasle stated that this consultation was necessary because of treaty obligations with various countries and in order to establish the “normal year” it was necessary to consider the matter with these various foreign interests. Mr. Boal pointed out that French treaties with other nations presumably did not forbid consultation with American interests; that he saw no reason therefore why they should not be consulted.
Mr. Garreau-Dombasle stated that he knew of no matters which had not been adjusted as a result of request by the United States and said that radios constituted practically the only case where the Embassy at Paris had made representations. Mr. Boal pointed out that there were a number of cases which the Embassy had taken up with the French authorities without having obtained any satisfaction whatsoever.
The conversation drifted into a general discussion of the policies of the two countries, it being recalled by Garreau-Dombasle that in 1927 it was brought out clearly that the policies of the two countries were at the opposite poles and little could be expected in the way of concession on either side.15 Mr. Garreau-Dombasle stated that the French policy was not to accord most favored nation treatment to American products until something had been obtained in exchange therefor. Mr. Boal inquired whether or not an increase in our rates under Section 338 would not be the answer to the French theory that concessions were necessary since it would provide something to concede. Garreau-Dombasle replied that Section 338 did not constitute maximum rates but constituted a retaliatory provision and that if it were to be adopted a French law passed about two years ago provided [Page 214] for counter retaliation. Mr. Boal said that we did not want to use Section 338 but that we were under considerable pressure and that it was impossible to determine what course of action would be necessary.
- Dr. Herbert Feis and Mr. Paul T. Culbertson were also present.↩
- For correspondence with respect to American-French commercial policies and relations in 1927, see Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. ii, pp. 631 ff.↩