500.A15A4 Steering Committee/276
The Secretary of State to the American Delegate to the Bureau of the Conference (Wilson)
Sir: I refer to your request for instructions in your despatch No. 11 of December 15, 1932,2 transmitting Conf. D/C.C.F./S.C.F./11, December 10, 1932, containing a provisional list of questions concerning licensing systems submitted by the Sub-Committee on the Manufacture of Arms.
1. I feel that it is of the utmost importance that in all discussions of the proposed system of licenses for establishments engaged in the manufacture of arms, you should bear in mind, and on all appropriate occasions make clear, the view of this Government that any system of licenses established should be under the domestic control of each of the high contracting parties within its own jurisdiction and that the specific means for carrying out the system should be left in so far as possible to the decision of the several governments. Any proposal for the setting up of any form of international supervision of privately owned factories in this country would be certain to arouse strong opposition on the part of the American public and this opposition would be clearly reflected in Congress. (See Department’s Number 241, November 12, noon,3 and Number 255, December 2, noon.4)
[Page 3]You should urge, therefore, that the competent authorities for the granting of licenses be the appropriate authorities of the several governments of the high contracting parties.
2. The conditions to be fulfilled by applicants for licenses should be left to the discretion of the several governments. This Government would have no objection to requiring the applicants to furnish such information in regard to the organization, capitalization, et cetera, of the companies to which licenses are granted as would ordinarily be furnished by a company obtaining articles of incorporation in the several States of the Union.
3. Such matters as those referred to in question 3 should be left to the discretion of the several governments.
4. This Government would have no objection to any reasonable definition of arms and implements of war. The categories specified in Article I of the Convention for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War of 1925,5 would appear to constitute a satisfactory specification for this purpose.
5. This Government would have no objection to any reasonable proposal providing for the prohibition of the manufacture of prohibited types of weapons. The specific means for carrying out the prohibition should, however, be left in so far as possible to the discretion of the several governments.
6. Such questions as those raised in question 6 should be left to the determination of the several governments.
7. The establishment of the prior right of the State to the purchase and use of any patent, process, et cetera, relating to the manufacture of arms and implements of war would require special legislation by this country and you should oppose the inclusion in the Convention of any provision of this nature.
8. Such questions as those raised in question 8 should be left to the determination of the several governments.
9. Such questions as those raised in question 9 should be left to the determination of the several governments. Federal laws, and laws of the several States of the Union, designed for the prevention of crime, and for the safety of the public against accidents resulting from carelessness in the storage and transportation of explosives, are already in effect.
10. This Government would have no objection to any reasonable provisions in regard to the publication of the data supplied under a system of licenses, and would be prepared to provide for full publicity in regard to the manufacture of arms if such publicity were supplied by the other high contracting parties and if the same degree [Page 4] of publicity were made applicable to the public manufacture of arms as to their manufacture by private companies.
Very truly yours,
- Not printed.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. i, p. 373.↩
- Ibid., p. 406.↩
- Signed at Geneva, June 17, 1925, Foreign Relations, 1925, vol. i, p. 61.↩