550.S1/698: Telegram

The Chargé in Great Britain (Atherton) to the Secretary of State

91. From Davis. I reached London at noon today and received the Department’s instruction 83, April 28, 6 p.m. Having discovered that our press had already learned through Foreign Office sources that our Government intended presenting proposal for tariff truce to the Economic Conference I replied affirmatively to their request for confirmation. Subsequently and before the meeting of Organizing Committee Stoppani, Director of Economic Relations Section of the League, called upon me with text of resolution as handed him by the Foreign Office, identical with that which the Department instructed me to present to the Committee. He expressed doubt as to the advisability of presenting this resolution, doubting the competence of the Committee to act upon it and also pointing out that many of the representatives would be ambassadors without previous knowledge of the Organizing Committee’s meetings and furthermore unwilling to commit their governments by accepting this recommendation for publication without instructions. I explained to him my belief that a recommendation such as this from the Committee at this moment, when it was generally known the United States Government would propose a tariff truce at the opening of the Economic Conference, would have a most beneficial effect.

Shortly before the meeting I conferred with Sir John Simon who said he had only received last night the text of the resolution which I was to ask the Committee to adopt today; that he doubted the competency of the Committee to take such action, and that he for his part was unable to agree to its adoption without consulting the Cabinet which he had not had time to do. I explained that while it might be somewhat outside its terms of reference I thought the Committee would be justified in making such a recommendation since it would have a far reaching psychological effect at this moment and contribute to the success of the Conference. Sir John then said the telegram which he had received last night on this subject was from Leith-Ross73 and he judged the Prime Minister was not even aware of this proposed resolution, but he desired to take as broad a view of the matter as possible although he had learned from the French Ambassador74 that he was under instructions not to accept this resolution. After some further discussion Sir John concluded that if I felt I must carry out my instructions and propose the adoption of this resolution at the [Page 582] meeting today he felt the only alternative to suggest was to suggest for those members in a like situation to himself to consult their respective governments and upon receiving instructions have a further meeting of the Committee.

The Committee met at 3 o’clock and unanimously fixed June 12th as the date for the Conference. Several preliminary routine details were disposed of including the decision to invite the International Cooperative Alliance and the International Agricultural Union of Paris to participate in the same consultative capacity as the International Chamber of Commerce. I then made the proposal to the Committee set forth in paragraph numbered 1 of the Department’s telegraphic instructions first above referred to and it was unanimously agreed that notification should be made at the same time the invitations to the Conference were issued of the purpose of the American Government very much in the language of the Department’s telegram. Sir John Simon, however, took exception to the phrase “Gentleman’s Agreement” which he said was never used in England and as it appeared to limit “the word of an Englishman”.

I then proposed that the Organizing Committee adopt and publish the resolution as textually set forth in the Department’s telegram giving at some length my Government’s views for suggesting this resolution and my own convictions as to its psychological value at this critical juncture before the assembling of the Conference in the creation of sentiment for stopping international economic warfare. The German Ambassador75 said he did not feel the Organizing Committee were competent to act in this matter and read from the resolution passed by the Council of the League of Nations on July 15, 1932, delimiting the powers of the Committee of Organization. He added that he was without instructions which would enable him to accept the resolution and said he feared that his Government would find it difficult to give an immediate answer. He pointed out that it was only 6 weeks until the opening of the Economic Conference and he doubted whether instructions could be forthcoming from the governments concerned for a fortnight at least. The Italian Ambassador76 stated he fully realized the value of such a resolution, with which he was in sympathy, but he was unable to agree to it without referring to his Government. This same view was expressed by the Japanese Ambassador77 while the Belgian Ambassador78 was inclined to favor approval. The French Ambassador remained silent but told me afterwards that by changing the wording somewhat his Government might consent. Sir John Simon speaking as Chairman then pointed [Page 583] out that there seemed to be no other alternative, if I did not desire to withdraw the proposal, than request the various members of the Committee to ask their governments’ instructions and notify him as soon as these were received, when if the various replies were favorable another meeting of the Organizing Committee would be summoned. I took occasion once again to explain the importance my Government attached to creating a favorable sentiment which would lend itself to the success of the Economic Conference and indicated that if the governments represented on the Organizing Committee were unwilling to go so far as to authorize their representatives to express themselves in favor of a cessation of economic warfare it would not brighten much the outlook for success at the Conference. I pointed out especially the value of this resolution in view of the measures some governments have taken within the last few weeks to increase tariffs. After some discussion the members of the Committee agreed to consult their governments and ask for authority to adopt the proposed resolution and that if and when the Chairman is advised they would all concur he should then call a meeting immediately for its adoption.

For the press communiqué to be published this evening it was agreed that the date June 12th should be reported as fixed and also that the Organizing Committee had agreed to include with the invitation to the Conference a notification that at the opening of the Conference the American delegation intended to propose a tariff truce. It was agreed, however, that the official press communiqué should make no reference to my proposal to the Organizing Committee for the adoption of the resolution in question. In reply to individual press inquiries as to the outcome of an American resolution for immediate tariff truce, I have stated that the Committee itself had no authority to act upon a truce.

I understand the French Government’s objection to the adoption by the Organizing Committee of the proposed resolution is that it is opposed to committing itself even morally not to take measures to counteract the effect of fluctuating currencies and that until currencies are stabilized it is not logical to try to stabilize other restrictions on trade.

Stoppani78a called me up after the meeting to say that some of the members had felt that the adoption of the resolution in the form proposed, particularly adopted by ambassadors representing their countries, would be construed as making a rather binding commitment. He thought that the objective which we have in mind might be equally well attained by somewhat different wording. He then suggested that if the resolution were worded as follows there would be a better chance of getting it adopted: [Page 584]

“The Organizing Committee regards with great sympathy the decision of the United States Government to put forward a proposal for the conclusion of an economic truce and considers that conditions most favorable to the success of the Conference would be created if all governments would in the intervening period before the Conference abstain from any action contrary to the spirit of this proposal”.

If you approve and think it advisable I will be glad to take the matter up on Monday to see what can be done. [Davis.]

Atherton
  1. Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, Chief Economic Adviser to the British Government.
  2. Aimé-Joseph de Fleuriau.
  3. Leopold von Hoesch.
  4. Dino Grandi.
  5. Tsuneo Matsudaira.
  6. Baron de Cartier de Marchienne.
  7. Pietro Stoppani, Chief, Economic Section, League of Nations.