561.311F1/146: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Chairman of the American Delegation to the Monetary and Economic Conference (Hull)
118. For Morgenthau from Wallace. Your 113. The Australian proposal to substitute export maximum with provision that no stocks would be accumulated would be satisfactory, if other three countries will reduce acreage.
With reference to detailed proposal your No. 82, June 30, paragraph (d) under Australia: Does this proposal mean that if Argentina had a short crop in 1933, Australia would be permitted to export an equivalent amount above her quota for 1933–34, and that Argentina would then add an equivalent quantity to her quota for 1934–35? This appears to be unfair in permitting southern hemisphere countries to export the full amount of their combined quotas for 1933–34 and yet to increase their combined quota for 1934–35. To be fair, it should read: “If either Australia or the Argentine thus surrenders a part of its export quota the quantity so surrendered shall be added to the export quota for the country for 1934–35” and then add “and shall be deducted from the quotas for 1934–35 for the countries which were permitted export in excess of their quotas in 1933–34.”
With this modification, the Australian proposal would seem generally satisfactory.
If Russia should have a big crop this year, what would happen to your estimate of 75 exports for “other countries”?
[Page 812]We feel it might be desirable to add some stipulation as to prices at which exports would be made. If prices are made low enough, perhaps 800 million bushels could be moved in world trade; if they are held too high, not even 700 might be moved. Do you think it possible to work some reference to prices on world markets into the export quota agreements? [Wallace.]