625.3531/14
The Ambassador in Argentina (Bliss) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 12.]
Sir: Confirming my telegram No. 104 sent in answer to the Department’s telegraphic inquiry No. 77 of November 30, 12 noon, I have the honor to report that the Censor Administrative, a semi-official publication devoted to matters pertaining to the customs and customhouse, published in its edition of November 21 a communication from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Finance, giving the text of the modus vivendi with Chile. The communication closes with the following paragraph:
“I also have the honor to inform the Minister of Finance that in accordance with existing treaties these same concessions should be conceded (deben reconocerse) in favor of merchandise in the said list when it is the production or manufacture of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of Italy and of France.”
I ascertained from the British Ambassador and from the Italian Chargé d’Affaires that the provisions of the modus vivendi having thus been automatically conceded to importations from the countries named in the above quotation, neither one of them had made representations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the premises. The latter told me that he had on various occasions in which commercial relations between Italy and Argentina had been discussed between him and officials of the Foreign Office always maintained that as long as the present treaty between the two countries was in existence, he would have to insist on the application of the unrestricted most-favored-nation clause which it contains. The French Ambassador, [Page 691] who may not have been aware of the Minister for Foreign Affairs’ action, has told me that he called on Doctor Saavedra Lamas to demand the application, as regards the modus vivendi with Chile, of the most-favored-nation clause contained in their treaty; that he was asked to put his request in writing and that he had received an answer to his note, after a lapse of four or five days, stating that his request had been granted.
Practically all of the diplomatic representatives of the more important European countries here represented have requested of the Foreign Office that the importations into Argentina from their respective countries receive the advantages granted to the products mentioned in the modus vivendi. Some of them have conditional most-favored-nation clauses in their treaties and others have none.
Article 3 and Article 4 of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 1857 between Germany and Argentina43 are identic in phraseology (in the Spanish text) to the same two articles in our treaty of 1853.
So far as I have been able to ascertain none of my colleagues (except the French Ambassador) has so far obtained satisfaction in the representations he has made.
I shall await with interest the Department’s instructions (requested in my said telegram No. 104) as to whether it desires me to sustain the point of view that the United States Government considers Article 4 as unconditional most-favored-nation clause in so far as applied to customs duties. It seems to me, as reported in my despatch No. 1877 of November 25, that the intent of the two Governments at the time of negotiating the treaty of 1853 was to provide for just such a contingency as that which has arisen in the agreement recently signed between Argentina and Chile. The present situation is aggravated by the fact that the provisions of this treaty have been conceded to other foreign nations, whose products can be sold in this market at a lower price—thus eliminating fair competition—than similar products from the United States.
As an illustration, it may be recited that 150 to 200 tons of Chilean dried prunes have been sold in this market since the modus vivendi became effective at a price of $1.20 U. S. gold per case of twenty-five pounds. These dried prunes are being sent to Buenos Aires from Chile through the Straits of Magellan and are expected to arrive in about one month. The best price that the American prunes can be offered on this market is $1.30 per case. The normal Argentine tariff on dried prunes is four pesos per case so that the Chilean prunes would only pay a duty of two pesos per case, making the price on the wholesale market approximately $2.30 and $1.70, respectively. I am informed [Page 692] that the Chilean prunes are packed according to American methods imitating as nearly as possible the Californian product though their quality is inferior. I am also told that offers have been made on the market of dried prunes from France, though I am unable to give any details in regard thereto.
I cannot believe that the two Governments at the time the treaty of 1853 was negotiated, had any expectation or intention that the products of either country would be placed at a disadvantage under conditions such as those presented today, or that either Government would refuse to apply the provisions of Article 4 were they invoked to obtain similar treatment to that granted other countries.
I am very desirous of maintaining this thesis in discussing the subject with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, believing it to be the only just and equitable one, but shall await the Department’s telegraphic instruction before seeking another interview on the subject with the Minister.
As of particular interest in this matter, I beg to enclose herewith, in copy and translation, an editorial44 from La Prensa in which that organ of the press recommends closer commercial relations between Argentina and the United States and the advisability of the countries of America seeking a commercial union to offset the tendency in Europe to shut out products from the American Republics.
Respectfully yours,