635.6231/10
The Ambassador in Argentina (Bliss) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 13.]
Sir: With reference to my previous reports regarding the representations made in an endeavor to obtain the extension to American products of the reductions conceded by Argentina in the commercial modus vivendi with Chile, I have the honor to forward herewith, for the very confidential information of the Department, a copy of an instruction sent in 1892 to the German Minister in Buenos Aires by his Government and other communications70 relative to the interpretation by the Governments of Germany and Argentina of the most-favored-nation clause as applied to Article 4 of the Treaty of 1857 between those two countries. The Department will note from these communications that the Argentine Government at that time appeared [Page 709] to be of the opinion that the Treaty of 1857 provided for unconditional most-favored-nation treatment as regards customs tariffs (Article 4).
In this respect, I beg to call the Department’s attention to the statement in the penultimate line on page 5 of the copy of the note addressed me by the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs71 (transmitted in my despatch No. 1947 of January 27) in which he asserts that Article 4 of our Treaty with Argentina of 1853 is unconditional, although in so asserting he adds that Article 3 is conditional and, being considered the “covering clause” of the following article, limits the application of Article 4 as though it were in phraseology conditional.
I have learned from the German Chargé d’Affaires that the Minister for Foreign Affairs informed him that he expected, during the conversations with Dr. Cruchaga Tocornal at Mendoza on the modus vivendi, to eliminate from a new commercial agreement he hoped to effect all products included in the existing modus vivendi exported to Argentina by foreign countries. As reported in my said No. 1947, this same idea was given to me by Dr. Saavedra Lamas. The German Chargé d’Affaires outlined also a suggestion made to him by the Minister for Foreign Affairs as a possible way of satisfying Germany’s claim for equal treatment with Chile, that the Minister would propose to Chile that all products in which Germany has an interest in exporting be eliminated from the new commercial agreement with Chile. The Chargé d’Affaires rejected this proposal on the grounds that it would not settle the principle involved in Germany’s claim and that he was of the opinion his Government would only consider a proposal involving the inclusion in a trade agreement between Argentina and Chile of products peculiar to the latter country.
The Chargé d’Affaires further said that in a recent interview with the Minister, he had shown him correspondence which demonstrated that in 1892 the Argentine Government had shared the point of view of the German Government regarding the unconditional character of Article 4 of the Treaty of 1857; that the Minister appeared momentarily embarrassed but had said he would examine the papers presented by the Chargé d’Affaires and give him a definite answer whether or not the Argentine Government considered Article 4 as conferring unconditional most-favored-nation treatment. Since the German Legation had not requested a decision of this nature and since a categorical answer in the sense promised by the Minister might embarrass the Minister, the Chargé d’Affaires was prepared, he said, for the evasive declaration made him by the Minister in a subsequent interview.
I beg further to report that I showed to the Chargé d’Affaires Dr. Saavedra Lamas’ note to me of January 23 and he has requested a copy [Page 710] of it for the confidential information of his Government. Although I see no objection to giving him confidentially a copy of this note, I request the Department’s authorization by telegraph to do so.72 It seems to me this would be advisable as an earnest of good will in exchanging information regarding our respective representations on a similar subject.
There is also enclosed herewith (in copy and translation) an editorial from La Nacion of January 21,73 which was omitted from my last despatch. Its comments on the treaty with Germany are not unlike some of those in Dr. Saavedra Lamas’ note to me of January 23 when contending that Articles 3 and 4 of the Treaty with Germany of 1857 are exactly the same as Articles 3 and 4 of our Treaty of 1853.
The same newspaper on January 5 commented on Argentina’s commercial policy in relation to the Chilean modus vivendi and claimed that Great Britain, France, Italy and Persia are the only countries whose treaties with Argentina embody the absolute most-favored-nation clause. It considers that there are very few articles of merchandise which that clause does not affect. The editorial refers to “monopolies” like coffee and yerba mate from Brazil, salt petre from Chile and, to a certain extent, cocoa from Bolivia and expresses the opinion that the supposed advantages which Chile was to have obtained from the modus vivendi have been lost because they were extended to other countries beyond the Atlantic with whom Chile is unable to compete.
Respectfully yours,