Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1933, The American Republics, Volume IV

611.3556/110

The Acting Secretary of State to the Attorney General (Cummings)

Washington, July 27, 1933.

My Dear Mr. Attorney General: I have received your letter of July 17,⁴⁹ with reference to the inquiry addressed to you by the Secretary of Agriculture requesting your opinion as to the proper interpretation of Section 306–A of the Tariff Act of 1930 concerning the importation of meats and livestock from countries infected with rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease. You ask me to supply you with any suggestions which may have a bearing upon the question submitted to you.

For several years Doctor Malbran and his successor, Doctor Espil, the Argentine Ambassadors in Washington, have presented to this Department their Government’s view that mutton originating in Patagonia, the most southern portion of Argentina, could be imported into the United States under the provisions of the foregoing section of the Tariff Act, basing their arguments on the statement that Patagonia is, geographically considered, isolated from the remainder of Argentina owing to the extreme scarcity of means of communication. They have also stated that investigations made by the veterinarians of the Argentine Ministry of Agriculture have failed to reveal the existence of foot-and-mouth disease among the herds of sheep.

This statement concerning the isolation of Patagonia would appear in the light of the information at my disposal to be entirely correct. It is also the opinion of this Department that the word “country” need not necessarily mean an entire state in the political sense of that word. England and Scotland, for instance, are usually referred to as separate countries, although they form part of the same state.

I should like in this connection to call your attention to the Convention of January 16, 1930 [sic], between the United States and Mexico⁵⁰ for the safeguarding of livestock interests through the prevention of infectious and contagious diseases. Articles 8 and 9 of this convention read as follows:

• “Article VIII. The livestock sanitary officials shall define the specific territory in their respective countries in which any contagious or infectious disease exists and shall indicate zones which may be considered as exposed, in order to prevent the propagation and dissemination of the infection of such disease.
• “Article IX. The High Contracting Parties shall not issue permits for domestic ruminants or swine originating in any foreign countries or zones where highly infectious and rapidly spreading diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest appear frequently, until at least sixty days have elapsed without any outbreak of the disease in such countries or zones. When a disease of this kind occurs in any part of a foreign country any other part of the same country shall be considered as exposed until the contrary is positively shown, that is, until it is shown that no communication exists between the two parts by which the disease may be readily transmitted. When such a disease occurs near the land border of a foreign country the neighboring part of the adjacent country shall be considered as exposed until the contrary is positively shown.”

The text of these articles indicates that this convention provides definitely for the dividing of a country, in the political meaning of that word, into zones for the purpose of protection against animal diseases. It would thus appear that Patagonia could properly be described as a zone of Argentina.

In view of the foregoing, this Department is glad to concur with the views expressed by the Department of Agriculture and hopes that you may find it possible to give prompt consideration to this important matter owing to the contemplated negotiations for the conclusion of a trade agreement between Argentina and the United States.

As of possible interest, I am enclosing a copy of my letter on this subject to the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.⁵¹

Sincerely yours,

William Phillips

49. Not printed.
50. Convention of March 16, 1928 (proclaimed January 18, 1930), Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. iii, p. 317.
51. Letter of July 27, 1933, not printed.