800.51W89 France/1014
The Ambassador in France (Straus) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 5.]
Sir: With reference to my despatch No. 1379 of November 22, 1934, reporting a conversation I had with M. Pierre-Etienne Flandin, President of the French Council of Ministers, on November 21st, when he called on me without a previous appointment, I have the honor to inform the Department that at noon on November 23rd [22nd?] I in turn called on him by appointment.
M. Flandin referred to the question of debts which I had discussed with him the day before. I showed him a cabled despatch from Washington to the Paris edition of the Chicago Tribune, November 13th, reading as follows:
“Secretary of State Cordell Hull stated today that the attitude of the United States on the debt question remained unchanged. As in the past, the American Government soon will notify the debtor Governments of the payments due to America on December 15th.”
I showed him this as evidence that the debts were not forgotten in the United States. He told me that it would be inadvisable to open up the question of debts at this time just before the Saar plebiscite: that the French people are now preoccupied with the plebiscite and are in no frame of mind to consider repayment of debts against which there is a strong feeling. He explained that the prevailing sentiment throughout France is to the effect that debts and reparations are tied together; that the French are receiving no reparations and therefore can pay nothing on the debt. I told him that, in my opinion, reparations and debts had no connection whatsoever, though I believed that there had been some misunderstanding of what had happened at Lausanne in 1932. With this he appeared to agree. He stated that after the Saar plebiscite he would, as soon as he could, consult with his Ministers: that he was interested in the suggestion that I had informally made in our previous talk with a view to a solution of this problem and of which a memorandum had been left by Mr. Marriner with M. Rochat, M. Laval’s Chef de Cabinet. I left with M. Flandin a copy of this suggestion. He stated that he hoped to have an opportunity of discussing the possibility with me again in the future. He said, however, that he thought it would be impossible to send any different reply to the note from the United States regarding the December 15th payment52 than had been sent regarding the June 15th and previous payments. I asked him whether it might not be possible to [Page 584] add to that reply a suggestion that at some subsequent date there might perhaps be given consideration to debt payments. He replied that he thought no such intimation should appear in the reply but that there might be sent—and he would think it over—a separate communication giving intimation along the lines that I suggested. I told him that in the interest of more harmonious relations between our two countries it was most important to have the debt question settled. I stated that, in my opinion, as long as there was a feeling in the United States that France had repudiated her obligations, no French bonds could be floated in the United States; that France might at some time in the future have need for credit from the United States and that in her own interest, having regard for her future needs, she should not permit the opinion to prevail and be constantly repeated that she had repudiated. M. Flandin asked me whether I thought that Great Britain had any idea of changing her attitude in respect of debt payments to the United States. I told him that I had no knowledge on the subject.
M. Flandin then took up the question of the double taxation treaty about which I had, in our previous conversation, spoken to him. He had before him a memorandum, which memorandum stated that between 1930 and 1932, during the negotiation of the double tax treaty, there had been eliminated clause 10,55 which had been in the original draft and which the French felt would have given an equivalent to the French for the exemption granted to Americans doing business in France. I told him that I was not conversant with clause 10, but would have it looked up. He asked whether it might not be reinserted, which would give a better opportunity for ratification of the treaty, and I told him that I would give that thought and might perhaps consult about it with Washington.
Respectfully yours,
- Department of State, Press Releases, December 15, 1934, p. 361.↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. iii, pp. 6 ff.; ibid., 1932, vol. ii, pp. 262 ff. For final action by France on this treaty, see ibid., 1934, vol. ii, pp. 167 ff.↩