500.A15A4 General Committee/923: Telegram
The Chairman of the American Delegation to the General Disarmament Conference (Davis) to the Secretary of State
[Received 4:55 p.m.]
842. You will note that the additions to section 9 which I contemplate are considerably more vigorous and far reaching than the original. When I reached Geneva I found that the Delegation had been taking stock of the situation as the result of your telegrams and had reached independently conclusions very similar to those I had reached. They may be stated as follows:
There are three possible methods of treating the problem. First, either by a national regulation of production and a rigid national control of exports. Second, or an international control of production by an international licensing system and an international control of exports by a visa system. Third, or the total abolition of private manufacture and an international control of state manufacture.
It should be noted that in all three systems full and complete publicity applied to public and/or private manufacture through some international agency is essential.
Of the three systems it appears that under present conditions the only ones which will be productive of results will be either the first or third but I fear that the first would not prove really effective in eliminating the evils of private manufacture. I am fully aware of the difficulties involved in the suppression of private manufacture particularly as applicable to the problem of the United States where, under the conception of the National Defence Act of 1920,52 the maintenance in some form of the facilities now existing for private manufacture is vital to our national defence.
[Page 74]I am inclined to think that our acquiescence in the suppression of private manufacture coupled with international control of state production would only be justified if certain conditions precedent are fulfilled: (a), that profit from even state owned organizations shall be eliminated under supervision; (b), that the state shall be the sole owner of any munition plants; (c), that the supply of legitimate arms in reasonable quantities should be secured to non-producing states and, (d), that there should be a real measure of disarmament both in effectives and material. The final point seems to be important because the present discrepancies between our present governmental facilities for production and those of other states is so vast that only a radical reduction of armaments would to some extent bridge the gap.
Since the manufacture of arms either by private or state owned agencies is governed by the law of demand and supply we must in order to lessen the supply lessen the demand.
I hope you will be good enough to take this matter up with the President as soon as convenient and give me the benefit of your thought. I suggest furthermore that you then get in touch with the Chief of Staff53 and Chief of Naval Operations54 so that they will be apprised of your state of mind on the subject. Inasmuch as vital questions of national defence are concerned I think it well to have the Army and Navy in complete understanding.