The Belgian Ambassador being absent in New York, I sent this morning
for Prince de Ligne, the Counselor of the Embassy, and read to him
the substance of the accompanying oral statement. I then handed him
the statement, making it clear that this was an oral representation
and not a memorandum. In addition to the expressions contained in
the statement I reminded Prince de Ligne that the Treasury was not
only greatly exercised by the present situation, but that it had
been brought to the attention of the President, who was also greatly
exercised.
I said that, in my opinion as an old friend of Belgium, it would be
highly disastrous to have this whole unfortunate matter aired in the
press and I hoped, therefore, that the Belgian Government could see
its way to taking immediate action along the lines suggested.
It seems to me that we should inform the Treasury Department that I
made the above representations to the Belgian Chargé.
[Annex]
Oral Statement by the Under Secretary of
State (Phillips) to the
Counselor of the Belgian Embassy (De Ligne)15
[Washington,] May 22,
1936.
You no doubt recall the Ambassador’s conversation of January 25th
with the Secretary of State regarding the matter of the use of
Belgian territory and facilities in connection with the
smuggling of alcohol into the United States. Since that time
another vessel has left Antwerp with a large cargo of alcohol
intended for smuggling into this country. The British Steamship
Hillfern sailed from Antwerp on March
26 with 700,000 liters, approximately 185,000 gallons, of
alcohol in tanks. The vessel’s ostensible destination was
Montevideo, Uruguay, but the facts and circumstances surrounding
the shipment pointed to another smuggling venture.
On Saturday night, April 25th, the American vessel Charles D. Leffler was seized at Bayway,
New Jersey, near Staten Island, New York, with a cargo of
between 50,000 and 100,000 gallons of alcohol in tanks. The
alcohol is said to have been obtained from a foreign steamer
about 150 miles offshore, which was undoubtedly the Hillfern.
As you are of course aware, the Hillfern
has returned to Antwerp with the remainder of her cargo, the
final disposition of which remains,
[Page 416]
as far as I know, undecided. I need hardly
tell you that in the light of the incontrovertible evidence that
the cargo of the Hillfern was destined
for smuggling into this country, this Government will continue
to feel the greatest concern until the danger is definitely
averted. Aside from other factors in the present case, it will
have come to the attention of your Government that the Hillfern returned to Antwerp without
having called at Montevideo, Uruguay, her declared destination.
This, taken in conjunction with the fact that she returned with
only part of her cargo, immediately raises in my mind the
question of why the vessel has not been proceeded against for
giving a false destination in her clearance papers.
In this connection, it has just now come to my attention that the
Maritime Commissioner of the Port of Antwerp caused the Hillfern to be seized and ordered a
formal inquiry. My information is that by means of telegraphic
instructions to the Commissioner, the Minister of Marine has
ordered the release of the ship and the abandonment of the
inquiry.
Apart from the case of the Hillfern, the
American Consul General at Antwerp has been confidentially
informed that another shipment of 1,250,000 liters of alcohol,
presumably to be carried by the Hillfern
or by a vessel of similar type, has already been assembled.
With reference to the broad question of the use of Belgian
territory as a base for smuggling activities directed against
the United States, I am compelled to say that I am deeply
disappointed with the aide-mémoire which
you left with me May 20th. I was, of course, already aware that
legislation requiring the production of landing certificates
does not now exist in Belgium, and the whole purpose of this
Government’s representations has been to obtain the passage of
such legislation or such other effective control of shipments of
alcohol as your Government might suggest The intentions of the
Belgian Government with regard to the masters of Belgian ships
are appreciated, but they do not, I think you will agree, touch
the real roots of the problem.
This Government has been careful to withhold from the press all
information with regard to the Hillfern
or the general question at issue. However, “leaks” have
occurred, for which this Government is not responsible, and it
is probably only a question of time before the State Department
will be compelled to make known its position. You will picture,
as readily as I can, the very unfortunate effect on public
opinion in this country when the facts are known, and I do not
consider it too strong to say that the very favorable reaction
here to the trade agreement concluded between our two
governments will be much affected. It is for this reason, among
others, that I wish to impress upon you the seriousness with
which the present situation is regarded by this Government. It
is my earnest hope that the Belgian Government
[Page 417]
can be prevailed upon to view the
situation in the same light and that it will take prompt and
effective action, not only in respect to the Hillfern case, but in respect to the wider problem, in
order that the experience of the Hillfern
will not be repeated.
