611.1631/153

The Acting Secretary of State to the Chargé in El Salvador (Fisher)

No. 258

Sir: In amplification of the Department’s telegram No. 29 of November 7, 1936, (1 p.m.), outlining the reply of this Government to the proposals presented by the Salvadoran Government looking toward the conclusion of a trade agreement, you are now advised as follows:

The Department regrets that it will not be possible to bind henequen on the free list for El Salvador as originally planned. This is due to the fact that Mexico is overwhelmingly the chief supplier of henequen to this market. El Salvador shipped only 20 tons to the United States during the three years from 1933 to 1935, inclusive. It had earlier been considered possible to extend to El Salvador the binding on the basis of the commitment to Haiti on sisal, but the difference between the two products appears sufficient to warrant distinguishing between them and reserving each for the principal supplier. It is trusted that the Salvadoran Government will understand the circumstances affecting this withdrawal.

Your attention is called to that part of the Department’s instruction No. 91 of March 27, 1935, stating that it will be possible to offer to El Salvador assurance that sugar imported into the United States from El Salvador on which a drawback of duty is allowed will not be charged against El Salvador’s sugar quota so long as the quota provisions of the Act of May 9, 1934,15 are operative. In the event that this matter has not already been taken up with the Salvadoran Government, it is suggested that you do so without further delay in connection with the other concessions which this Government is prepared to make.

On the basis of information now at hand, the Department does not see how any further concessions can be granted El Salvador. There is enclosed a report16 prepared in the Tariff Commission giving United States import statistics and certain other information on the products [Page 568] listed by El Salvador as those on which she was desirous of obtaining concessions. This should be helpful in explaining why no further concessions seem possible.

I am also enclosing a copy of recommendations approved on April 1, 1935,17 with respect to the Salvadoran consular invoice fee, which you are requested to take up with the Salvadoran Government in connection with the general provisions, unless you perceive objection to doing so. It is hoped that you will shortly be able to report definitely as to the status of the general provisions. The Department will supply definitive texts of the entire agreement in English, with suggested Spanish translation, to be used in preparing the engrossed copies of the agreement as soon as it is possible to do so.

In conclusion, I wish to express the hope that it may be possible for you to reach an agreement with the Salvadoran Government promptly enough on all of the remaining pending questions to permit signature of the agreement within the very near future. I believe, as stated in the Department’s telegram referred to above, that it would be particularly appropriate if signature could take place while the Peace Conference in Buenos Aires is in session and I should appreciate the cooperation of the Salvadoran Government to this end.

Very truly yours,

For the Acting Secretary of State:
Francis B. Sayre
  1. Jones-Costigan Act, 48 Stat. 670.
  2. Not attached to file copy.
  3. Not attached to file copy.