The Ambassador in Peru (Dearing) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 11.]
Sir: Referring to the Embassy’s despatch No. 4615 of June 25, 1936, reporting the communication to Dr. Bellido, Chief of the Diplomatic Service, of the contents of the Department’s telegram No. 28 of June 19 , 1936, concerning the impending commercial agreement between Peru and Great Britain, I have the honor to report that Mr. Bellido informed Mr. Dreyfus last evening that he had brought the message in question to the attention of the Foreign Minister who desired to point out:
- When the Peruvian Government was initiating its conversations with the British Government regarding the commercial agreement, it had been communicated to Ambassador Dearing that the agreement would undoubtedly not be favorable to American commercial interests (See Embassy’s telegram No. 6 of January 18, 9 a.m.36);
- On the same occasion, the Foreign Minister expressed to the Ambassador the desire of the Peruvian Government that some concession be made to permit the importation into the United States of a larger quota of Peruvian sugar, but that apparently nothing had been done along these lines;
- The Jones-Costigan Law37 is considered to be discriminatory against Peru, inasmuch as it favors the importation of Cuban sugar.38 This law is interpreted to be out of harmony with the principle of equality of treatment;
- The Anglo-Peruvian Commercial Agreement is similar to the many other commercial agreements recently made such as the Argentine-British Commercial Treaty.
The Embassy understands that certain points in the Anglo-Peruvian Commercial Agreement are still under discussion and the timely communication to the Foreign Minister of the Department’s views on exclusive preference and discrimination will give that official an opportunity to introduce any changes that he feels should be made in [Page 915] the final draft of the commercial treaty to bring it into harmony with the American viewpoint.
Counselor of Embassy