The Minister in Uruguay ( Lay ) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 6.]
Sir: Referring to the Department’s instruction No. 70 of April 18, 1936, I have the honor to report that on June 4th, when calling the attention of the Foreign Minister to the Legation’s unanswered note of April 27, 1936,13 regarding tariff privileges that are granted by treaties to Brazilian pine lumber and to sardines in oil and tuna fish in oil from Spain over the same products from the United States, I took advantage of this appropriate opportunity to informally express to the Minister the observations set forth in the last paragraph of the Department’s instruction first above mentioned.
This conversation with the Minister has evidently had little effect, at least for the present, since the Legation has received the enclosed note dated June 23, 1936 from the Foreign Office stating in effect that, owing to the existence of treaties with Spain and Brazil, Uruguay cannot accord equality of customs treatment to these products from the United States and the note makes no mention whatever of the observations in the Legation’s note of April 27, 1936 regarding the discrimination resulting from its practice of converting that portion of Uruguayan customs duties payable in gold at different rates according to origin and nature of importation. The Foreign Office note in the last paragraph indicates, however, a willingness to consider the question of according equality of treatment to products from the United States when the matter of a trade agreement is discussed with the Government of the United States.
The Uruguayan Government is apparently unwilling to make an announcement that Uruguay intends to pursue a policy of strict equality of customs treatment in accordance with the principles of the resolution adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States as long as it believes that the present bilateral bargaining treaties and private “banking agreements” are essential to maintain Uruguay’s export markets, especially in Europe, and therefore it seems to be opposed, at least for the present, to make an announcement that would nullify these treaties and agreements.
- Presumably note sent to the Foreign Minister in accordance with Departments instructions No. 54, February 12, p. 943, and No. 70, April 18, supra.↩
- Signed at Rio de Janeiro, August 25, 1933; for text see League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. clxxvi, p. 393.↩
- Signed at Montevideo, January 2, 1935; for text see ibid., vol. cxxiv, p. 95.↩