711.00111 Armament Control/1582
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (Wilson)15
The Spanish Ambassador called this morning at my request. I referred to the communication which he had sent in respect to the arms embargo against Spain.16 I told him that he had made a legal argument, that we had been examining the problem and that we found that there was a legal argument in reply; we did not for a minute admit that his argument was valid; nevertheless, the thought had arisen in my mind that for us to discuss a legal point might be of an academic nature; the law in respect to Spain had gone through Congress with unusual rapidity, which was evidence of the unanimity of the desire of the American people to keep this country from any participation by arms shipment in the struggle which was going on; my country felt strongly that the prevention of the shipment of arms in case of hostilities was a means of preserving this country from entanglement in difficulties abroad; whatever might be developed by legal discussion would be unimportant compared with the determination of the American public, as shown by the rapid passage of the Act; would it not, therefore, be unfortunate to enter upon a legal debate which might exacerbate the feeling and serve no useful purpose.
The Ambassador replied that he had not brought up our treaty for more than a year during the hostilities for the reason that he had been convinced that public opinion was set so strong that to enter upon argument was futile; now, however, there were signs of a change—there [Page 464] were the Secretary’s speeches, there was the President’s speech at Chicago, which gave rise at least to the hope that the United States public was ready to distinguish, in some small degree, between the aggressor and the assaulted; the very fact that the Neutrality Act had not been applied in the Far Eastern conflict seemed to show that the current was setting in the other sense. I replied that however he might analyze the speeches, which to me had seemed to serve the purpose of pointing out to the American people the fact that complete isolation did not guarantee safety, nevertheless, I felt that the American public was still convinced that shipments of arms to a warring faction in Europe brought about dangers which it would be safer not to risk.
The Ambassador replied that he did not give a cent for the legal argument himself, but that there was a political element in his note, that he felt he had to focus attention on Spain’s situation and keep alive the hope, however futile, that there would be a change in policy. He then asked me point blank to be honest with him and tell him whether I thought there was any hope of Congress reversing its attitude. I replied that it would not be a friendly act on my part to reply in anything but the most complete frankness, that there was not the faintest hope of such action; that, generally speaking, the country was satisfied with the attitude Congress had taken in respect to the Spanish affair.
The Ambassador said that, in this event, he was going to speak to me in absolute frankness. For the last three or four months during the night the frontiers of France had been open to passage for supplies for the Spanish Government, transit through France had been made exceptionally easy; if there were no possibility of the amendment of the law, was there not a possibility of its application in terms less rigid than in the past? He cited the case of airplanes to Mexico,17 the haste with which the embargo had been slapped on and a recent case of a pair of armored cars on which shipment had been refused even though they were destined only for the protection of the Chief of State.18 I replied that I was not aware of the details of the administration, but that I would look up the matter of the armored cars for him and satisfy myself on the point of whether the refusal was mandatory. I said that I would talk to my colleagues about the matter of the application, but that I could hold out no hope that the law was not being administered in the strictest terms and that there was any possibility of deviation from those terms.
As to our note itself, with your permission, I should like to discuss the matter a little further before making a final recommendation.