660C.116/204: Telegram (part air)
The Ambassador in Poland (Cudahy) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 15—12:30 p.m.]
16. My despatch No. 1440, January 7th.39 Have just received note from Foreign Office dated February 9th. Translation pertinent portion reads as follows: [Page 547]
“Despite the attitude adopted by the interested organizations in the question of direct importation of cotton no disposition has been taken by the authorities relative to the direct importation and without transshipment of cotton.
It is similarly pointed out that the permits of importation concerning other merchandise coming from the United States are delivered by the authorities just the same in the cases where this merchandise is routed indirectly, that is to say, with transshipment.
As it results from the foregoing, the competent authorities have no intention to violate the stipulations of article 6, paragraph 9 of the Treaty of June 15, 1931.”
Above assertions are contradictory to verbal statements made to Consul Malige by competent officials of Ministry of Industry and Commerce. Consul General informs me that there is no doubt in his mind that direct shipment requirement has been enforced in the past and that he will watch carefully for future infringements.
Commercial Attaché states same verbal statements were made to him and he concurs with Consul General that best present plan is to watch for future violations. He adds that it must now be assumed that direct shipment requirements no longer exist and he asks that Department of Commerce be informed accordingly.
If above assumption proves unjustified and violation of article 6 recurs, Embassy will inform Department and if so instructed make further protest basing it not only on article 6 but on statement of fact in Foreign Office note.
- Not printed, but see the Ambassador’s telegram No. 2, January 7, 1 p.m., supra.↩