851.248/44: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Bullitt)

46. Your No. 124, January 24, 1 p.m., and No. 134, January 25, 2 p.m. The questions raised by Delbos were fully canvassed in a recent conversation between Green and Senator de La Grange. A memorandum of this conversation50 is being transmitted to you in the pouch leaving Washington January 26. From this conversation, it would appear that the French Government with full knowledge of the implications of the Neutrality Act is already negotiating with American [Page 303] manufacturers with a view to making such contracts as those suggested by Delbos in his conversations with you.

The sale for exportation of planes of the very latest models is prohibited in the interests of the National Defense under the provisions of the Espionage Act. Nevertheless, the French could obtain from American manufacturers planes of models almost as recent as those of which the exportation is temporarily prohibited, and some of these models which could be purchased at this time are of the particularly high speed types which, according to de La Grange, the French are particularly anxious to obtain. New types of planes purchased by the Army or the Navy are considered military secrets and hence not available for export for a period of 1 year after the second plane of such types is delivered to this Government. Thereafter they may be sold for export provided that such sales do not interfere with production under contracts with the Army or Navy. The Army and Navy are reluctant to permit sales interfering with deliveries to them, but they have on occasion granted permission for such sales when such action seemed to be in the interest of the National Defense.

You were correct in your statement in regard to the provisions of the Neutrality Act. The French Government should understand that as long as that Act remains on the statute book in its present form, the outbreak of armed conflict among European powers would almost inevitably require the President to issue a proclamation under Section 1. Were such a proclamation issued, any exportation of arms, direct or indirect, to any of the belligerents would be prohibited. Therefore, such indirect shipment through Canada as Delbos suggested would be impossible. Furthermore, the Act not only makes no exception in regard to contracts already entered into, but even provides for the immediate revocation of licenses already issued if shipment has not taken place at the time of the issuance of a proclamation.

You will find the texts of the laws pertinent to these questions in the pamphlet International Traffic in Arms.51 See particularly paragraphs (d), (f), and (g) on page 2, Categories III and V on page 5, Part 5 on page 20 [21] and Section 1 on page 25.

Hull
  1. Memorandum of January 18, 1938, by the Chief of the Office of Arms and Munitions Control, p. 297.
  2. Department of State, International Traffic in Arms… 5th ed. (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1938.)