838.51/3740: Telegram
The Minister in Haiti (Mayer) to the Secretary of State
[Received 3:48 p.m.]
137. The Department’s 75, September 12, 7 p.m. Change of Cabinet, absence of President Vincent in the country and especially the reluctance of the Haitian Government to deny the French Government’s demand for “privileged treatment” for certain “specialties” have all tended to slow up the solution of this question. Meanwhile, I have kept pressing the new Minister of Foreign Affairs.64 While declaring unequivocally our interest in the maintenance of most-favored-nation treatment in all its integrity as the basic principle of our trade agreement with Haiti and the whole trade agreement policy I have felt it wise to proceed carefully in the hope that the decision might shortly be in our favor without unduly embarrassing Haitian-French relations and possibly placing us in the position of having to take the blame for any cancellation of the new Franco-Haitian Treaty of Commerce should this eventuate.
In a number of recent informal discussions with the Minister of Foreign Affairs the latter has recognized the legal justness of our position and expressed the desire to give us complete satisfaction. He feels, however, embarrassed vis-à-vis the French after their having already been defeated in the attempt to get the transfer to Paris of the fund for the payment of the 1910 loan. There is also the question of the written assurances regarding the 1910 matter. In this regard I understand the Quai d’Orsay has told Abel Leger that they consider this request as evidencing our desire to bring about the cancellation of [Page 639] the new Franco-Haitian Treaty of Commerce. I am inclined to believe that it would make it easier for the Haitian Government to fall in with our desires concerning the carrying out of the most-favored-nation clause and tend to avoid cancellation of French convention if you could authorize me to inform Laleatz [Laleau] substantially in the manner of the Department’s 78, September 28, 4 p.m. saying that while we continued to desire formal assurances from the Haitian Government with regard to the 1910 question we do not propose to press this matter at the present time, et cetera, et cetera.
I continue to believe it is wise for us to proceed cautiously in all this affair. We have won out thus far in the related 1910 loan affair. While maintaining the basic principle involved it might be desirable to compromise somewhat on certain of the corollary aspects. I say this because I believe it would be against our interests to have to take the blame for the denunciation of the Franco-Haitian treaty if this can be reasonably avoided. From another angle I believe that it would be advantageous for us to have this treaty be in effect for the next year or two since the flow of Haitian trade seems setting strongly toward the United States with especial reference to coffee, that within the fairly near future and except for a few luxury articles, Haitian trade with France will be increasingly inconsequential and the question of the Franco-Haitian Treaty of Commerce relatively academic.
I am told that the Haitian Government is likewise to cite in support of privileged treatment for France in respect to certain specialty imports the fact that we also depart from our basic principles when it is to our advantage; for example, our recent wheat subsidy legislation. I should appreciate an answer I may give to the Haitian Government on this point if raised as well as the Department’s general cabled instructions concerning the whole matter described above.
- Leon Laleau.↩