611.3331/201
The Minister in Uruguay (Dawson) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 8.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to my telegram No. 55 of today33 stating that the Minister of Finance, Dr. Charlone,34 had told me last evening that press reports concerning a recent discussion in the Cabinet of trade relations with the United States may have conveyed a wrong impression and that, while it has not been found possible to accept our Government’s recent proposal, this does not mean that conversations looking to an eventual trade agreement will not be continued. Dr. Charlone assured me of his Government’s interest in further negotiations and its desire of reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement and he expressed his regret that misleading reports had appeared.
Our brief conversation took place at a reception at the Peruvian Legation and at the time the only press report with which I could connect Dr. Charlone’s remarks was a statement published in yesterday morning’s press summarizing a recent Cabinet meeting and containing the following paragraph:
The Minister of Foreign Relations made known the terms in which the project of a commercial agreement had been submitted by the United States to our Government and with respect to which, from the technical studies made, the Ministry has had to decide to recommend that it not be approved for the moment.
Today’s press contains a cable despatch from Washington to the effect that at his press conference Secretary Hull had been questioned touching a report that the Uruguayan Foreign Office had recommended the “rejection of trade-agreement negotiations.” The Secretary is quoted as having replied that the situation was not very clear and that it was not known officially whether the reported decision of the Uruguayan Minister of Foreign Relations referred to the recent proposal or was more general in character. The despatch added that State Department officials believed that the decision concerned only the proposal and “will not be an obstacle to negotiations for the conclusion of a trade agreement.”
[Page 916]This Washington despatch would seem to indicate that misleading reports have been published in the American press and it may well be that Dr. Charlone, who has many friends in the United States, had cable advices to this effect before he spoke with me yesterday. The local press has been rechecked carefully and the only version found is that quoted above.
Conversations with President and Minister of Foreign Relations.
Later yesterday evening, I had an opportunity for brief conversations with President Baldomir35 and the Minister of Foreign Relations, Dr. Guani,36 at a dinner at the French Legation.
In his talk with me, the President brought up himself the question of our trade relations and remarked that “we are displeased (disgustados)” with the failure of the United States to purchase Uruguayan goods and provide exchange for American imports. (From his tone and his further remarks, I do not believe that the President used intentionally as strong a word as “disgustado” or that he meant to convey anything more than disappointment or concern.) In reply, I pointed out to the President that, unlike certain European Governments, our Government is not in a position to dictate to importers as to where they shall buy and cannot enter into commitments for the purchase of given quantities of Uruguayan or other products. I said that in the past the United States had been an excellent customer for wool and other commodities, to which the President replied that unfortunately it was not a steady customer. I told him that a fundamental difficulty seemed to be the difference between our commercial policy, based on the freedom of trade and the principles proclaimed at Montevideo, and the Uruguayan policy of bilateral trade. Although quite brief, our conversation afforded me an opportunity to tell the President that we feel that our policy is the one best calculated to restore international trade, whereas the bilateral system is restrictive, born of the depression, and more likely to prolong the ill effects of the depression as far as international commerce is concerned. As I had expected, the President said that Uruguay had been forced to adopt the bilateral system. He listened to my remarks very attentively and, while I cannot say what impression they may have made upon him, I believe that they were timely since he has probably not had much opportunity to consider commercial policy and trade relations.
During our conversation, the Minister of Foreign Relations joined us for a moment and said that he hoped to talk with me concerning the whole subject before my departure on leave. I reverted to his statement later in the evening and said that I would be delighted to discuss trade relations with him at any time. He first suggested a [Page 917] day early next week but remarked later that he expected to explain our recent proposal in greater detail to the Cabinet on August 3 and that it might be better if he saw me after the meeting. Dr. Guani has been in office only a few weeks and he has perhaps not been able to devote very much time to commercial matters. It seemed to me distinctly desirable that, if practicable, I have an opportunity to discuss the situation and to acquaint him with our position before the next Cabinet meeting. I suggested this to him and, while he gave me no definite appointment, I hope very much that he will receive me early in the coming week.
Respectfully yours,