103.9164: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)
8155. SD 4068. To Reed for Chubb from Land by Morse. ReEmbs 8248, October 2. We have consulted Lawes who just returned from Ottawa where subject matter was discussed with MacCallum. Lawes states that Canadian delegation was not instructed to take position that coastwise and short sea vessels do not come within UMEB machinery. Their position as stated in instructions to Canadian delegation is that they consider there is distinction between coastwise and short sea trades. They take exception to paragraph 1 of the resolution (a copy of which we have not seen) submitted to the coasting and short sea trades sub-committee for approval. The Canadian position is that while all seagoing merchant vessels are subject to the agreement and therefore subject to the general supervision of UMEB, vessels engaged in domestic coasting trade are exempt from the provisions of clause 1b of the agreement and that their allocation and employment while in such trade are subject to the national authority only. Canada does not mean by this that vessels in short sea or coastal trades are not subject to withdrawal for the overall purposes of the agreement. We agree with this position and your attention is drawn to conference minutes CSC M3 July 20.3 Both Canada and we are in general accord with Planning Committee paper number 4.4 Lawes has seen above statement accredited to him and approves and further adds that MacCallum does also. Possibly this difficulty arises out of the use of the word “jurisdiction” in the first paragraph of the proposed resolution. Canada is cabling its delegation. [Land.]