800.8836/1232
The Chargé in Cuba (Nufer) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 12.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Department’s air mail instruction No. 3174 of May 5, 1944 (File 800.8836/1230 [1231]70), requesting the Embassy to submit a report concerning any recent [Page 1007] developments in the litigation involving the concessions of the American-owned terminal companies in Cuba as well as some indication of the present views of the terminal companies concerning their general position.
As the Embassy reported in its despatch No. 6317 of March 15, 1944 (File 815.6), the Habana Audiencia Court on February 22, 1944, suspended the application of that provision of Decree No. 2 of January 3, 1944, which prohibited the terminal companies from increasing their tariffs in order to offset the 15 per cent wage increase of dock laborers and employees which Decree No. 2 established (please see Embassy’s air mail despatch No. 5653 of January 11, 1944). The Audiencia’s decision was appealed by the prosecuting attorney and, contrary to the expectation of the terminal companies, the Audiencia on March 21 reversed its previous decision in the matter and admitted the appeal. As a result, the terminal companies are not permitted to raise their rates to importers and exporters in order to offset the wage increase in question, unless the Supreme Court, to which the case now goes, should rule in their favor. The companies have, however, raised their charges against vessels loading and discharging at their terminals and, as a result thereof, vessels from the United States, including those owned by or chartered to the War Shipping Administration, have increased their fixed freight surcharge from 1 cent per 100 pounds to 5 cents per 100 pounds. While this arrangement compensates the terminal companies for their increased operating expenses, including those resulting from the wage increase established by Decree No. 2, it does not, of course, solve the basic problem involved, namely, whether the terminal companies still enjoy the rights granted them by the Cuban Government under their respective concessions.
The Embassy has, therefore, lost no opportunity of bringing this matter to the Cuban Government’s attention and of reminding it that no reply has as yet been received to the Embassy’s note No. 153 [143] of February 2371 formally protesting against the several measures enacted by the Cuban Government which tend to violate the concessions of the American-owned terminal companies.
The Embassy will continue to press the Cuban Government for an early definitive and favorable reply and will keep the Department promptly informed of any further developments in the matter.
Respectfully yours,
Counselor of Embassy for Economic Affairs