103.9169: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)
6274. From Cox and Cramer FEA for Blaisdell and Griffin. Our 5954 July 19. US press and public reaction to fact that Suez Canal tolls are not being furnished under reverse lend-lease has been strongly adverse. Cox had previously indicated to Brand political disadvantages of such decision. Please do not consider incident closed and continue to press Treasury forcibly that favorable reconsideration will substantially help joint interests of our two countries.37 [Cox and Cramer.]
- The question of inclusion of Suez Canal tolls as reverse lend-lease was pursued by the U.S. Government through the joint negotiations leading to a general lend-lease settlement in 1945–1946. On December 1, 1945, in its report to the U.S.–U.K. Lend-Lease Committee, the Combined Sub-Committee on Claims listed the U.S. claim for 13 million dollars due on Suez Canal tolls paid by U.S. vessels as having been rejected by the U.K. side but reserved by the U.S. side for consideration by the Lend-Lease Committee (611.4131/5–146). In the Mutual Aid Settlement of March 27, 1946, dealing with agreement on settlement of Intergovernmental Claims, the U.S. claim for 13 million dollars and certain U.K. claims on which agreement could not be reached were mutually waived; for text, see Department of State Treaties and other International Acts Series No. 1509, pp. 14–15.↩