No. 777

601.6111/5–2451

Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs ( Thorp) to the Under Secretary of State ( Webb)1

confidential

Subject: Soviet protest concerning refusal of longshoremen to load effects of departing Soviet official personnel on the SS America on May 8, 1951.

Background

On May 8, 1951, American longshoremen, members of the International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL, refused to load 17 cases of personal effects of departing Soviet official personnel on the SS America. These effects consisted of radios, television sets and washing machines. The Department has already received three protests from the Soviet Embassy since the incident occurred. The last representation was made by the Soviet Ambassador on the occasion of a call upon Assistant Secretary Perkins. The Soviet Ambassador referred to a statement made by the President last autumn when the longshoremen refused to unload Soviet Embassy cargo from the Polish SS Batory to the effect that longshoremen did not make United States foreign policy.2

The Department has explored this incident with the United States Lines, owner of the SS America, and with the French, Swedish and Cunard Lines as well, in an effort to determine whether [Page 1591] the shipment could in some way be despatched. Each of the companies has expressed unwillingness to attempt any loading for fear that they would run afoul of the union.

At this Department’s request the Labor Department last week discussed this situation with Joe Ryan, President of the International Longshoremen’s Association. Last Tuesday the Labor Department also called Mr. Sampson, head of the International Longshoremen’s Association’s local union involved. Mr. Ryan, while apparently recognizing the impropriety of the local union’s tactics, indicated that the responsibility for taking action on the situation would be Mr. Sampson’s. Mr. Sampson, in turn, indicated that while he too personally recognized the difficulties posed by this incident, he felt that he could not easily overcome what he described to be the spontaneous reaction of his local membership in refusing to load the shipment. It seems quite clear that neither of these two union officials is at present willing to take any steps in the direction of getting this shipment loaded.

A member of my office yesterday discussed this matter informally with Mr. George P. Delaney, International Representative of the AFL in Washington, who reported back later that he had taken the matter up with William Green, President of the AFL. Mr. Green is reported to have deplored the tactics of the longshoremen in this connection. Mr. Delaney also informally suggested that it would be helpful to follow up his conversation with Mr. Green by a telephone call from a high official of this Department. It was Mr. Delaney’s own judgment that a follow up call from this Department might stimulate Mr. Green to attempt to persuade the longshoremen to avoid these tactics. It should be noted, however, that should Mr. Green decide to discuss the problem with the International Longshoremen’s Association’s officials his success with them would by no means be assured.

Recommendation

I suggest that you call Mr. Green to express the Department’s concern over the longshoremen’s refusal to load this material stressing the retaliatory measures the Soviet Government might take against the U.S. Mission in Moscow which is entirely dependent upon imports for its operations. Retaliatory action by Soviet authorities could easily cripple our Mission in Moscow. The possibility of retaliation is probably the most effective argument we could use with the union. You might also mention that the shipment involved does not represent strategic goods and that on the contrary there is some advantage in having the Russians exposed to the knowledge of the wide variety of such consumer goods easily available in this country. I suggest that the basis of the approach [Page 1592] to Mr. Green be that of seeking his advice on whether anything can be done to meet this situation. I suggest too that your call be made to appear quite independent of Mr. Delaney’s conversation with Mr. Green and that reference to that conversation be avoided if possible.3

  1. Drafted by Goott (E/L) and apparently concurred in by Bonbright (EUR) and Davis (EUR/EE).
  2. Documentation on protests made by officers of the Soviet Embassy on May 11 and May 14 is in file 601.6111. At the conclusion of a call on Assistant Secretary Perkins on May 19, Soviet Ambassador Panyushkin took the opportunity to complain of the incident of May 8. Panyushkin was assured of the Department of State’s efforts in the matter, but he was advised that the shipment of the baggage in question could probably more easily be arranged through the facilities of a British, French, or Swedish steamship line because the United States Lines could not guarantee the longshoremen would load the baggage. Perkins’ memorandum of the conversation with Panyushkin concluded as follows:

    “Ambassador Panyushkin reiterated his request that steps be taken to ensure that the baggage be loaded aboard the S.S. America and he referred to the President’s statement of last autumn to the effect that longshoremen did not make American foreign policy. To this I replied that while that was true, the longshoremen were not always aware of it. I said that we would look into the matter further.” (Memorandum of conversation by Perkins, May 19, 761.0111/5–1951)

    President Truman’s remark referred to by Panyushkin was made during the President’s news conference on August 31, 1950. In response to a question the President indicated his opposition to the refusal of longshoremen to unload Soviet and satellite ships, and he asserted that foreign policy was not made by any longshoremen’s union. For text of the President’s response, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, 1950, p. 606.

  3. A handwritten notation on the source text by Francis E. Meloy (S/S) reads as follows: “5/28/51 Mr. Webb telephoned Mr. Green 5/28 along the lines of this memo. Mr. Green said that he would look into the matter and would call back.” A memorandum for files of June 4 by Davis of EUR/EE reports having been informed by Meloy that day that Green had not yet replied to Under Secretary Webb. (601.6111/6–451) See also Under Secretary Webb’s memorandum of conversation, infra.