711.632/31
The Minister in Austria (Washburn) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 14.]
Sir: With respect to the concluding paragraph of my telegram No. 56 of September 26, 11 a.m., wherein it was stated that the legal opinion was awaited as to the kind of identification documents for commercial travelers permissible under Austrian law, I have the honor to report the following:
It develops that practically all of the commercial treaties regulating this particular matter which Austria has entered into, prescribe that certificates for commercial travelers shall be issued by the Chambers of Commerce of the country of departure. In Austria the law requires that certificates of Austrian commercial travelers shall be issued by the Police Direction in Vienna and by the Political [Page 988] Authority of the First Instance in other places. The United States proposes;
“If either High Contracting Party require the presentation of an authentic document establishing the identity and authority of a commercial traveler, a signed statement by the concern or concerns represented, certified by a consular officer of the country of destination shall be accepted as satisfactory.”
If this language were adopted, Austria fears that under the operation of the favored nation principle she would have to accept signed statements by employing concerns generally, and whilst there appears to be no objection to this as far as the United States is concerned, there would be objection to accepting such certificates from the commercial travelers of certain other countries that could be mentioned. The Foreign Office therefore suggests in lieu of the language proposed by the United States, the following:
“If either High Contracting Party require the presentation of an authentic document establishing the identity and authority of a commercial traveler, such document to be issued by the authority to be designated in each country for the purpose shall be accepted as satisfactory.”
This phraseology, it will be observed, embodies language found in the second paragraph of the new proposed Article XI, as found on page 2 of Department’s Instruction No. 605 of June 30 last, and in paragraph (b) of Article XI as originally proposed by the Department. It is the thought of the Foreign Office that inasmuch as the language in said sub-paragraph (b), to wit: “… this certificate which shall be issued by the authority to be designated in each country for the purpose … was proposed by the United States, there can be no objection to it and no difficulty in its application. It is assumed by the Austrian Government that the United States would designate Chambers of Commerce or some administrative body conforming with the European practice. The Austrian Government has no particular objection to having the certificate mentioned in subparagraph (b) viséed by the consul of the country in which the applicant proposes to operate, as is there provided, but prefers to eliminate such a requirement on the ground that it would multiply the fees. In this connection I direct attention to Article 13 of the Commercial and Nautical Treaty between Austria and Great Britain concluded on May 22, 1924, with which the Department is no doubt familiar, and which is said to be more or less typical of provisions of this character:
“The stipulations of the present Treaty with regard to the mutual accord of the treatment of the most favored nation apply unconditionally [Page 989] to the treatment of commercial travelers and their samples. The certificates for commercial travelers shall be issued in the territories of His Britannic Majesty by the Chambers of Commerce or such Trade Associations and other recognized Commercial Associations as may be authorized in this behalf. In Austria these certificates shall be issued by the Police Direction in Vienna, and by the Political Authority of first instance in other places.
Articles imported by commercial travelers as samples shall, in the territories of each of the Contracting Parties, be temporarily admitted free of duty on compliance with the Customs regulations and formalities established to assure their re-exportation or the payment of the prescribed Customs duties if not re-exported within the period allowed by law. But the foregoing privilege shall not extend to articles which, owing to their quantity or value, cannot be considered as samples, or which, owing to their nature, could not be identified upon re-exportation.”
As to Article VII, there was a conference in relation to it yesterday afternoon between officials of the Foreign Office, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Commerce. I am led to believe this morning that the opinion was unanimous that it would be difficult to ascertain the “normal volume of trade” referred to in my above mentioned telegram No. 56, and that these words just quoted would, if adopted, lead to unending difficulty, if not with the United States, then with other countries, by virtue of the application of the most favored nation clause. It is obvious to me that Schüller regards the insertion of the word “restrictions” after “prohibitions” in line 18, page 5, of my despatch No. 1468 of July 11, as mentioned in my telegram under reference as really accomplishing what the American Government seeks to obtain, namely unconditional favored nation treatment in the matter of rations or quotas being established by either of the High Contracting Parties for the importation or exportation of articles restricted or prohibited. Furthermore the insertion of the word “conditions” in lieu of “formalities” in line 21, page 6, is certainly a great improvement. The officials of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Commerce do not view these changes with enthusiasm, but they will not veto their insertion. This language in paragraph 4 of the revised American draft of Article VII is the nub of practically the sole outstanding difficulties in the way of complete agreement upon the phraseology of the treaty, and I venture to ask the Department to review the suggestions in this regard contained in my telegram No. 56 to see whether they do not to all intents and purposes secure what we desire. I am persuaded that Schüller desires to come to some agreement and to find some acceptable formula, but he does very much object to the words “equitable treatment” and “normal volume of trade” as being vague [Page 990] and lacking the desired precision. My fear is that if we delay too long, the French attitude, to which I am alluding in a despatch of corresponding date, (No. 1555)96 may conceivably lead to a postponement, more or less indefinite, and to our prejudice.
I have [etc.]
- Not printed.↩