Office of the Historian

File No. 763.72/7107

The French High Commissioner ( Tardieu) to the Secretary of State

Memorandum Concerning the American Navigation Corporation Which Has Been Proposed to the Shipping Board by the High Commission of the French Republic in the United States

i. necessity for france to secure ships

1.
The importation needs of France are increasing.
(a)
For war materials, following the increase of artillery and of ammunition expenditure, which is an indispensable condition of an efficient prosecution of the war.
(b)
For supplies, following the lack of foodstuffs, coal, oil, etc., which are all essential for the subsistence of the army and of the country.
(c)
These importation needs will still exist after conclusion of peace.
2.
The tonnage possibilities of France are decreasing.
(a)
The French commercial fleet has been reduced from 2,000,000 tons to 1,500,000; if war goes on longer France will be left with only 1,000,000 tons of ships and of worn-out ships.
(b)
Part of this fleet has been transferred from the commercial service to the navy (revictualling of the war fleet, transportation of sailors, of troops for the Orient army, coast defense, etc.).
3.
France cannot build again the destroyed tonnage.
(a)
Our shipbuilding plants have been manufacturing during the last three years only artillery and ammunition, that means working in the common interest of the Allies.
(b)
Besides there is a lack of skilled labor on account of the general mobilization.
(c)
And also all the ship plates on hand are being used for the manufacture of artillery implements.
4.
The help in tonnage given to France by Great Britain is decreasing and is bound to stop.
(a)
Her own needs have obliged Great Britain since the 1st of November 1916 to call back from France 500,000 tons.
(b)
The British Government has advised us that their co-operation would still be reduced and finally be stopped.
(c)
The British Government have declared that in the future France ought to call for the help of the American tonnage.

ii. what france has done to secure tonnage in the united states

1. For reasons stated above France has bought or ordered in the United States since May 1917:

Tons
(a) For the Ministry of Supplies 2,228
(b) For war material transportation:
Wooden ships 140,500
Steel ships 199,900
(c) For private corporations or individuals, but in view of transports of general interest (railroad companies, coal mines, etc.) 31,700
374,328
Representing:
Ships already afloat 23,000
Ships ordered 351,328

2. France has made for these purchases and orders a proposal which would not oppose the American interests.

(a)
She does not claim any transfer of flags for these ships, either bought or ordered.
(b)
She proposes that all these boats, bought or ordered shall be managed by an American corporation, under American flag.
(c)
France will take no other financial participation in the above named corporation than it is authorized by the United States laws.
(d)
These ships shall be managed under the close supervision of the United States Government.
(e)
The set of incorporation or by-laws of the corporation shall state that all these ships are to be used only for war material transportation.

3. The proposal of the French Government cannot interfere with the American shipbuilding plan.

(a)
The total tonnage in course of completion in the American shipbuilding plants represents to-day more than 3,000,000 tons.
(b)
Out of these 3,000,000 tons, the orders placed by France represent only 300,000 tons, or 10 per cent.
(c)
The purchases of ships already afloat represent only 23,000 tons, or less than the hundredth part of the American commercial sea-going fleet.
(d)
Besides, the American shipbuilding plants are not working to their full capacity and every day the French High Commission receives new offers to build ships.

iii. policy of the united states government

1.
Without committing themselves positively, the United States Government have shown at first favourable disposition.
(a)
The statement of the Shipping Board on May 18, 1917, said, “It is clear that in the exercise of such a war-power (to commandeer ships) the board would not commandeer ships already serving the war needs to the best advantage.”
(b)
In a letter of June 7, 1917 (concerning some special business), the State Department has officially transmitted and confirmed to the French High Commission the above declaration of the Shipping Board.
(c)
And, of course, the High Commission has taken for granted that the above declaration, although concerning the ships afloat, was to be applied also to the ships ordered.
2.
From conversations of recent date, it appears that to-day the Shipping Board opposes the proposals of the French Government.
(a)
The Shipping Board declares that its only aim is the increase of American tonnage.
(b)
And it declares also that it feels obliged to consider the purchases or orders of France just as the purchases and orders of Great Britain and Norway.
(c)
It gives to understand that it might perhaps let the American corporation manage the wooden ships, but not the steel ships.

iv. study of the argumentation of the shipping board

1.
It is not a fact that the French proposal should mean a reduction of the American tonnage. [Page 620]
(a)
As regards ships afloat, the purchases, as explained above, only represent less than one-hundredth of the American commercial fleet.
(b)
As regards ships under construction, the orders represent one-tenth of the whole of the ships under construction, and the plants are not working at their full capacity.
(c)
Moreover, all the ships purchased or ordered will be under the American flag and under the supervision of the Government of the United States.
(d)
As regards the utilization of the ships, they will be used for war transportation only and mostly between the United States and Europe. The slight diminution in the freight which, on that account, might have to be borne by the Government of the United States for their own transports, is, moreover but a consequence of the rationing which every belligerent is called upon to bear, so that the others should be able to get their essential necessities.
2.
It is impossible to apply the same treatment to France as to England.
(a)
England now owns 17,000,000 tons; France 1,500,000.
(b)
England is now constructing 1,000,000 tons yearly; France nothing.
(c)
England during the first three years of the war has purchased or ordered numerous ships in the United States. It is not the case of France.
(d)
England when stating the grounds of her decision as regards the diminution already carried out, and the suppression already announced of the help given so far by her to France, invites the latter to apply to the United States.
(e)
Therefore it is impossible to assimilate the two situations and to argue of the requisition of the Cunard orders, to justify the requisition of the French orders. The two cases are essentially different.
3.
It is impossible to apply the same treatment to France as to Norway.
(a)
Norway is a friendly country, but a neutral country. The United States being at war, cannot apply the same treatment to France and to a neutral country.
(b)
They can do it all the less as the situation of France is exceptional that she has given maximum effort with a view to victory; that for nearly two years she has borne almost alone the burden of the fighting on the western front and that to this day she occupies almost three-fourths of that front against which the enemy has never ceased to direct his chief effort.
4.
It would be impossible to establish an American corporation for the exploitation of wooden ships only.
(a)
First of all in view of their limited life.
(b)
In the second instance, by reason of their utilization which does not lend itself to transports between America and Europe, but only to the transport of coal between England and France.
5.
Besides, the Shipping Board has not taken into account the period which will follow the conclusion of the peace.
(a)
The needs of importation of France will remain very high during that period, and the resources in tonnage will be very low.
(b)
At that time the existence of an American navigation corporation making its special object of the relations between France and the United States will be for the two republics a precious instrument of economic and political joint action.

v. conclusion

To sum up:

1.
The question is a vital one to France. If the request which the French Government has instructed the High Commissioner to make, Is rejected, France will be unable to pursue the war with an undiminished power, and as the joint interest of the Allies is calling for.
2.
The question has been examined by the Shipping Board from a technical and immediate point of view. It must be decided by the Government of the United States from a general point of view both military and political; from the point of view of the management of the war, of victory and of the future relations between France and the United States.
3.
The High Commissioner takes the liberty of remarking that if the United States were now neutral, the organization which the French Government have asked him to propose, would be easy to realize. We cannot admit that the fraternity in arms so dear to the hearts of all French and American citizens should have as a consequence to make it impossible.
4.
The organization proposed by the French Government will not reduce by a single ton the commercial fleet of the United States.
5.
Invaded France has taken all necessary measures to supply the American Army with several hundreds of guns every month. She asks the United States to supply her with ships which she has not been able to secure so far, from this country, except in exceedingly small numbers: 22,700 tons of German ships and 18,000 tons of colliers of the United States Navy, for a single voyage.

André Tardieu

[ Washington ], August 16, 1917.
[Received August 21.]