462.00 R 296/218: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to the Secretary of State
139. L–112, from Logan. I have informally handed General Dawes, Owen Young and Mr. Robinson13 a copy of your L–58, March 15, so they are completely informed of the Department’s views. I have had the opportunity within the last few days of making an informal and hasty examination of the draft report of the second committee, and noted in it that, while our Army cost position had been protected, our Mixed Claims Commission position was entirely unprotected. I thereupon sent a confidential letter to Young in the following sense, and also sent copies to Dawes and Robinson:
“If the present wording of the report is maintained I should be somewhat embarrassed, in view of the explicit instructions I have received from the Secretary of State to make reservations with the Reparation Commission should there appear to be grounds for a contention that the Government of the United States may, with respect to either or both of its claims, be prevented by the literal language of the committee’s report from participating in Germany’s external payments during the ensuing years. As you are aware, I wish to avoid a reservation of this nature because of its possible harmful effect on the best working of the plan, and I should consider it a much happier solution could the wording be so changed that it would leave these points unprejudiced.
From my hasty reading of the draft, I note that you have in mind making specific reference to American Army costs. To do so is very helpful as far as it goes, but the equally if not more important claim arising from the judgments of the Mixed Claims Commission is not covered. Strictly speaking, these awards of damages are perhaps not reparations, neither are they, according to contentions that might be made, charges under the Treaty of Versailles. Unless, however, we refer specifically to the satisfaction of these judgments or employ [Page 11] alL–inclusive language, it is clear that the contention might well be maintained that none of the payments foreseen by the plan could properly be participated in for settlement of these judgments.”
Both General Dawes and Mr. Young are doing everything possible to meet the views of the Department. Their position is, however, delicate. They advise me informally that while there is no opposition to inclusion of provision for Army costs claim in findings of the committee, there is, nevertheless, strong opposition manifested to a provision for meeting judgments of Mixed Claims Commission, the general feeling being that our equity on that account is secured and our position protected by German holdings of our Alien Property Custodian. Dawes and Young are both working on the matter; but for reasons stated above, and provided I do not have time to refer matter to Department, I may be forced to formulate and make reservation outlined in paragraph (2), Department’s L–58.14
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- [Logan]
- Herrick
- Telegram in two sections.↩
- Harry M. Robinson, American member of the second committee of experts, appointed by the Reparation Commission.↩
- The report of the first committee of experts adopted Apr. 9, 1924, stated in part in section xi of part i that “Wherever in any part of this Report or its Annexes we refer to Treaty payments, reparation, amounts payable to the Allies, etc., we use these terms to include all charges payable by Germany to the Allied and Associated Powers for these war costs”; Great Britain, Cmd. 2105 (1924), p. 33.↩