560.M2/151
The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 20.]
L. N. No. 1079
Sir: I have the honor to refer to my despatch No. 294 of February 16, 1928, relative to the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions and particularly to item No. 10, appearing on page 7 of that despatch, concerning a letter which the French Government had sent to the Secretariat of the League of Nations relative to film restrictions.
Through the courtesy of the Commercial Attaché in Paris I am now in receipt of a copy of the law of February 18th, published in the Official Journal of the French Republic on February 19th, relative to the control of cinematograph films. Presumably both the State Department [Page 369] representatives in Paris and those of the Department of Commerce have forwarded this law with appropriate observations and I shall therefore merely consider it in its relation to the treaty in question and to the discussions which may take place regarding the French letter in the Conference to be held in July next.
The text of the law itself does not appear to violate the terms of the convention since no provision is made for the prohibition or restriction of importation. The law appears to set up merely a censorship under a body which will take into consideration “the sum total of the national interests in question and especially that of the conservation of national customs and traditions. Also when it is a question of foreign films consideration shall be given to the ease with which, in the separate countries of origin, French films may be acquired.” Obviously the Powers given to the Commission are very broad and presumably under this law foreign films might be refused the visa necessary for exhibition. This might be done arbitrarily and for the sake of protecting the French film industry. Only experience will show the result of the institution of the censorship.
If the subject comes up for debate in the July meeting, the Department may desire our representative to take an occasion to call attention to the first paragraph of article 5 of the Final Act of the Convention,12 especially to those words “or hindrances of any other kind which would replace those that it is the aim of the Convention to remove.” Admission might be made frankly that while this and similar laws do not violate technically the convention, they might open the door to a violation of the spirit of the convention should the authorities administering them feel so inclined. That the United States Government, however, in view of the aspirations expressed in article 5 above cited, is confident that such laws will not be used for purposes which would be a violation in effect if not in law of the convention.
I have [etc.]
- For text of the final act, see League of Nations, International Conference for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, etc.: Proceedings of the Conference (C.21.M.12.1928.II), pp. 29, 45.↩