500.A15a3/1427a: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes)

[Paraphrase]

69. The following letter has been sent by me to the British Ambassador here:

[Here follows text of the letter printed supra.]

Morrow desires to limit his stay in London to 2 or 3 days. I shall be glad if you will make the necessary arrangements for him to see Henderson and Malkin. It would seem desirable that as little publicity as possible be given to these conversations.

My telegram No. 61 of March 6, 7 p.m.,94 which sets forth my views in this matter, will be available to Senator Morrow at the Embassy. However, I repeat briefly the essential points to be borne in mind:

1.
There would seem to be two distinct problems involved:
(a)
An agreement relating to the extension of the limits for capital ship tonnages fixed for France and Italy by the Washington Treaty.
(b)
An agreement relating to building and replacement programs covering all categories of naval vessels of France and Italy up to the end of the year 1936.
2.
The right of Italy and France to build 46,666 tons of new capital ships should be included in (b), since this right is already included in the Washington and London Naval Treaties, and, in fact, represents a considerable reduction of the 70,000 tons of new construction permitted both Italy and France under the London Naval Treaty.95
3.
It is my opinion that point 1(b) can take the form of declarations by Great Britain, France, and Italy or, if that presents insuperable difficulties, of a tripartite agreement between them, which would not involve the United States, and would thus make unnecessary the reopening in the Senate of the London Naval Treaty.
4.
The only question which appears to concern this country directly is the desire of France to retain a small amount of over-age capital ship tonnage in excess of the Washington Treaty limits in order to make unnecessary the scrapping by France of a considerable amount of tonnage in excess of that required by the Treaty.
5.
Any agreement relating to excess over-age tonnage, in case there is such excess, will apparently require the consent of all parties to the Washington Treaty.
6.
The form which it would take is a matter for discussion between these Powers, but whatever its form, it may well require submission to the United States Senate for its consent to ratification, and it is therefore important that its form should be such as to facilitate such submission.
7.
Such an agreement relating to excess over-age tonnage for France (and, in principle, for Italy) should be limited strictly to the question of granting to France and Italy the right eventually to retain some 6,000 tons of over-age tonnage in excess of the Washington Treaty total, in case on subsequent calculation it appears that the execution of the present understanding will involve such an excess. The London Treaty is in no wise involved in this question, since this treaty does not in any manner touch upon the tonnage maxima laid down by the Washington Treaty. The agreement on this point, therefore, need make no reference to the London Treaty.
8.
Senator Morrow may find it desirable to discuss the question of the form which the agreement should take with Matsudaira.
9.
Senator Morrow should, of course, discuss the question of form thoroughly with the Foreign Office. I am inclined to favor an exchange of notes in preference to a protocol. This was the method adopted last summer in respect to an interpretative amendment of the London Naval Treaty made at Senator Swanson’s request.96

In case after Morrow’s arrival and conference with you and Henderson it seems adviseable, our official participation in the drafting conference can be then authorized.

Stimson
  1. Not printed.
  2. See article 1, paragraph 3 of the London Treaty, Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. i, p. 110; and the Capital Ship Replacement tables for France and Italy in the Washington Treaty, ibid., 1922, vol. i, pp. 261 and 262.
  3. Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. i, p. 126.