611.5131/838: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Edge) to the Secretary of State
501. The conversations to date with the French representative have confirmed their extreme reluctance to grant general most-favored-nation treatment largely because they intend to revise their treaties with European countries and hope to be able to limit considerably in the new agreements the scope of the most-favored-nation clause. They [Page 245] have strongly expressed the view that the concessions offered by the United States are meager and I see little prospect of obtaining a general most-favored-nation treaty without giving substantial advantages in return.
It is particularly unfortunate that no relief can be given in the matter of importation of cognac. The French particularly stress this point. Recent American statistics show certain importations of spirits for non-beverage purposes of which only a small fraction is from France. This gives the impression here that the regulations are being applied to the detriment of France. In view of this I believe that serious steps should be taken at once to do whatever may be necessary to afford equal opportunity with other countries if and when supplies may be shipped to the United States to introduce its cognac or other spirits for medicinal purposes. This certainly costs us nothing.
I should appreciate as soon as possible a reply to my 480, August 17, 5 p.m.,51 on the question of automobile duty. If I could inform the French that as a result of the treaty the duty on French automobiles in the United States would be reduced to 10 percent this would be an appreciable concession. On the other hand a restriction on the most-favored-nation clause (authorizing one party to impose on goods imported from the other the same rate of duty as the second party imposes on similar goods of the first) might be welcome to the French. Would you be willing to have such a provision included in the treaty?
Notwithstanding your telegram No. 291, August 16, 1 p.m.,51 may I urge a further examination of the question whether the American restrictions on plants (especially narcissus bulbs and fruit trees) are not wider than the United States requires for plant protection? The question of bulbs was discussed at some length in 1926. From the correspondence and especially from the memorandum of a conversation between Mr. Castle and Dr. Marlatt of the Department of Agriculture (forwarded with instruction No. 1860 of February 8, 1926)51 there seems some ground to suppose that the real aim of the embargoes is to make the United States self-dependent as far as agricultural products are concerned and not exclusively a matter of protection of American plant life.
Please refer to Mr. Castle’s letter to me of February 13, 1931.51 For my strictly confidential information and not for proposing to the French without express instructions I should appreciate your informing [Page 246] me whether you would consider as an additional concession to the French in obtaining the most-favored-nation treaty the surrender of the capitulatory and other rights which the United States possesses in Morocco under treaties with that country.
Is the Department in a position to give me a definite reply to point 2 in the Embassy’s telegram No. 409, August [July] 7, 4 p.m.55 regarding the exclusion of samples of women’s wearing apparel?
While I have no definite assurance that we will reach our objective I am quite positive we will never have a more favorable opportunity to dispose of this problem than right now.
It is important that I receive an answer to the points mentioned in [above mentioned?] telegram before the conferees’ next meeting on Thursday at 4 o’clock.