Office of the Historian

611.5131/838: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Edge)

Washington, August 31, 1932—5 p.m.

309. (1) The Department has investigated the points raised in your telegram 501, August 29, 5 p.m., with the following results:

(a)
With reference to importation of cognac Department is advised that authority for importation of distilled spirits of any classification is denied by law. Many requests have been made for authority to import spirits but no permit therefor could be issued under the law, which has recently been interpreted anew by the Department of Justice to that effect. The understanding that spirits have been and are being imported is erroneous and doubtless arises from the fact that certain tonics, medicines, flavoring extracts and the like in the manufacture of which spirits are used are imported into the United States. In classifying products for statistical purposes Commerce Department follows classification in Tariff Act and since medicinal preparations etc. containing spirits have the same dutiable rate as spirits, importations of the former are listed under the general heading spirits, cordials, liqueurs, bitters etc. On whatever articles are permitted import, as instanced above, there is no intent at discrimination or actual discrimination against France. It is impossible to offer the French anything in the nature of a concession on this point, but it is believed that these explanations will remove the French grievances.
(b)
With reference to the third paragraph of your 501, and to your 480, of August 17, 5 p.m.,56 you have touched upon a question of constitutional law which the Supreme Court so far has not unequivocally passed upon. This question, namely, whether a treaty concluded by the Executive and approved by the Senate in the usual [Page 247] way would supersede conflicting provisions in a prior tariff law, was referred to the Attorney General for an opinion in 1928, and he has so far failed to render one. The implications raised are far reaching and widely transcend the present negotiations. However, the Department considers it advisable to defer including any special provisions or reservations in the treaty now under negotiation referring to these tariff law provisions until a solution of the question has been further explored.
(c)
With regard to restrictions on bulbs and fruit trees the Department considers that even though it were possible to relax these restrictions it would be undesirable to do so as a quid pro quo for commercial favors from France. Such an offer on our part would place this Government in the position of admitting tacitly that contrary to the position heretofore taken by us these measures are not bona fide sanitary measures.
(d)
The Department considers it undesirable to offer any renunciation of international treaty rights in Morocco in return for purely commercial favors in France. (Letter follows.)
(e)
With regard to Section 308 of the Tariff Act concerning samples of women’s wearing apparel, this matter is being actively followed up with the Treasury Department. I shall advise you with regard to this matter at the earliest possible moment.

(2) The Department realizes that from the French viewpoint the concessions offered by this Government are perhaps meager. Nevertheless as we see it here, it is probable that even if we were in a position to offer concessions on all the subjects thus far discussed the French would still remain unsatisfied. The attitude adopted by the French negotiators to date has raised some doubt in our minds as to their intention of concluding a commercial treaty with us (regardless of any trade concessions we can offer) at least until after our elections, the World Economic Conference,57 and other possible developments. The Department would, of course, be highly gratified if you should be successful in obtaining a most favored nation treaty with France on the basis of the concessions already offered. We foresee, however, a series of dilatory tactics during which time an effort will be made to whittle away our position with the object of forcing us into admitting the justice of their contentions on these various points. Accordingly, we are not inclined to make further attempts to overcome the serious difficulties involved in finding trade concessions which would satisfy the French until there is better evidence that such concessions if offered would lead to the conclusion of the treaty. On the other hand we should view with concern any breakdown of the negotiations. Your forthcoming trip to the United States will afford an opportunity to go into the matter fully with you and to determine what further steps should be taken. Every [Page 248] effort, of course, should be made to keep the negotiations open until your return to France.

Castle
  1. Latter not printed.↩
  2. See vol. i, pp. 808 ff.↩