711.652/132: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Italy (Phillips)
188. Your 497, December 3. As regards Article XX, we are not clear as to the basis for the statement that from the beginning of [Page 480] negotiations the Italian authorities have maintained the point of view that the matter of extension of the treaty to the colonies should form the subject of a separate and subsequent agreement. Our original proposal automatically raised the question and you reported in your 533 of December 16, 1936,47 that the Italians were studying the subject but no conclusion had been reached. This was the status of the matter on August 9, 1937, when it was indicated in instruction No. 163 of the same date that we understood Italy would submit a counter proposal. The Italian memorandum of September 22 seems to be the first formal Italian comment we have had to the effect that full extension of the treaty to the colonies is impossible. Considering the foregoing it appears to the Department that the procedure most conducive to an early agreement with reference to Article XX would be for the Italian Government to submit a counter proposal.
With respect to the concluding language of the treaty the suggestion as to the words to be used above the names of the plenipotentiaries was made because we are unwilling that the words “Emperor of Ethiopia” or the word “Ethiopia” appear in the treaty, namely, in any instrument signed on behalf of the United States. If the suggestion is not acceptable to the Italian authorities, you may propose as an alternate that no language at all appear over the signatures of the plenipotentiaries and that the names and titles of the plenipotentiaries be inserted in the preamble as follows:
After the word “plenipotentiaries” insert a comma and the following “namely, William Phillips, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at Rome, and Count Galeazza Ciano di Cortellezza, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy”. Then will follow the words “have agreed upon and signed the following articles”.
We have reconsidered the question of preferences included in list B, and would, if necessary, agree that they be excepted from the operation of the Treaty. Accordingly, you should not seek the understanding mentioned in my 187 of December 2 with respect to the meaning of the word “now”. On the other hand, in order that we may have the Italian viewpoint, you should make the counter proposal in respect of a new sub-paragraph to the last paragraph of Article XIX set forth in the telegram in reference and await comment from the Italian Government thereon.
Interpretation of list A in Department’s No. 187 would remain pertinent.