with that of March 22nd 1920, of the absolute control over imports, instituted by the German State for war purposes in 1917, the establishment of certain monopolies which furnish the state the means not only of concentrating purchases abroad but also of taking summary measures of confiscation and taxation of foreign products already imported into its territory, the granting of individual licenses for export or for import subject to variable conditions which, to say the least, negotiations [sic] are impossible to verify as to rate of exchange, credits and so forth, the direct or indirect intervention of the "Reichscommissar" of the "Preisprüfungstelle" and of the local "[Aussen]handelsstellen" which have the effect [of] modifying or annulling contracts freely entered into,-all these are appropriate instruments thanks to which Germany is in a position to practice a policy of discrimination in opposition to the spirit and to the terms of the obligations which she has assumed. Desiring to leave to Germany all the initiative necessary for her restoration, the Allied and Associated Powers renounce any claim to raise the objections of principle to her commercial regime which would undoubtedly be justified. However, it is their duty to point out to her the violations of the Treaty of Versailles which have been ascertained and to which this regime has led. From the documents which the Allied and Associated Powers have exchanged and have subjected to a common examination it appears: (A) Regarding imports. 1. That in certain cases the granting or the refusal of import licenses could have had for its purpose and has had for its effect to prejudice the products of certain Allied and Associated countries in favor of the products of other countries. 2. That in particular the monopoly [of] wines and the spirits monopoly have been exercised to the detriment of the products of certain Allied and Associated Powers and have permitted certain measures of confiscation or of taxation whose retroactive feature still further aggravates the arbitrary character of these monopolies. 3. That Germany is rendering inoperative by measures of prohibition the provisions of article 269 which tend to maintain the German market accessible during a period of three years to certain products which the Allied and Associated countries exported to it before the war. 4. That the products originating in and coming from Alsace Lorraine have been subjected, contrary to the stipulations of articles 68 and 268 of the treaty of peace, to import duties. 5. That products of Alsace Lorraine, which within the limits of the contingents fixed for Germany should be admitted freely on the presentation of certificates attesting their origin, have been prohibited [from] importation and subjected to the granting of a preliminary license. 6. That the application to the products of the Saar obtrudes upon [Saar region of?] the rulings of the ordinance of March 22, 1920 is carried on contrary to the stipulations of paragraph 31 in the annex to article 50. (B) Regarding exports. 1. That by the intervention of the German authorities or of syndicates established and controlled by the Government, differential export prices have been fixed varying according to reasons of political or economic preference, which are forbidden by articles 265 and 266. 2. That export duties have been collected, the existence of which had not been published and [which] indeed it was forbidden to mention on the contracts or on the bills. 3. That the benefits of exporting certain [products or] raw materials [are reserved] either by contingents or preferential derogations to certain countries to the detriment of others whose industry and supplies are thus menaced. 4. That numerous contracts made by the nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers have been modified or broken on the direct or indirect initiative of the German authorities who have intervened to increase the prices, to demand supertaxes or premiums, to exact the payment in the country of destination or of any other country, or to suspend export according to the fluctuations of the exchange, and [that] deals have been broken up in this way for the benefit of buyers of other countries. For this reason the Allied and Associated Powers invite the German Government to apply to the commercial regime which it has established such modifications as will achieve the following results: 1. In case the prohibitions of import or of export issued by Germany cannot be applied without making exceptions, the contingents admitted for import or export should not be made the object of arbitrary distribution nor of individual licenses arbitrarily granted. 2. No measure of confiscation or of seizure should be applied as a result of imperial monopolies or of any other administrative organization to goods imported into Germany under a regular license prior to the publication of the prohibition or before the expiration of the time interval provided. 3. No tax on export may be collected if it has not been regularly authorized and published in the Journal of the Laws of the Empire. If the German Government makes [use of] export premiums, these premiums stated in marks or converted into foreign currency must be the same whatever the Allied or Associated country to which they are destined. 4. Without prejudice to the conditions considered in the preceding paragraph, the German authorities will withhold themselves from all interference in probable contracts between German nationals and Allied and Associated nationals. The latter may demand the execution of contracts, modified, suspended or broken as a result of a former interference [of the German authorities] such as is described in paragraph 4 above of the section 'Regarding export[s]'. It is for the German Government to discern and to take the measures which it considers expedient in order that its economic regime may conform to the considerations set forth above. It would moreover be well that the German Government make known its intentions in this regard before the forthcoming conference at Spa." The foregoing is on agenda for next meeting. Please instruct at earliest moment possible. WALLACE 763.72119/10002: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Wallace) WASHINGTON, June 16, 1920-5 p.m. 1122. Your 1274, June 10, 10 P.M. Mission. Department concurs in general with spirit of note and with specific demands, but suggests modification at two points. 1. Statement that "Powers renounce any claim to raise objections of principle " unnecessarily sweeping especially as United States is not party to treaty. Suggest change after Powers "do not desire at present to raise objections". 2. Last paragraph, section 4, suggest insertion after interference "other than that authorized by general laws in accordance with letter and spirit of this note ". COLBY 763.72119/10105: Telegram The Ambassador in France (Wallace) to the Secretary of State PARIS, July 6, 1920-6 p.m. [Received 10:20 p.m.] 14 15 on 1361. Mission. See my 1274, June 12 [10], 10 p.m., relative to notification to Germany concerning her commercial regime; this notification as slightly modified (see my 1288, June 15, 2 p.m.,11 point 8, and my 1308 June 21, 8 p.m.,14 point 3) was sent to Göppert June 22. At its 67th meeting held this morning Conference of Ambassadors had before it German reply to said notification. Derby, in the absence of his commercial expert, urged that consideration of the note be postponed, on the other hand Cambon 16 and Bonin considering German answer to be clearly of an unfavorable nature thought that matter should necessarily be taken up at Spa, as constituting another German violation of treaty, and in support of this argument they invoked provisions of previous decisions of the Conference (see my 1122, May 10, 8 p.m.,1 point 1). Wallace pointed out that the force of said decision was purely argumentative, that there had been no decision to refer this question to Spa, that Conference of Ambassadors was perfectly competent to deal with this question, and strongly urged that question be settled by this Conference rather than at Spa, where America has no representative. Matsui felt that however prior decisions of Conference were worded, it was intention of Conference to refer question to Spa, if German answer were unsatisfactory. He recognized nevertheless that in view of attitude of Derby and Wallace, Conference could not take a decision either that German reply is unscrupulous [unsatisfactory?] or that question shall be referred to Spa. It was therefore decided to put the question over until a meeting of Conference to be held next week. It was understood however that in the meantime Cambon who is leaving for Spa tomorrow afternoon 14 Not printed. 15 Head of the German peace delegation. 16 French representative at the Conference of Ambassadors. 17 Japanese Ambassador to France. would inform Millerand 13 and Sforza 1 of today's discussion at Conference of Ambassadors and on behalf of himself and Bonin as individual Ambassadors would suggest that question be taken up by Spa Conference. Wallace earnestly requested that if matter was so taken up he be immediately informed of any solution reached so that he might immediately communicate same to his Government for its approval. English translation of German reply is as follows: "The German Government has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note from the Peace Conference under date of June 22nd last. In order to reply to this note, which has reference to the general principles of the economic policy of Germany in the domain of imports and exports, it will be necessary primarily to proceed to a thorough and difficult examination of the entire question, an examination which will take a certain amount of time. Consequently, the German Government reserves the right of setting forth in a more detailed manner its policy relative to imports and exports, as well as the motive inspiring the German Government in practice. However, the German Government has the honor at this time to point out that it considers the regime of imports and exports now in force in Germany, which is, furthermore, rather complicated in part and not always easy to understand, as only a temporary measure necessitated by the economic distress of Germany, and which the German Government itself is particularly interested in simplifying as soon as the general situation will so permit. The German Government formally declares that the measures taken already, or to be taken in the future, are for the sole purpose of maintaining the solvency of Germany, and to ensure to the country in so far as possible the benefits of its production, and to place it in a position to carry out the reparation stipulated in the Treaty of Versailles, but are not intended to be any disadvantage whatsoever to any one of the Allied and Associated Powers with respect to another, or to Articles 264–269 of the treaty. In particular, after the ordinances of the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission will have, henceforth, effectively reintegrated the occupied territory of the left bank of the Rhine into the economic organization of Germany, the German Government will do its best to smooth out as rapidly as possible all difficulties which were encountered by circulation [between] said territory, and non-occupied Germany, and which the German Government regrets as much as the Allied and Associated Powers. In order to set aside, in so far as possible, all the obstacles interfering with that circulation and considered as annoying by foreign importers, and with the intention of generously meeting their wishes in the matter, the German Government has resolved to suppress at once, for the majority of the merchandise in question, the organization of control which has existed under existing arrangement at the frontier between occupied and non-occupied Germany, and to consider the suppression of such control for the rest of the merchandise in the very near future. Such 1a French Premier and Minister for Foreign Affairs. 14 Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs. an offer seems to be of a nature to give proof of the spirit of equity and conciliation guiding the German Government in the ensemble of the question under discussion. Accept, et cetera, signed Göppert." WALLACE 763.72119/10105: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Wallace) WASHINGTON, July 15, 1920-4 p.m. 1248. Your 1361, July 6, 6 p.m. Department concurs strongly in your view that further representations to Germany relative to her commercial regime should be submitted to this Government before transmission. You are authorized to take an early opportunity so to inform the Council of Ambassadors, basing your remarks on the argument that the mutual economic interests of all the recent co-belligerents necessitates common counsel on such question. The Department has assumed that the Allies, in the belief that such a practice was in their interest as well as in the interest of the United States, took the view that all such decisions should have the approval of this Government. The Department would regret extremely any important departure from the practice heretofore followed. COLBY OCCUPATION OF THE RHINELAND BY THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS as Report of the American Observer on the Rhineland High CommissionDispatch of Additional Troops by Germany into the Ruhr Basin-French Occupation of Darmstadt and Frankfort; Attitude of the American, British, Italian, and Belgian Governments-Appointment of General Allen American Observer-Use by France of African Troops in the RhinelandDiscussions Regarding Payment of Expenses of Armies of Occupation— Attitude of the Associated Governments toward Provocative Speeches by Members of the German Cabinet in Occupied Territory-Proposed Reduction of the American Army of Occupation 862t.01/1 The Observer on the Rhineland High Commission (Noyes) to the Acting Secretary of State COBLENZ, February 27, 1920. MY DEAR SECRETARY: Reporting further on the lines of my recent letter: 15 the Rhineland Commission and its policy are suffering from pressure-hidden pressure and open pressure-directly from the 15 Not printed. |