462.00 R 296/212: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to the Secretary of State
[Paraphrase]
114. L–105, from Logan. Department’s L–56, March 7, 4 p.m.
- (1)
- I had already shown your L–50, February 23, 5 p.m., to Dawes and Owen Young, and have informally handed them text of this telegram as well as the other correspondence which completely informs them of Department’s views.
- (2)
- I was hesitant about pressing too strongly the official views of the Department because of the delicate and special position of Dawes and Young on the investigation committee, as such action might have been susceptible of interpretation that the American members of the committee were in fact official agents of the Department. I have explained fully that I was only communicating the Department’s views for their information and that these views were in no sense of the word instructions. Both Dawes and Young are aware of the views and position of our Government; and it has already been kept in mind that every effort would be made in a proper way to describe the external war obligations of Germany to which any budgetary surplus will be applicable in such elastic language as, while not specifically including claim of the United States, would not specifically exclude our claim. It is clear from my recent informal conversations with General Dawes and Mr. Young that they have the Department’s special interest in mind, and that in drafting of final report of the committee, which is just now tinder way, they will endeavor, by all means they can properly employ, to have such language used as will protect position of the United States.
- (3)
- If, as I now feel to be unlikely, there is no success in obtaining a favorable or noncommittal drafting, the Government of the United States might make reservations along lines suggested under (4) of my L–100, February 28, 6 p.m., when committee’s report is acted on by Reparation Commission. It is now planned that the report will come before the commission about March 19; in the mean [Page 8] time the Department may desire to consider nature and language of reservation if the necessity for it should arise.
- (4)
- While I fully appreciate the Department’s position in this question, I feel forced, nevertheless, to adhere to my view already expressed that the Government of the United States will be most likely to obtain actual satisfaction of its two classes of claims if the plan of experts goes through even in the contingency, now somewhat remote, that the plan appears by its terms to deal with Allied obligations only. Furthermore, inasmuch as United States is not represented officially on the Reparation Commission, I am forced to the conviction that no action taken by the committee can bind us or stop us either in law or equity, and that our technical and legal position remains unchanged from what it was before the committee met. This will be true especially if we were to make full reserves at appropriate time in regard to our rights should language of the report appear to commit us adversely. I hope that Dawes and Young will succeed in obtaining noncommittal wording which will render unnecessary any reservation, as the moral effect of reservation on our part might be harmful here. Logan.
Herrick
- Telegram in two sections.↩