811.114 Belgium/173
The Ambassador in Belgium (Morris) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 26.]
Sir: Referring to my despatch No. 635, of November 16, 1935,74 and to previous despatches regarding the repeated attempts of the Embassy to induce the Belgian Government to take measures to prevent the shipment of alcohol from Antwerp destined for smuggling into the United States, I have the honor to report that, on November 15, 1935, I called on Mr. Paul van Zeeland, Belgian Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Commerce, and again urgently invoked his good offices with a view to obtaining a solution of the question.
I told Mr. van Zeeland that my Government attached great importance to the termination of alcohol smuggling; that the Secretary of the Treasury was much concerned and had sent Commander Thompson to Belgium to study the situation and to be of assistance to the Embassy; that I had just received a telegram from my Government75 stating that the United States Coast Guard Service had caught the S. S. Reidun on the high seas, exactly as anticipated, loading its cargo of alcohol into rum-runners; and that now another vessel, the Bodo—the second within a month—was coming to Antwerp to load the remainder of the cargo of alcohol for the same purpose. I said that it seemed to me that, as the consignees of the liquor had shown bad faith, the Belgian Government would be justified in preventing the shipment of the second cargo.
Mr. van Zeeland replied that if the shipping papers are in order there is no way in which the shipment of the goods can be prevented, but that if it could be shown subsequently that a false declaration had been made, perhaps some method of punishment might be found. He said that he had made inquiries in Great Britain, France, Germany, and Holland as to what those countries are doing regarding the prevention of the shipment of alcohol and had been informed that none of them have any prohibitions concerning the shipment of alcohol from their European ports and that only England has instituted any control over the shipment of alcohol from a colonial port. Mr. van Zeeland declared that he had no legal power to stop the shipment of alcohol from Antwerp and that if he went to Parliament to seek such power it would refuse to give it to him because it is obvious that if the shipments from Antwerp were prevented the goods would go to [Page 440] Rotterdam, Hamburg or some other European port, with a consequent loss to Belgian commerce.
In conclusion, Mr. van Zeeland said that, although his answer must unfortunately be in the negative, he would assume a personal responsibility that if Great Britain, France, Holland, and Germany would agree to institute some system of control of alcohol exports, Belgium would take similar action.
In a note dated November 16, 1935, a copy and translation of which are enclosed,76 Mr. van Zeeland confirmed the substance of his conversation with me. The Department should note particularly the following paragraph:
“However, I am disposed to comply with the proposals which (Commander Thompson) has made if the measures which he recommends are adopted by the other exporting countries of Europe.”
This paragraph is a limitation of the oral promise made to me on November 15, inasmuch as in his conversation with me Mr. van Zeeland only mentioned joint action by “Great Britain, France, Germany and Holland,” instead of by “the other exporting countries of Europe.”
In transmitting the enclosed note to the Department, I am regretfully obliged to report that I consider that after exhausting all the arguments furnished to it by the Department and by Commander Thompson the Embassy has met with a refusal by the Belgian Government. The Belgian officials from the Prime Minister down to the Inspector-General of Customs and the representatives of the Belgian Merchant Marine service have all advanced the same reasons as to why the Belgian Government cannot comply with the requests made by the United States Government in this matter.
For the Department’s ready reference, the Embassy feels that it would be useful to recapitulate briefly the line of argumentation used by the Belgian officials. It may be reduced to the following terms:
- 1.
- Belgium has no law which will enable it to prevent the shipment of the alcohol in question from Belgian ports.
- 2.
- The Belgian Parliament would be unwilling to pass legislation concerning the institution of a system of control—such as through landing certificates with bond—because other European countries have no such system. The adoption of a system of landing certificates with bond by Belgium would simply drive trade from Antwerp to Rotterdam, Hamburg and other European ports.
- 3.
- The exportation of the alcohol from Antwerp is legal: it is the importation of this liquor into the United States in the way in which it is done that is illegal. Consequently, the United States—not Belgium—must take the necessary measures to protect itself against the illegal entry of this alcohol.
- 4.
- (Mr. van Zeeland’s promise) If the other countries of Europe which export alcohol will agree to institute some system of control of alcohol exports, Belgium will take similar action.
In view of the fact that the various arguments outlined by the Treasury Department and the Department of State have been repeatedly presented to the Belgian authorities by the Embassy and by Commander Thompson, and in view of the categorical refusal by the Belgian Government to accept these arguments, the Embassy feels that it must request new instructions from the Department if further representations are to be made.
Respectfully yours,