800.85/753: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Brazil (Caffery)
2732. Your 3601, September 14, 9 p.m.25 The suggested changes with respect to articles 3, 4, and 5 are satisfactory to the War Shipping Administration.
The new article 9, replacing article 8, is not satisfactory because of its reference to new vessels. The War Shipping Administration is unable to agree to give Brazil even a qualified right to new vessels as replacements for old vessels which may be lost. They are unable to understand why the Brazilian Government should not be satisfied with replacement by vessels of similar tonnage, size, and characteristics, as they will then be restored to their original position.
It is noted that the new article 9 would obligate the United States to replace vessels listed in article 3 whether loss is caused by marine or war risk, whereas our original suggestion was limited to war risks. There is no objection to expanding the commitment of the United States provided that it is definitely understood that we are concerned [Page 741] with total losses from marine risks and not with ordinary damage from marine risks.
With reference to the suggested changes in article 1 of the bareboat charter, the War Shipping Administration suggests that the term “way ports” be changed to read “nearby ports” and omitting the term “between the two countries”. This language would permit calls to Uruguayan ports without making direct reference to such ports in the charter itself.
- Not printed.↩