Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, General: Economic and Political Matters, Volume I, Part 2

800.2553/4–1753

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Legal Adviser for Economic Affairs (Metzger)

secret

Washington, April 17, 1953.

• Subject:
• Request for Omission of ARAMCO and of Foreign Oil Companies as Defendants in Proposed Civil Antitrust Suit

• Participants:
• The Honorable Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General,
• Mr. Herman Phleger, The Legal Adviser, Department of State,
• Mr. Stanley D. Metzger, Assistant Legal Adviser for Economic Affairs, Department of State

At 9:15 A.M., April 17, 1953, Mr. Phleger discussed with the Attorney General the omission of ARAMCO and of foreign oil companies as defendants in the proposed civil antitrust suit to be filed by the Department of Justice.

Mr. Phleger handed to the Attorney General copies of the British note of April 14, 1953¹ and the advance copy of the Dutch note,² which was to be given to the Department today, which he read. Mr. Phleger pointed out the political desirability of omitting these companies as defendants, and also that, as a practical matter, there could be no effective enforcement of decrees against the foreign companies. It appeared that the principal concern of the Justice Department with respect to the inclusion of ARAMCO as a defendant was the matter of ARAMCO documents. Mr. Phleger stated that he understood that ARAMCO might be willing to make arrangements relating to the delivery of the documents, and the Attorney General asked Mr. Metzger to get in touch with Mr. Emmerglick, who is in charge of the case, in an effort to work something out regarding documents, in which case ARAMCO might be eliminated as a defendant.

Regarding the foreign companies, the Attorney General stated that he would consider the matter further in the light of Mr. Phleger’s remarks.

1. Not printed; the British note was in protest to the announcement on Apr. 9, 1953, by Attorney General Brownell that he would file a civil complaint against major U.S. and other oil companies for violation of the antitrust laws. The note indicated that the British Government believed the civil proceedings were no less contrary to “international comity” and no less unjustified “under international law” than criminal proceedings. It also expressed the British Government’s concern that publicity arising from the civil proceedings would “prejudice the political, economic, and strategic interests of the Western Powers.” (800.2553/4–1453)
2. The Dutch Ambassador had given an advance copy of his government’s note to the Department of State on Apr. 16. It presented arguments similar to those in the British note. (800.2553/4–1653)