Office of the Historian

60. Letter From the Secretary of State to the Governor of South Carolina (Timmerman)1

Washington, April 17, 1956.

Dear Governor Timmerman: I wish to direct your attention to certain foreign policy implications of the Hart–Arthur Act2 which has recently become law in your State. I feel confident that you will be interested in the effect which this act and the concurrent resolution requesting the enactment of similar legislation in other States may have upon our relations with Japan and other friendly countries.

A basic long-term policy objective of the United States in the Far East is the development of an economically sound, politically stable and friendly Japan. The United States has consistently recognized that the economic strength which we desire for Japan requires a high level of foreign trade. In this connection the United States has encouraged the acceptance of Japan into the world trading community. Our interest in Japan’s economic strength, however, is not solely in terms of stability in the Far East. Japan is the principal market for United States raw cotton. In 1955 Japan imported 647,000 bales of raw cotton from the United States, or 26% of our total raw cotton exports. Japan’s willingness to buy United States cotton could be affected by legislation such as that enacted by South Carolina.

The legislation also appears to run counter to the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Japan, which received the advice and consent to ratification of the United States Senate on July 3, 1953.3 Article XVI of this Treaty requires each party to grant to the goods imported from the other, in respect to all measures affecting internal distribution and sale as well as to internal taxation, most-favored-nation treatment and treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like domestic products. (Enclosed is a copy of Article XVI and of Article XXII;4 the latter defines “national treatment” and “most-favored-nation treatment”.) The effect of the South Carolina law will be to provide less favorable treatment to Japanese textiles than to those of other foreign countries and of domestic manufacture.

[Page 178]

In this connection the Japanese Government has made formal representation that it considers the South Carolina law to discriminate against the sale of Japanese textile goods and, therefore, to be in contravention of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation. The Japanese in their representation also pointed to the fact that their government and the Japanese textile industries voluntarily restricted the export of cotton goods to the United States in January 1956. This action, which involved difficulties for an important segment of the Japanese economy, was taken in an effort to meet the problem which the United States cotton textile industry claimed such exports created for it. The Japanese Government and press have expressed grave concern over the implications of this legislation and the adverse effects which it might have on the friendly relations between the two countries.

For your information, I transmit copies of the exchange of notes between Japan and the United States on this subject.5

Sincerely yours,

John Foster Dulles6
  1. Source: Department of State, International Trade Files: Lot 57 D 284, Textiles–1956, 1957. Drafted by William C. Ockey, Acting Officer in Charge of Economic Affairs, Office of Northeast Asian Affairs.↩
  2. This legislation, passed by the South Carolina House of Representatives on March 6, 1956 and approved by Governor Timmerman on March 8, required that retail stores selling Japanese goods display the sign “Japanese textiles sold here.”↩
  3. The treaty entered into force October 30, 1953; for text, see 4 UST (pt. 2) 2063.↩
  4. Not printed.↩
  5. The texts of both the Japanese and American notes, dated April 4 and April 16, respectively, are printed in Department of State Bulletin, April 30, 1956, pp. 728–729.↩
  6. Printed from a copy which bears this typed signature.↩