No. 273.
Mr. McLane to Mr.
Bayard.
Legation of
the United States,
Paris, September 25, 1885.
(Received October 9.)
No. 73.]Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of
your dispatch No. 35, under date of August 31, 1885, in reply to my No. 58,
of August 13.
Although I have not modified the opinion expressed in that dispatch as to the
intention of the French Government, I have thought it judicious, in
pursuance of the intimation given in my No. 53, of August 7, to submit to
the consideration of this Government a resume of the entire discussion of
this question since the original decree of prohibition, concluding with the
renewed statement of my own opinion that the failure of the Chambers to act
upon the bill providing for the inspection of foreign meats, and for the
admission of American meats after such inspection, imposed upon the
Executive of this Government the duty of repealing the original prohibitory
decree, no longer warrantable, as you well express it, by the only
considerations to which it appeals for justification.
[Page 378]
I banded this résumé to the minister of foreign affairs in person two days
ago, advising him that you regretted the failure of this Government to
remove the invidious distinction against the United States, because of its
prejudicial effect upon public opinion there, and I added a very strong
expression of my own conviction that this failure on their part would not
only alienate to some extent the friendly feeling now existing between the
two countries, but would excite the disposition to retaliatory legislation
against the importation of French products.
Mr. de Freycinet did not concede the point that the adjournment of the
Chambers relieved the Executive from its obligation to defer action until
the passage of a law providing a satisfactory system of inspection, as he
insisted that the legislature, as a body, never ceased to exist, and could
in no sense be said to have expired, since the pending legislation could be
continued by the new Chamber from the point at which it was left by the one
which had adjourned in August. Nevertheless, upon all the other points
involved, he seemed disposed to concede the reasonableness of our
contention.
I determined to present this résumé of the question at this time because the
new Chamber, though meeting in November, will not engage itself in matters
of current legislation until January, when the powers of its members shall
have been verified and the new President of the Republic shall have been
elected.
I thought it desirable in this manner to exhaust the discussion, as far as
the present Government of this country was concerned, so that the President
of the United States might be able, in December, in his communication to
Congress, to report, if he deemed it expedient, the actual relation of the
two Governments to this question.
* * * * * * *
I have had some further conversation with Mr. de Freycinet this morning, and
while he declines to give any information as to the final determination of
the Government, he promises to bring the matter to the special attention of
the minister of commerce, and make it a subject of special consideration by
the council of ministers; and in making this statement he dwelt upon the
embarrassment he felt at taking any decision in the premises which
conflicted with the deference due from the Executive to the legislature,
having in view the request of the latter to await the passage of a law for
the efficient inspection of all imported meats.
Herewith inclosed I send a copy of my note to Mr. de Freycinet, presenting a
résumé of this question, for which I am indebted to Mr. Vignaud, who was
present with my predecessors in all their conferences with the ministers of
foreign affairs of this Government, and who analyzed with care the debates
both in the Chamber and in the Senate upon the bill for the efficient
inspection of all imported meats.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure in No. 73.]
Mr. McLane to Mr.
De Freycinet.
Legation of the United States,
Paris, September 23,
1885.
Sir: On the 18th of February, 1881, the French
Government, acting upon the alleged discovery of trichinae in America,
prohibited all pork imported from the United States. This step on the
part, of France was followed by several other states of Europe, which
based their action upon the same motive, A great American industry,
giving a prosperous
[Page 379]
export
trade, was thus denounced to the world as a source of danger to public
health. Considering that in the United States, in Great Britain, and in
Belgium there were millions consuming American pork without any danger
to life or to health, my Government, through General Noyes, who was then
United States minister at Paris, protested against the prohibition, and
urged a reconsideration of the subject. (General Noyes to M. Barthelemy
St. Hilaire, February 22, 1881.)
In the mean time my Government, although satisfied that the action of
France was unwise and injurious, proceeded to investigate the matter. It
did so thoroughly, and the result appeared perfectly satisfactory. Not
only were the alleged ravages of trichinae disproved, but it was shown
that unusual precautions had been taken to insure that none but the
healthiest animals should be slaughtered for packing, and that, although
trichinae had been detected in sundry cases, it was very far from being
as widespread as in other countries, and that the American process of
packing and curing secured to the consumers of American pork a much
greater immunity from trichinosis than that enjoyed by consumers of
European pork.
The facts thus elicited constrained my Government to represent to yours
that the decree prohibiting the importation of pork from the United
States was unwarranted, and that the United States Government deemed
itself rightfully entitled to a prompt and effectual modification of the
prohibitory action of France. (General Noyes to M. B. St. Hilaire, June
22, 1881.)
In March, 1882, the Chamber of Deputies passed a bill repealing the
prohibitory decree and providing for a liberal system of inspection.
At this time it was well established in France that trichinae which may
be found in American pork is absolutely inoffensive, the salt killing
the animaleulæ, or reducing it to such a state that the slightest
cooking destroyed it. French scientists of the highest grade and
reputation admitted the fact, the minister of commerce, Mr. Tirard, was
reconciled to the repeal of the decree of prohibition, and the Academy
of Medicine, as well as the board of health, so advised the
Government.
The Senate nevertheless rejected the bill, but its action was well
understood to be based not upon any doubt as to the innocuousness of
American pork, but simply upon the ground that the Government could
reverse the decree of prohibition by an executive decree without any
legislation to that effect.
In March, 1883, Mr. Morton reopened the subject with Mr. Challemel
Lacour, who was then minister of foreign affairs. He reminded him that
the decree prohibiting American salted meats had now been in force for
more than two years, while similar products from other countries were
freely admitted; that there could be no valid reason why this
exceptional measure should be applicable to the United States. He
expressed the hope that the French Government after considering all the
evidence before it, would place the United States upon the same footing
as all other friendly nations by revoking the obnoxious decree.
This earnest request not being noticed by Mr. Challemel Lacour, on the
20th of October, 1883, it was renewed in emphatic terms. On November 15,
1883, Mr. Morton received from Mr. Jules Ferry the positive assurance
that the French Government was animated with a strong desire to give
this question a most liberal solution and at the earliest possible
moment.
Two weeks after, November 27, 1883, a decree was issued revoking the
prohibitory one of February, 1881, no condition being attached to the
revocation. The minister of commerce, in a circular to the prefects,
simply stated that the committee of public hygiene had ascertained both
scientifically and experimentally that pork loses all danger of
infection by trichinosis if it is salted with care, and that the only
thing that the authorities had to do was to be sure that the imported
pork put on the market was fully cured.
This matured action was not well received in the Chamber of Deputies, and
oh the 22d of December, 1883, after a long debate, it passed a
resolution expressing the wish that the admission of American pork be
delayed until the adoption of a bill providing for a system of
inspection of all foreign meats. In consequence of this resolution a new
decree December 28 suspended the application of the one canceling the
original measure of prohibition.
In June, 1884, the law referred to was introduced in the Chamber, but
many months having passed without its being called up, Mr. Morton again
pressed the matter, and both your excellency and Mr. Legrand gave him
the assurance that it would shortly be discussed, and that a solution
would soon be arrived at. Under date of May 12, your excellency
confirmed in writing these assurances to Mr. Morton, all of which he
duly communicated to his Government. The Chamber, however, adjourned
without any change having taken place in the measures so unwarrantably
adopted four years ago.
I respectfully, but earnestly, submit that this discrimination against an
important branch of the trade of a friendly nation is, under the
circumstances, absolutely unjustifiable, and that it cannot be
maintained without alienating in some degree the good understanding
which has so long existed between France and the United States.
[Page 380]
I do not in the least contest the right of the French Government to close
its ports to an unwholesome product, or to shut its markets to all
foreign products of a certain kind; nor do I deny its legitimate right
to levy upon such products any duty it may think proper; hut the case
here is quite different. It is no longer contended that American pork is
unhealthy, yet the existing prohibition applies only to it.
I take the liberty therefore of urging the propriety of settling this
long-pending difficulty by the same mode which created it—a decree of
the Executive rescinding the one establishing the prohibition.
I can understand well that your Government hesitated to take such a step
in presence of a resolution of the Chamber requesting delay until the
passage of a proposed bill applicable to the case, but the Chamber which
made this request failed to pass this bill, and as its powers have
expired it can never do so.
I avail, &c.,
