711.5112France/262
The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 13.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that the general reaction here to M. Briand’s last peace pact note has been very favorable.
A limited section of public opinion still appears to feel that the proposed pact in its present form is absolutely in contradiction with the League of Nations, and there is a disposition in some quarters to contend that the reservations set forth by M. Briand amount after all to limiting the condemnation of war to wars of aggression—in [Page 20] other words, if the other signatories are to be released in case the pact is violated, who is to decide upon or define the violator?—but on the whole there is no undue tendency to argue or criticize.
Sentiment is practically unanimous as to M. Briand’s reply being effective both tactically and substantially, and as to France having gone as far as she or any other nation could go along the path of conciliation while taking into account her contractual obligations.
Likewise, attention is called with emphasis and approbation to the passage of the note stating that the French Government would not feel justified in discussing longer “its adhesion to a project the responsibility, as well as the conception, of which pertains to the American Government itself.” Coupled with this idea of our moral responsibility for the proposal in its present form—which undoubtedly will continue to be popular here for sometime—is, I think, a growing realization of the possibilities with respect to our eventual moral obligation in case of a violation of the pact. As has been reported in previous despatches, the Socialist Oeuvre has consistently set forth this view; it would appear to be growing increasingly widespread and bids fair to become the main consideration in the new phase of negotiations which has now been opened.
This is perhaps the most appropriate place to report to the Department that in its comment on M. Briand’s note, the Journal des Débats revives the confusion concerning the two Havana resolutions attendant upon the publication of our note of February 27. This paper states that the preamble to the resolution of February 18 condemning war as an instrument of national policy was omitted from the Final Act of the Conference as signed, a copy of which, containing the full text of the resolutions adopted, it claimed reached Paris on March 29 and was in its hands. The Department will undoubtedly be interested in reading the whole article which is herewith transmitted.18 As the Department is aware, this Embassy is not yet in receipt of any such document or final report nor, I find upon inquiry, is the Cuban Legation here. It should, however, be borne in mind that the French journalists attending the Latin Press Conference at Havana have been drifting back into Paris for the last few days.
I should appreciate having the Department’s instructions in the premises definitively clearing up this confusion.19
I have [etc.]
First Secretary of Embassy