882.01 Foreign Control/657
Mr. Harvey S. Firestone to the Secretary of State
[Received September 26.]
My Dear Mr. Secretary: In 1922 when the British Government restricted the production and exportation of rubber to artificially raise the price to the United States which consumed about seventy percent of the world’s output, I presented the situation to our Government officials who could readily appreciate its seriousness. While our Government could not make a formal protest, it did make an indirect protest when Congress appropriated,63 without a dissenting vote, $500,000.00 for the [Page 935] investigation of new places where Americans could develop a source of rubber supply independent of the foreign monopoly.
The Firestone Company, realizing the importance to America and the need of quick action, made an independent survey and investigation and came to the conclusion that Liberia was the best place in which to create an independent source of supply of rubber for the United States. This decision was based chiefly on the fact that for more than one hundred years Liberia had been what might be termed a “moral protectorate” of the United States and because of the special interest which the United States had always taken in Liberia due to the peculiar circumstances upon which that country was founded.
In view of the importance to this country of an independent rubber supply, our Government felt it proper and was willing to take an unusual interest in our rubber-growing undertaking. American capital could not be secured to go into a foreign country for the development of rubber for the United States without the protection of our Government. Consequently, before entering into an arrangement with the Liberian Government for the lease of lands on which to grow rubber, it was necessary to have the full knowledge and sanction of our Government and I submitted the proposed contracts to our State Department. From that time we have endeavored to cooperate with our State Department and carry out its wishes. We understand that it is the desire of the State Department to maintain, if possible, international participation in the solution of Liberian problems and that to this end it now believes that it would be helpful if we should withdraw the premise upon which we agreed to lend financial support to the League Plan of Assistance for Liberia, namely, that the Chief Adviser under this Plan shall be an American citizen. We understand this question comes up because of a recent communication of the Liberian Government to the League of Nations stating in effect that it does not want an American as Chief Adviser. We believe that this Memorandum is only an excuse to avoid the League Plan of Assistance and that if the reservation concerning an American Chief Adviser should be withdrawn, other objections will be brought forward in an attempt to defeat the Plan.
The real protection of Liberia as an independent state has always come from this country and we have felt that it was of paramount importance to both Liberia and ourselves that some vestige of the traditional American atmosphere and spirit shall be preserved in Liberia through the appointment by the League of an American as Chief Adviser under its Plan of Assistance. However, we wish to continue to meet the wishes of the American State Department, and, consequently, if it is the desire of the State Department, we are willing to underwrite the cost of the Plan of Assistance without the condition that the Chief Adviser must [Page 936] necessarily be an American citizen provided the Plan is accepted in the form recommended by the League Liberian Committee on June 27, 1933 and becomes effective.
Yours very truly,
- 42 Stat, 1536.↩