Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1937, The British Commonwealth, Europe, Near East and Africa, Volume II

611.4131/337

Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of Trade Agreements (Deimel)

[Washington,] July 16, 1937.

Conversation:	Mr. Chalkley	}	of the British Embassy
	Mr. Heywood
	Mr. Stirling
	Mr. Dunn
	Mr. Moffat73
	Mr. Minter
	Mr. Southworth
	Mr. Deimel

Messrs. Chalkley, Stirling, and Heywood called at 3 p.m. Thursday afternoon, July 15, by appointment. In arranging the appointment Mr. Chalkley had indicated that they wished to discuss procedure for supplying us with the information brought from London by Mr. Stirling. Actually, however, they brought in, and Mr. Stirling read to us, a compilation of specific statements, which they said, while of course official, should be regarded as emanating from the British Embassy rather than from the Government at London. There is attached the copy of these statements which they left with us.⁷⁴ Mr. Chalkley and Mr. Stirling said that our record of our recent conversations with the Australians and New Zealanders was to be considered as supplementing these statements.

They also raised in discussion the following points:

(1) That Canada had indicated an interest in participating in discussions with us on the subject, and that they (Chalkley and associates) would be glad to have our reaction to the suggestion unless we preferred to communicate it direct to the Canadians;

(2) That they would like our consideration of the possibility of broadening our principal supplier rule so that there might be included in the desiderata which the United Kingdom would submit in the course of trade agreement negotiations, requests for concessions on commodities which would be of principal interest to some of the Dominions: for instance, the Canadians had indicated that they were interested in codfish and also in our duties on patent leather, honey, and apples;

(3) That they would like to have our “supplementary desiderata” before an announcement was made that negotiation of a trade agreement with the United Kingdom was contemplated; in discussion, however, they did not appear to hold to this point very strongly;

(4) That with respect to rice, they expected shortly to learn from London the results of the discussions with the Indian and Burmese delegations which had recently arrived in London.

Mr. Chalkley intimated the hope that we would find these statements adequate to enable us to reach the decision to make public announcement that negotiation of a trade agreement with the United Kingdom is contemplated. He said that in the opinion of the British it would greatly facilitate reaching an understanding if the United States would consider its requests as negotiable rather than as iron-clad minima. He went on to say that his definition of a “negotiable request” would cover, for instance, in the case of tobacco, consideration of such action as binding the present preferential margin.

Mr. Chalkley has been indicating anxiety on the part of the British Government to make some early public announcement of contemplated negotiations. Mr. Stirling verified our conjectures by remarking that it was the view of the British Government that failure to do so would, in view of all the recent publicity, have as bad an effect as a breakdown of negotiations after their initiation.

Mr. Chalkley said that they would hold themselves in readiness to discuss the matter further with us at any time, and, if we had questions to ask, would be glad to telegraph to London for the replies. He was assured that the statements submitted would immediately receive our most careful and thorough study and analysis, and that we would communicate with him again as soon as we were in a position to ask further questions or make any comment. He was also told that we could not consider our own record of our conversations with the Australian and New Zealand officials as a part of the United Kingdom Government’s statement to us regarding the attitude of the Dominions toward our requests of the United Kingdom, but that we must necessarily look to the United Kingdom Government to make its own statement to us as to how the attitude of Australia and New Zealand, following these conversations, might affect the United Kingdom Government’s attitude toward our requests.

73. Jay Pierrepont Moffat, Foreign Service Officer, appointed Chief of the Division of European Affairs on July 17, 1937, when Mr. Dunn became Adviser on Political Relations.
74. Supra.