611.4131/1843
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Chief of the Division of Trade Agreements (Hawkins)
| Participants: | The Honorable Sir Ronald Lindsay, British Ambassador; |
| Mr. A. E. Overton, British Trade Delegation; | |
| Sir Owen Chalkley, Commercial Counselor of Embassy; | |
| Mr. Harry C. Hawkins. |
At the invitation of the British Ambassador, Mr. Sayre accompanied by Mr. Hawkins called at the Embassy this afternoon. Messrs. Overton and Chalkley were with the Ambassador.
The Ambassador referred to our latest communications regarding the trade agreement, which, he said, were being given careful study here and in London. He stated that a summary of the main points in our memorandum of October 6, and the text of the Secretary’s letter of that date,61a had been transmitted to London by telegraph and that the authorities in London had discussed these matters with the Ambassador by telephone.
Sir Ronald said that he first wanted to inquire whether our latest requests were to be regarded as in the nature of an ultimatum; whether we really intended to insist upon the granting of 100 percent of the concessions indicated, or to what extent they might be subject to some modification. Mr. Sayre replied that there was no such thing as an ultimatum between friends; but that, as the Secretary had stated in his letter, the concessions requested were, after most careful consideration, regarded as indispensable if we are to obtain public support for the agreement in this country.
[Page 62]The Ambassador asked whether there could be any change in the wording of any formula. Mr. Sayre replied that it is the substance of our requests which is indispensable. The Ambassador indicated that the British probably would want to make some change in our formula on tobacco, but did not indicate the nature of the change.
The Ambassador then inquired whether it would not be sufficient if the British met our requests on tobacco, lard and lumber. Mr. Sayre replied in the negative, pointing out that other products were involved as stated in our memorandum of October 6. In reply to a specific question by the Ambassador whether our request on flour is really an important desideratum, Mr. Sayre replied in the affirmative. At this point, Mr. Overton remarked that the granting of our request for a binding of the duty on flour would seem to have been rendered impossible because of our subsidy on flour exports; that it would hardly be possible to bind a duty against increase at the time when a subsidy is being paid and under the terms of the agreement a countervailing duty might be imposed. It was pointed out to him that it does not seem to follow that the ordinary customs duty should not be bound merely because a special duty imposed to meet a special condition is provided for in the agreement.
The Ambassador indicated that he expected to have instructions as to the reply to be given to our proposals before the end of next week. He said that he feared that this reply would be unfavorable, in which case it might be desirable for him and Overton to go to London and see what they could do to persuade the British Government to meet our requests. He asked whether in such a contingency we thought this would be desirable. Mr. Sayre replied that we did not now have any opinion on this point, and that, in any event, it seems unnecessary to attempt to reach a decision until the contingency referred to by the Ambassador arises. Mr. Sayre expressed the hope that the British reply would be favorable, and that the contingency would not arise.