immediately inform Foreign Office of substance of foregoing in correction of verbal opinion expressed by you.

[Paraphrase.] The French Government has attached to the permission granted for crossing its territory the condition that the Zeppelin shall not fly the German flag while in transit over French territory.

It is the Department's understanding that the representatives of the Navy Department at Friedrichshafen have attended to this matter and that German flag will not be flown over French territory. Any attempt by German authorities to raise the question of authorization in general or of German flag in particular would be most unfortunate. [End paraphrase.]

Please cable report immediately."

HUGHES

811.348 Z 4/167: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Chargé in France (Whitehouse)

WASHINGTON, October 3, 1924—6 p. m.

314. Your 421, September 29, noon. Inform Foreign Office that Embassy Berlin is informally advised that airship will not fly any flag in course of its flight over French territory.

Department assumes that on above understanding and avoidance of seaports mentioned in your 416, September 25, 3 p. m., Zeppelin is now free to cross French territory on its Transatlantic flight. Please confirm telegraphically."

HUGHES

811.348 Z 4/174

The British Ambassador (Howard) to the Secretary of State

No. 913

WASHINGTON, October 7, 1924. SIR: I have the honour to refer to the note which you were so good as to address to me on the 26th ultimo regarding the trans-Atlantic flight of the United States dirigible airship Z.R. 3, and I take pleasure in informing you that in the unhappy event of the vessel above-mentioned being compelled through accident or stress of weather to fly over or alight in Canada or Newfoundland, the Governments of those Dominions will be pleased to extend every courtesy and render every assistance possible to the Z.R. 3 and her crew. I have [etc.] ESME HOWARD

On Oct. 3, 2 p. m., the Chargé informed the Department that the Zeppelin would fly no flag except on leaving Friedrichshafen and on arrival at destination (file no. 811.348 Z 4/170).

'On Oct. 4, 1 p. m., the Chargé telegraphed that the airship was now free to cross French territory (file no. 811.348 Z 4/172).

811.348 Z 4/185: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Germany (Robbins)

WASHINGTON, November 13, 1924-5 p. m. 147. Please inform Foreign Office that Navy Department on behalf of the United States Government officially accepted the ZR-3 on November 10 pursuant to terms of Article 9 of Agreement of June 26, 1922 between the United States and the German Government. Request Foreign Office officially to notify Zeppelin Company of this acceptance in accordance with Article 19 of contract of June 26, 1922 between Captain Upham, representing Navy Department, and Zeppelin Company."

HUGHES

LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO SENATOR LODGE URGING RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY SIGNED ON DECEMBER 8, 1923 10

611.6231/189a

The Secretary of State to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (Lodge)

WASHINGTON, March 13, 1924. MY DEAR SENATOR LODGE: I understand that questions have been raised with respect to certain clauses in the treaty with Germany now pending before your Committee. In view of the importance of these clauses, I desire to emphasize the considerations which led to their inclusion in the treaty.

It is hardly necessary for me to refer to the general situation with respect to our commercial treaties. With a number of countries we have no commercial treaties, and the treaties we have should be supplemented and brought up to date. Important subjects are not covered and as to other subjects more precise and definite provisions are required. We are therefore faced with the necessity of negotiating commercial treaties which should be responsive to our needs, and to this end there has been a most careful study of the questions presented. In this examination we have been led to consider the fundamental policies which our commercial treaties should embody. The result of this examination appears in the pending treaty with Germany.

'Not printed; the agreement was signed by Ambassador Houghton and Herr von Haniel to carry into effect the resolution adopted by the Conference of Ambassadors, Paris, at its 157th meeting, Dec. 16, 1921 (see Foreign Relations, 1921, vol. п, p. 69).

10

Contract not printed.

For text of treaty, see Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. п, p. 29.

I understand that the difficulties, which your Committee has met, relate to two classes of provisions,-(1) those providing for "national" treatment, and (2) those providing for "most-favorednation" treatment.

First. National treatment. These provisions give to the nationals of the contracting Powers reciprocally the same privileges which the contracting Powers respectively accord to their own nationals in relation to the subject described. Thus the pending treaty with Germany provides in Article VII as follows:

"Article VII. . . . All the articles which are or may be legally imported from foreign countries into ports of the United States, in United States vessels, may likewise be imported into those ports in German vessels, without being liable to any other or higher duties or charges whatsoever than if such articles were imported in United States vessels; and, reciprocally, all articles which are or may be legally imported from foreign countries into the ports of Germany, in German vessels, may likewise be imported into these ports in United States vessels without being liable to any other or higher duties or charges whatsoever than if such were imported from foreign countries in German vessels."

"Article VIII. The nationals and merchandise of each High Contracting Party within the territories of the other shall receive the same treatment as nationals and merchandise of the country with regard to internal taxes, transit duties, charges in respect to warehousing and other facilities and the amount of drawbacks and bounties.

"Article IX. No duties of tonnage, harbor, pilotage, lighthouse, quarantine, or other similar or corresponding duties or charges of whatever denomination, levied in the name or for the profit of the Government, public functionaries, private individuals, corporations or establishments of any kind shall be imposed in the ports of the territories of either country upon the vessels of the other, which shall not equally, under the same conditions, be imposed on national vessels. Such equality of treatment shall apply reciprocally to the vessels of the two countries respectively from whatever place they may arrive and whatever may be their place of destination."

The policy reflected in these articles is not new. Thus Article II of the Treaty of 1815 with Great Britain provides:

"No higher or other duties or charges shall be imposed in any of the ports of the United States on British vessels than those payable in the same ports by vessels of the United States; nor in the ports. of any of His Britannick Majesty's territories in Europe on the vessels of the United States than shall be payable in the same ports on British vessels.

"The same duties shall be paid on the importation into the United States of any articles the growth, produce or manufacture of His Britannick Majesty's territories in Europe, whether such importation shall be in vessels of the United States or in British vessels, and the same duties shall be paid on the importation into the ports of any of His Britannick Majesty's territories in Europe, of any article

the growth, produce or manufacture of the United States, whether such importation shall be in British vessels or in vessels of the United States.

"The same duties shall be paid, and the same bounties allowed, on the exportation of any articles the growth, produce or manufacture of His Britannick Majesty's territories in Europe to the United States, whether such exportation shall be in vessels of the United States or in British vessels; and the same duties shall be paid, and the same bounties allowed, on the exportation of any articles the growth, produce or manufacture of the United States, to His Britannick Majesty's territories in Europe, whether such exportation shall be in British vessels or in vessels of the United States.

"It is further agreed that in all cases where drawbacks are or may be allowed upon the re-exportation of any goods the growth, produce or manufacture of either country, respectively, the amount of the said drawbacks shall be the same, whether the said goods shall have been originally imported in a British or an American vessel; but when such re-exportation shall take place from the United States in a British vessel, or from the territories of His Britannick Majesty in Europe in an American vessel, to any other foreign nation, the two contracting parties reserve to themselves, respectively, the right of regulating or diminishing, in such case, the amount of the said drawback." (Malloy's Treaties, Vol. I, 625, 626.)

There are similar provisions in Articles IV, V and VI of our Treaty of 1853 with the Argentine Republic, as follows:

"Article IV. No higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the territories of either of the two contracting parties of any article of the growth, produce or manufacture of the territories of the other contracting party, than are, or shall be, payable on the like article of any other foreign country; nor shall any other or higher duties or charges be imposed in the territories of either of the contracting parties, on the exportation of any article to the territories of the other, than such as are, or shall be, payable on the exportation of the like article to any other foreign country; nor shall any prohibition be imposed upon the importation or exportation of any article of the growth, produce or manufacture of the territories of either of the contracting parties, to or from the territories of the other, which shall not equally extend to the like article of any other foreign country.

"Article V. No other or higher duties or charges, on account of tonnage, light or harbor dues, pilotage, salvage in case of average or shipwreck, or any other local charges, shall be imposed in the ports of the two contracting parties on the vessels of the other, than those payable in the same ports on its own vessels.

"Article VI. The same duties shall be paid, and the same drawbacks and bounties allowed, upon the importation or exportation of any article into or from the territories of the United States, or into or from the territories of the Argentine Confederation, whether such importation or exportation be made in vessels of the United States or in vessels of the Argentine Confederation." (Malloy's Treaties, Vol. I, 21, 22.)

Similar provisions for reciprocal national treatment are found in our Treaty of 1826 with Denmark; of 1827 with Norway (Sweden and Norway); of 1846 with Colombia (New Granada); of 1851 with Costa Rica; of 1852 with the Netherlands; of 1858 with Bolivia; of 1859 with Paraguay; of 1864 with Honduras; of 1871 with Italy; of 1875 with Belgium; of 1902 with Spain; and of 1911 with Japan.

It is manifest that to refuse to provide for such reciprocal national treatment in the negotiation of our new commercial treaties would be a clear departure from our policy embodied in these existing treaties. Further, there is no provision in many of these existing treaties for the abrogation of the provisions in question without abrogating the whole treaty. Some of our treaties, as those with Great Britain and the Argentine Republic, have no provision. for termination and, assuming that they could be terminated on reasonable notice, they could be terminated in this way only as a whole and not in part. It would, however, be a serious thing for us to dispose of all our commercial treaties without negotiating new treaties to take their place. If we were to abrogate existing treaties before undertaking such negotiations we should be in an unfortunate situation, and, if we were to undertake to negotiate substitute treaties without such abrogation, we should not be likely to get terms more favorable to the United States than the terms of the existing treaties unless we paid for them with substantial concessions.

On the other hand, if we continue to be bound by the provisions for national treatment in the existing treaties, there would seem to be little in the point that we should reserve in relation to other countries rights of discrimination by refusing national treatment. This would practically be a threat of discrimination against certain countries, inviting reprisals, while at the same time our hands would be tied in carrying out a similar policy as to the countries with which we have treaties of the sort above described.

Apart from these considerations the policy of giving reciprocal national treatment as embodied in existing treaties so far as they go, and as defined in the clauses in the pending treaty with Germany, is believed to be a sound one.

Take, for example, the case of a tonnage duty. This is imposed upon a vessel entering a port and is measured according to the net registered tonnage of the vessel. It is a duty on the ship as such, and is the price exacted by the territorial sovereign for the privilege given the vessel to enter with its cargo. It becomes of the highest importance to the shipowner, foreign or domestic, that his vessel be not subjected to a heavier tax than that imposed upon rival vessels under any flag. The rivals of an American vessel entering, for example, a European port called X, are not merely the vessels of third States but the vessels of X itself. Thus, in entering into a