C. V. Schubert
No. 3.
Protocol.
Minutes of a Meeting betvreen Britisb and German Représentatives, beld
at 4 p. m., on the 2nd Decenaber, 1924, at the Foreign Office, London,
for tbe purpose of signing a Treaty of Ct)mmerce and Navigation between
Great Britain und Germany.
PJenipotentiaries présent:
Great Britain
Tbe Right Honourable Austen Chamberlain, M.P., His Majesty'H Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
The Right Honourable Lord D'Abernon, G.C.M.G., His Majesty Ambussador Extraordinary and Pleuipotentiary at Berlin. Germany
His Excellency the German Ambassador, Dr. Sthamer.
Dr. Cari von Schubert, Direclor in tbe German Ministry for Foreign Aifairs.
The St'cretary of State for Foreign Affairs announced tbat the negotiar tioD of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Germany was now concluded and tbat the Treaty was ready for signature.
The German Ambassador, on bchalf of the German délégation, drew attention to the terms of Sir Otto Nieraeyer's letter to Herr von Schubert of the 28th November, 1924, and desired tbat a copy thereof sbould form an antiex to tbe minutes of this meeting.
Tbe Secretary of Siate for Foreign Affairs ngreed, and stated tbat the Treaty was signed ou either side without réservation and upon tbe
Commerce, navigation. 673
understanding that it would not préjudice in aoy way rights enjoyed under or in virtue of the Treaty of Versailles.
The German Ambassador concurred in this view.
The plenipotentiaries (the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Lord D'Abernon for Great Britain, and the German Ambassador and Herr Ton Schubert for Germany) then proceeded to the signature of the Treaty and of the protocol attached thereto, and the proceedings terminated.
Austen Chamherlin. D'Ahernon.
Sthamer. C. v. Schubert.
No. 4.
Annex.
Sir Otto Niemeyer to Herr von Schubert.
November 28, 1924.
Dear Herr von Schubert,
I hâve now been able to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and am in a position to give to you our reply with regard to the Réparation (Recovery) Act. In the first place, I can repeat my assurance that we hâve no désire to retain the Act for its own sake, and that the only object of any stipulations which we may make is to secure that by departing from the procédure under the Act, as it at présent exists, the British Government does not lose the share of réparation receipts to which it is entitled.
The difficulty which we see in adopting any procédure on the lines of that suggested in the mémorandum which you gave to me yesterday, is that the Réparation (Recovery) Act has a recognised position, and that we must make sure that if we alter the procédure we do not sacrifice the rights which we enjoy in respect of the Act as it stands, in which form the German Government agreed to facilitate its working by reimbursing the amount of the levy to German exporters by Article IX of the Schedule of Payments and by either acceptance of the Dawes plan. We hold, as I told you, that it was the intention of the Dawes Report that the annuities for the first two years should be received in the form of deliveries in kind and local expenditure of the armies of occupation. The Dawes Report explicitly states that where there is référence to deliveries in kind in the report: »We hâve intended to include therein payments in Germany arising through the opération of the Réparation (Recovery) Acts." Before, therefore, we could consider any alternative procédure, it would be necessary to ascertain whether the agent-general, the Transfer Committee and the other Governments which signed the London agreements take the view that the annuities for the first two years must be received in deliveries in kind (including payments under the Réparation (Recovery) Act), and, if so, whether they would take the view that payments under
N<mv. Recueil Gén. 3» S. XIX. 48
674 Allemagne j Orande-Bretagne.
the System which you propose could, for this purpose, be considered as being payments undor the Réparation (Recovery) Act. As I explained to you, the scheme which you propose would necessarily entail the repeal or suspension of the Réparation (Recovery) Act, and there is, therefore, clearly great doubt how far payments received under an alternative plan would be accepted by ail the parties concerned as being subject to the same conditions as payments under the Act as it now exists.
Moreover under existiog inter-Allied agreements our receipts under the Recovery Act are exempt from the charge for Beigian priority and for the United States of America arrears of cost of occupation, and if our position is to be the same under the alternative procédure as under the existing procédure, it would clearly be necessary to obtaiu an extension of thèse privilèges to our receipts under the new procédure.
It appears to the Chancellor of the Ëxchequer that the first step must necessarily be to ascertain what vîew of the matter would be taken by the agent-general, the Transfer Committee and other parties concerned. It rests with the Gerraan Government to ascertain whether it will be possible to get the consent of the agent-general and the Transfer Committee to a proposai on the lines put forward or on similar lines which would protect the British rigbts re.ferred to above, and, at the same time, not involve payments by individual mercbants. The British Government cannot give any formai assurance, but they are quite ready to use their good offices to secure such a resuit.
As soon as the necessary consents hâve been obtained, the British Government will enter into negotiations with the German Government with a view to the introduction of the new procédure. I am, <&c.
