[Distributed to the Council and Official No. : C. 6ll. M. l8j. 1928. II. the Members of the League.]

Geneva, December 31st, 1928.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR THE ABOLITION OF IMPORT AND EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

Held at Geneva from July 3rd to 19th, 1928

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE

First Part :

A. N ote b y t h e S e c r e t a r y -G e n e r a l .

B . O ffic ia l I n s t r u m e n t s o f t h e Co n f e r e n c e .

Second Part :

M in u t e s o f t h e P l e n a r y M e e t in g s .

Third Part :

A n n e x e s .

Published by the Economic and Financial Section.

Series of League of Nations Publications II. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL I929. II. 9. CONTENTS.

Page FIRST P AR T.

A. N o te b y t h e S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l ...... y

B. Official I nstruments of the Co n feren ce : I. Supplementary Agreement to the Convention of November 8th, 1927, for the Abolition of Import and ExportProhibitions and Restrictions . . 9 II. Protocol to the SupplementaryAgreement ...... 17 III. Final A c t ...... 25

SECOND PART.

Minutes of the P lenary Me e t in g s ...... 37 (See Contents, Second Part.)

THIRD P A R T.

Annexes : 1. Proposal by the Drafting Committee : Application of Article 17 of the Convention of November 8th, 1 9 2 7 ...... 106 2. Proposals by the Drafting Committee (Second Draft) : Application of Article 17 of the Convention of November 8th,19 2 7 ...... 106 3. Proposals by the Drafting Committee (Third Draft) : Application of Article 17 of the Convention of November 8th, 1927...... 107 4. Report of the Second Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones to the Second International Conference for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibition and Restrictions with regard to the Agreement reached on Hides, Skins and B o n e s ...... 108 5. Draft Supplementary Agreement to the Convention ofNovember 8th, 1927 114 6. D raft Protocol to the Supplem entary A g r e e m e n t ...... 115 7. Drafts of Article C subm itted at the Eleventh M e e tin g ...... 117 8. Draft of Text of Section IV (a) of the Protocol as worded after the . Adoption of the Amendments made in the first three paragraphs of Article C ...... 117 9. List of Exceptions claimed by various Governments under Article 6 of the Convention of Novem ber 8th, 1 9 2 7 ...... 118 10. Exceptions claimed by the Chilian Government under Article 6. . . . 119

S- d. N. i.loO (F.) 900 (A.) 3/29. Imp. Desclée De Brouwer et Cie, Bruges FIRST PART.

A.™NOTE BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL.

B.—OFFICIAL INSTRUMENTS OF THE CONFERENCE :

I. Supplementary Agreement to the Convention of November 8 t h , 1927, for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions.

II. P rotocol to t h e S upplementary A g r e e m e n t .

III. F in a l A c t . A.—Note by the Secretary-General.

In execution of Article 17 of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions concluded as the outcome of the International Conference held at Geneva from October 17th to November 8th, 1927 \ the States which signed the Convention on or before June 15th, 1928, were invited to send representatives to a second Conference in order to determine, in accordance with Article 17 : (a) The reservations which, having been communicated to the high contracting parties in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 4, may, with their consent, be made at the time of ratification ; (b) The conditions required for the coming into force of the Convention and, in particular, the number and, if necessary, the names of the Members of the League and of non-Member States, whether the)' are signatories or not, whose ratification or accession must first be secured ; (c) The last date on which the ratifications may be deposited and the date on which the Convention shall come into force if the conditions required under the preceding paragraph are fulfilled. Representatives were sent by all the States invited to the Conference, namely : Austria Great Britain Portugal Belgium Hungary Roumania Chile India Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats Czechoslovakia Italy Siam [and Slovenes Denmark Japan Sweden Egypt Latvia Switzerland Estonia Luxemburg Turkey Finland Netherlands United States of America. France Norway Germany Poland The International Chamber of Commerce was also invited and took part in the Conference in an advisory capacity. The Council requested M. Colijn, former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, to preside over the Conference, which was held at Geneva from July 3rd to 10th, 1928, and resulted in the framing of the Supplementary Agreement set forth below.

1 For the text of the Convention, see document C. 559 (1). M. 201 (1). 1927. II, and for the Minutes of the Conference, see document C. 21. M. 12. 1928. II. B. Instruments officiels de la Conférence.

I. ACCORD COMPLÉMENTAIRE A LA CONVENTION DU 8 NOVEMBRE 1927 POUR L’ABOLITION DES PROHIBITIONS ET RESTRICTIONS A L’IMPORTATION ET A L’EXPORTATION

(Chefs d ’État.)

Vu la Convention signée à Genève le 8 novembre 1927 pour l’abolition des prohibitions et restrictions à l'importation et à l’exportation ; Vu les dispositions de l’article 17 de ladite Convention : Ont désigné pour leurs plénipotentiaires à la réunion prévue audit article, savoir :

(Liste des plénipotentiaires.)

lesquels, après avoir communiqué leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes, destinées à compléter les dispositions de la Convention susdite, dont elles feront partie intégrante.

Article A.

L’annexe de l’article 6 de la Convention du 8 novembre 1927 est complétée comme suit au profit des pays ci-après désignés :

Exceptions consenties en conformité du paragraphe 1.

Bulgarie ...... à l’exportation C h i l i ...... J u m e n ts ...... Portugal...... Liège à l’état b r u t...... Suède ...... Ferrailles ...... à l’exportation Tchécoslovaquie . . . B. Official Instruments of the Conference.

I. SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT TO THE CONVENTION OF NOVEMBER 8 t h , 1927, FOR THE ABOLITION OF IMPORT AND EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS.

(Heads of States.)

Having regard to the Convention signed at Geneva on November 8th, 1927, for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions ; Having regard to the provisions of Article 17 of the said Convention ; Have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries for the meeting provided for in the said Article, namely :

(List of Plenipotentiaries.)

■ who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on the following provisions, intended to supplement the provisions of the aforesaid Convention, of which they shall form an integral part.

Article A.

The Annex to Article 6 of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, is supplemented as follows for the benefit of the countries named hereafter :

Exceptions agreed to under Paragraph 1.

B u l g a r i a ...... Rose-trees and roots and s h o o ts ...... Export C h ile ...... Scrap iron and scrap z in c ...... Export M a r e s ...... Export Czechoslovakia . . . Hop s h o o ts ...... Export Portugal...... Fine wool ...... Export Cork in the raw state ...... Export Sweden...... Scrap iron...... Export — 10 —

Exceptions consenties en conformité du paragraphe 2.

E s to n ie ...... Platine, pierres précieuses, perles et coraux (bruts ou achevés, détachés ou montés) à l’exportation États-Unis d ’Amérique . . Gaz h é l i u m ...... à l’exportation Portugal...... Gomme de p i n ...... à l’exportation Tchécoslovaquie...... Q u a r tz ite ...... à l’exportation

Article B.

Au cas où les Arrangements conclus en date de ce jour relatifs à l’exportation des peaux et des os ne pourraient, à défaut des ratifications nécessaires, être mis en vigueur, les Hautes Parties contractantes au présent Accord complémentaire sont convenues d’autoriser chacune d ’elles à introduire ultérieurement les demandes qu’elles étaient en droit d’introduire aux termes de l’article 6 de la Convention et du Protocole y annexé et qu’elles ont renoncé à présenter au bénéfice des susdits Arrangements. Ces demandes de dérogations devront être adressées au Secrétariat général de la Société des Nations avant le 30 septembre 1929 et seront transmises par ses soins aux Hautes Parties contractantes avant le 31 octobre 1929. Les Hautes Parties contractantes s’engagent à se réunir d’urgence sur l’invitation qui leur sera adressée par le Secrétaire général à l’effet d’examiner les demandes de dérogations ci-dessus visées.

Article C.

Les Hautes Parties contractantes sont d’accord que, pour être mise en vigueur, la Conven­ tion devra avoir recueilli au préalable soit la ratification prévue à l’article 15, soit l’adhésion prévue à l’article 16 de ladite Convention, de la part d’au moins dix-huit Membres de la Société des Nations ou États non membres. Les ratifications devront être déposées avant le 30 septembre 1929. Chacune des Hautes Parties contractantes aura la faculté de faire savoir au Secrétaire général de la Société des Nations, au moment du dépôt de sa ratification ou de la notification de son adhésion, qu’elle subordonne la mise en vigueur de la Convention, en ce qui la concerne, à la ratification ou à l’adhésion notifiée au nom de certains États, sans pouvoir toutefois faire mention d’autres États que ceux dénommés ci-après :

L’Allemagne Le Japon L’Autriche La Pologne Les États-Unis d’Amérique La Roumanie La France Le Royaume des Serbes, Croates et Slovènes La Grande-Bretagne La Suisse La Hongrie La Tchécoslovaquie L’Italie La Turquie

Le Secrétaire général de la Société des Nations informera immédiatement chacune des Hautes Parties contractantes de chaque ratification ou adhésion enregistrée, ainsi que des indi­ cations dont elle aura pu être accompagnée en conformité de l’alinéa précédent. Le 31 octobre 1929, le_ Secrétaire général de la Société des Nations fera connaître à tous les Membres de la Société et États non membres, au nom desquels la présente Convention aura été signée ou l’adhésion aura été donnée en vertu de l’article 16 de la Convention, les ratifications déposées et les adhésions notifiées avant le 30 septembre 1929.

Article D.

S’il appert de la communication du Secrétaire général de la Société des Nations visée au dernier alinéa de l’article précédent que les conditions requises en vertu des trois premiers alinéas dudit article et du Protocole annexe se sont trouvées réalisées à la date du 30 septembre 1929, la Convention sera mise en vigueur le Ier janvier 1930. Dans le cas contraire, il sera procédé en conformité de l’alinéa final de l’article 17 de la Con­ vention. — I I —

Exceptions agreed to under Paragraph 2.

Czechoslovakia . . . Quartzite ...... Export Estonia ...... Platinum, precious stones, pearls and corals (in a rough state or finished, loose or m o unted)...... Export Portugal...Pine resin ...... Export United States .... Helium g a s ...... Export

Article B.

The High Contracting Parties agree that, in the event of the Agreements concluded on this day’s date relating to the Exportation of Hides and Skins and Bones not coming into force in default of the necessary ratifications' each of them shall be authorised to submit subsequent requests for exceptions which they were entitled to submit under the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention and the annexed Protocol, and which they have not submitted in view of the aforesaid Agreements. Such requests for exception shall be addressed to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations before September 30th, 1929, and shall be notified by him to the High Contracting Parties before October 31st, 1929. The High Contracting Parties undertake to meet without delay upon receiving an invitation from the Secretary-General in order to examine the requests for exceptions referred to above.

Article C.

The High Contracting Parties agree that the Convention, in order to be brought into force, must have secured either ratification as provided for in Article 15 or accession as provided for in Article 16 of the said Convention on behalf of at least eighteen Members of the League of Nations or non-Member States. The ratifications must be deposited before September 30th, 1929. Each of the High Contracting Parties shall have the right to inform the Secretary-General of the League of Nations at the moment of the deposit of his ratification or of the notification of his accession that he makes the entry into force of the Convention, in so far as he is concerned, conditional on ratification or accession on behalf of certain countries, without, however, being entitled to specify countries other than those named below :

Austria Japan Czechoslovakia Poland France Roumania Germany Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes Great Britain Switzerland Hungary Turkey Italy United States of America

The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall immediately inform each of the High Contracting Parties of each ratification or accession received and of any observations by which it may be accompanied in conformity with the preceding paragraph. On October 31st, 1929, the Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall notify all the Members of the League and non-Member States on behalf of which the Convention has been signed or acceded to under Article 16 of the Convention of the ratifications deposited and accessions notified before September 30th, 1929.

Article D.

If it appears from the communication of the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, which is referred to in the last paragraph of the preceding Article, that the conditions required m virtue of the first three paragraphs of the said Article and of the annexed Protocol have been fulfilled by September 30th, 1929, the Convention shall come into force on January 1st, 1930. In the contrary event, the procedure laid down in the last paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention shall be followed. — 12 —

E n f o i d e Quoi les plénipotentiaires susnom- I n faith whereof the above-mentioned més ont signé le présent Accord. Plenipotentiaries have signed the present A greem ent.

F a it à Genève, le onze juillet mil neuf cent D o n e at Geneva on the eleventh day of vingt-huit, en simple expédition, qui sera dé­ July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty- posée dans les archives du Secrétariat de la eight, in a single copy, which shall be deposited Société des Nations ; copie conforme en sera in the archives of the Secretariat of the League transmise à tous les Membres de la Société des of Nations ; certified true copies shall be for­ Nations et à tous les États non membres repré­ warded to all the Members of the League of sentés à la Conférence. Nations and all the non-Member States repre­ sented at the Conference.

ALLEMAGNEGERMANY Dr Ernst T rendelenburg

ÉTATS-UNIS D AMÉRIQUE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA H u g h R. W ils o n

AUTRICHE AUSTRIA Dr Richard Sc h u ller

BELGIQUE BELGIUM J. B r u n e t F. van L a n g en h o v e

GRANDE-BRETAGNE GREAT BRITAIN ET IRLANDE DU NORD AND NORTHERN IRELAND

ainsi que toutes parties de l’Empire and those parts of the British Em­ britannique, non membres séparés de pire which are not separate Members la Société des Nations. of the League of Nations.

I declare that my signature does not include any of His Britannic Majesty’s Colonies, Protectorates or territories under suzerainty or m andate.1

S. J. Ch a pm an

[Traduction.] 1 Je declare que ma signature ne couvre pas les colonies, protectorats ou territoires placés sous la suzeraineté ou le mandat de Sa Majesté Britannique. — 13 —

INDE INDIA H. A. F. L indsay

CHILI CHILE Tomas R amirez F rias

DANEMARK DENMARK J. Clan. William B orberg.

EGYPTE EGYPT Sadik E. H enein

ESTONIE ESTONIA A. Schmidt

FINLANDE FINLAND R u d olf H o l s t i. G u n n ar K ih lm a n

FRANCE FRANCE Au moment de signer le présent Accord complémentaire, la France déclare que, par son acceptation, elle n’entend assumer aucune obligation en ce qui concerne l’ensemble de ses colonies, protectorats et territoires placés sous sa suzeraineté ou mandat1.

D. Serruys

[Translation.] 1 On signing the present supplementary agreement France declares that by its acceptance it does not intend to assume any obligation in regard to any of lits Colonies, Protectorates and territories under its suzerainty or mandate. 14 —

HONGRIE HUNGARY N ic k l

ITALIE ITALY A. Di N ola P. T r o ise

JAPON JAPAN I to J. T su sh im a

LETTONIE LATVIA Charles D uzm ans

LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBURG Albert Calm es — 15

PAYS-BAS NETHERLANDS P o s th u m a F. M. W i b a u t S. d e G r a a f f

POLOGNE POLAND François D o leza l

PORTUGAL PORTUGAL A. d ’O l iv e ir a . F. d e Ca l h e ir o s e M e n e z e s

ROUMANIE ROUMANIA A n t o n ia d e . D. T. G h e o r g h iu César P o pesco

ROYAUME DES SERBES, KINGDOM OF THE SERBS, CROATES ET SLOVÈNES CROATS AND SLOVENES

Const. F o titch Georges Cu r c in

SIAM SIAM Cha roon

SUEDE SWEDEN Einar M odig

SUISSE SWITZERLAND W. St u c k i

TCHÉCOSLOVAQUIE CZECHOSLOVAKIA I bl

TURQUIE TURKEY Sous réserve de l’article B 1 H assan

[Translation.] 1 Subject to reservation as regards Article B. — i 6 —

II. PROTOCOLE DE L’ACCORD COMPLÉMENTAIRE

Au moment de procéder à la signature de l’Accord complémentaire à la Convention inter­ nationale pour l’abolition des prohibitions et restrictions à l’importation et à l’exportation, Accord conclu à la date de ce jour, les soussignés, dûment autorisés, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes, destinées à assurer l’application de cet Accord complémentaire :

Se c t io n i .

Les Hautes Parties contractantes déclarent que, dans le texte de l’Accord complémentaire en date de ce jour, l’expression « la Convention » désigne tant la Convention internationale du 8 novembre 1927 pour l’abolition des prohibitions et restrictions à l’importation et à l’exportation que l’Accord complémentaire en date de ce jour.

Se c t io n II. Ad Article A . a) Le liège à l’état brut, pour lequel une dérogation est consentie au Portugal, ne comprend pas le liège en déchets, en agglomérés, en râpures et en planches. b) Bien que les exceptions énumérées à l’article A aient été, comme celles qui apparaissent à l’annexe de l’article 6 de la Convention, consenties à la condition que les États qui en béné­ ficient signeraient le présent Accord complémentaire le jour de la signature générale, il a paru équitable d’accorder un délai s’étendant jusqu’au 31 août 1928 à la Bulgarie, aux États-Unis d’Amérique et au Portugal. c) En ce qui concerne l’exception de jets de houblon, accordée à la Tchécoslovaquie en vertu du paragraphe 1 de l’article 6 de la Convention, les Hautes Parties contractantes déclarent que leur consentement a été donné à la suite de l’engagement écrit par la délégation tchéco­ slovaque de rendre libre l’exportation de ce produit vers tous les pays qui garantissent ou garan­ tiront à la Tchécoslovaquie, par des mesures législatives ou contractuelles, la protection de l’ap­ pellation d’origine des houblons tchécoslovaques.

Se c t io n III. Ad Article B. Les Hautes Parties contractantes sont d’accord pour reconnaître en faveur de l’Italie l’ap­ plication de la disposition du Protocole de l’Arrangement international relatif à l’exportation des os (Section 1, ad article premier, a), dans le cas où ledit Arrangement entrerait en vigueur.

Se c t io n IV. Ad Article C.

а) Étant donné la situation des États-Unis d’Amérique, situation qui résulte du fait que l’année 1928-29 est une année de courte session parlementaire, les Hautes Parties contractantes conviennent que, même au cas où la ratification des États-Unis, demandée en vertu de l’alinéa 3 de l’article C, n’aura point été déposée à la date du 30 septembre 1929, la Convention sera mise en vigueur à la date du I er janvier 1930 si, du moins, tous les autres États, dont dépend la mise en vigueur et dont le nombre total serait, dans ce cas, ramené à dix-sept, ont notifié au Secrétaire général de la Société des Nations leur ratification ou leur adhésion avant le 30 septembre 1929 et s’il n’y est fait opposition avant la date du 15 novembre 1929 par aucun des États qui au moment du dépôt de leur ratification ou de leur adhésion, ont subordonné la mise en vigueur, en ce qui les concerne, de la Convention à la ratification ou à l’adhésion des États-Unis d’Amérique. Dans le cas où cette opposition se produirait, le dernier alinéa de l’article 17 de la Convention serait applicable. б) Les Hautes Parties contractantes déclarent qu’en dressant la liste d’États figurant à l’article C, elles se sont inspirées surtout de l’interdépendance, affirmée au sein même de la Conférence, de certains intérêts. Elles ont cru devoir omettre toute mention qui ne se serait justifiée que par l’importance des intérêts économiques ou par des considérations de situation géographique. Si elles ont renoncé à mentionner certains États, c’est aussi qu’en raison du fait que ces États n ’ont guère, à l’heure présente, de prohibitions de réelle importance, elles croient pouvoir compter sur leur ratification ou adhésion. II. PROTOCOL TO THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT.

At the moment of proceeding to the signature of the Supplementary Agreement to the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions sig n e d on this day’s date, the undersigned, duly authorised, have agreed on the following provisions which are intended to ensure the application of the Supplementary Agreement :

S e c t io n I.

The High Contracting Parties declare that, in the text of the Supplementary Agreement of this day’s date, the expression " the Convention ” shall be taken to mean both the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions dated November 8th, 1927, and the Supplementary Agreement of this day’s date.

Se c t io n II. Ad Article A. (а) Cork in the raw state, in respect of which an exception has been allowed for Portugal, does not include scrap cork, or cork in agglomerated form, in shavings, or in sheets. (б) Although the exceptions set out in Article A, like those appearing in the Annex to Article 6 of the Convention, have been allowed on the condition that the countries benefiting thereby shall sign the present Supplementary Agreement on the day of the general signature, it has appeared equitable to grant an extension of time up to August 31st, 1928, inclusive, to Bulgaria, Portugal and the United States of America. (c) As regards the exception of hop shoots which has been agreed to in favour of Czecho­ slovakia under paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention, the High Contracting Parties declare that their consent has been given in return for the written undertaking entered into by the Czecho­ slovak delegation to allow the free export of this product to all countries which now or in the future guarantee Czechoslovakia by legislative or contractual measures the protection of the appellation of origin of Czechoslovak hops.

Se c t io n III. Ad Article B. The High Contracting Parties agree to recognise in the case of Italy the application of the provision of the Protocol to the International Agreement relating to the Exportation of Bones (Section 1, ad Article 1 (a) ), in the event of the said Agreement coming into force.

S e c t io n IV. M Article C. (a) Owing to the position of the United States in consequence of a short Session of Congress in the year 1928-29, the High Contracting Parties agree that, if the ratification of the United States has been asked for under paragraph 3 of Article C and has not been deposited by Sep­ tember 30th, 1929, the Convention shall come into force on January 1st, 1930, provided that all the other countries on which the entry into force of the Convention depends and the total number of which would in this case be reduced to seventeen shall have notified the Secretary-General of the League of Nations of their ratifications or accessions before September 30th, 1929, and pro­ vided no objection is raised before November 15th, 1929, by any of the countries which, at the time of the deposit of their ratification or accession, made the entry into force of the Convention, in so far as they were concerned conditional upon the ratification or accession of the United States. If any objection is raised, the last paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention shall apply.

(b) The High Contracting Parties declare that, in drawing up the list of countries which appears in Article C, they have been chiefly guided by the interdependence of certain interests emphasised in the course of the proceedings of the Conference. They have thought it unnecessary to mention countries the inclusion of which would be justified only by the importance of economic interests or considerations of geographical situation. If they have not mentioned certain countries, it is because those countries at present impose no prohibitions of any importance. The High Contracting Parties think they can rely upon their ratification or adhesion. — i 8 —

E n fo i d e q u o i les plénipotentiaires sus­ In f a it h w h e r e o f the above-mentioned nommés ont signé le présent Protocole. Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Pro. tocol. F a it à Genève, le onze juillet mil neuf cent D o n e at Geneva on the eleventh day 0f vingt-huit, en simple expédition, qui sera July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty- déposée dans les archives du Secrétariat de la eight, in a single copy, which shall be depo­ Société des Nations ; copie conforme en sera sited in the archives of the Secretariat of the transmise à tous les Membres de la Société et à League of Nations ; certified true copies shall tous les États non membres représentés à la be forwarded to all the Members of the League Conférence. of Nations and to all the non-Member States represented at the Conference.

ALLEMAGNE GERMANY Dr Ernst T rendelenburg

ÉTATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hugh R. W ilson

AUTRICHE AUSTRIA Dr Richard Sc h u l l e r

BELGIQUE BELGIUM J. B r u n e t F. van L a n g e n h o v e

GRANDE-BRETAGNE GREAT BRITAIN ET IRLANDE DU NORD AND NORTHERN IRELAND

ainsi que toutes parties de l’Empire and those parts of the British Empire britannique, non membres séparés de which are not separate Members of the la Société des Nations. League of Nations.

I declare that my signature does not include any of His Britannic Majesty’s Colonies, Protectorates or territories under suzerainty or m andate1.

S. J. Cha pm an

[Traduction.] 1 Je déclare que ma signature ne couvre pas les colonies, protectorats ou territoires placés sous la suzeraineté ou le mandat de Sa Majesté Britannique. — 19 —

INDE INDIA H. A. F. L in d sa y

CHILI CHILE T o m âs R a m ir ez F ria s

DANEMARK DENMARK J. Cl a n . W illiam B o r b e r g .

ÉGYPTE EGYPT Sadik E. H e n e in

ESTONIE ESTONIA A. Sc h m id t — 20 —

FINLANDE FINLAND Rudolf H o l s t i. Gunnar K ih lm a n

FRANCE FRANCE Sous les réserves formulées au moment de signer l’Accord complémentaire 1

D . Se r r u y s

HONGRIE HUNGARY N ic k l

ITALIE ITALY A. Di N ola P. T r o ise

JAPON JAPAN N. I to J. T sush im a

LETTONIE LATVIA Charles D uzm ans

[Translation.] 1 Subject to the reservations made on signing the Supplementary Agreement. — 21 —

LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBURG Albert Calmes

PAYS-BAS NETHERLANDS P o sth u m a £ . M. W ib a u t S. d e G r a a ff

POLOGNE POLAND François D oleza l — 22 —

PORTUGAL PORTUGAL A. d ’O l iv e ir a . F. d e Ca l h e ir o s e Me n e z e s

ROUMANIE ROUMANIA A n t o n ia d e . D. T. G h e o r g h iu César P o pesco

ROYAUME DES SERBES, KINGDOM OF THE SERBS, CROATES ET SLOVÈNES CROATS AND SLOVENES

Const. F o titch Georges C u r c in

SIAM SIAM C h a ro o n

SUÈDE SWEDEN Einar M o d ig

SUISSE SWITZERLAND W. S t u c k i

TCHÉCOSLOVAQUIE CZECHOSLOVAKIA I bl

TURQUIE TURKEY Sous réserve de l’article B 1

H assan

[Translation.] 1 Subject to reservation as regards Article B. — 23 —

D éc l a r a t io n a n n e x e . A n n e x e d D e c l a r a t io n .

Les délégations de l’Allemagne, de l’Autriche The Austrian, German and Hungarian dele­ tt de la Hongrie, en acceptant, en faveur de gations, in accepting in favour of Czechoslo­ la Tchécoslovaquie, l’exception de la quartzite vakia the exception of quartzite under para­ en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l’article 6 de la graph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention, declare Convention, déclarent que leur consentement that their consent has only been given in return n’avait été obtenu que moyennant l’engagement for an undertaking on the part of Czechoslo­ de la Tchécoslovaquie de maintenir, aussi long­ vakia to maintain, as long as the Convention temps que la Convention restera en vigueur, remains in force, the export quotas and con­ ies contingents et les conditions d’exportation ditions provided for in special treaties or actuellement accordés en vertu de traités ou arrangements. d'arrangements spéciaux.

ALLEMAGNE GERMANY D r Ernest T rendelenburg

AUTRICHE AUSTRIA Dr Richard Sc h u l l e r

HONGRIE HUNGARY N ic k l

TCHÉCOSLOVAQUIE CZECHOSLOVAKIA I bl III. ACTE FINAL

La Conférence, convoquée en exécution de l’article 17 de la Convention du 8 novembre 1927 pour l’abolition des prohibitions et restrictions à l’importation et à l’exportation, s’est réunie à Genève du 3 au 11 juillet 1928. Elle a élaboré et adopté l’Accord complémentaire qui porte la date de ce jour, ainsi que le Protocole y annexé. Le Conseil de la Société des Nations avait nommé aux fonctions de Président de la Conférence

M. H. Colijn, ancien Premier Ministre des Pays-Bas.

Les travaux du secrétariat étaient confiés à MM. Stencek, Smets et H usslein, membres de la Section économique et financière, assistés de MM. B arandon et A rcoleo, membres de la Section juridique.

* * *

Les Membres de la Société et les États non membres dont la liste suit ont pris part aux tra­ vaux de la Conférence et ont, à cet effet, désigné des délégations composées des membres indiqués ci-dessous :

ALLEMAGNE.

Le docteur Ernst Trendelenburg, Secrétaire d’État au Ministère de l’Économie natio­ nale. M. Adolf R einshagen, Conseiller ministériel au Ministère de l’Économie na­ tionale. M. Eugen Lôhr, Conseiller ministériel au Ministère de l’Agriculture.

AUTRICHE.

Dr Richard Schüller, Chef de section à la Chancellerie fédérale, Département des Affaires étrangères.

BELGIQUE.

M. J. B runet, Envoyé extraordinaire et Ministre plénipotentiaire. M. van Langenhove, Directeur général du Commerce extérieur et chef de Cabinet du Ministère des Affaires étrangères.

GRANDE-BRETAGNE ET IRLANDE DU NORD,

ainsi que toutes parties de l’E mpire britannique non membres séparés de la Société des N ations.

Sir Sydney Chapman, K.C.B., C.B.E., Chief Economic Adviser to H. M. Government in Great Britain. Secrétaire : Mr. Frank A. Griffiths, M.C. CHILI.

M. Tomâs Ramîrez F rias, Député, ancien Ministre d’État, professeur d ’Économie politique et de droit civil à l’Université de Santiago. — 25 —

III. FINAL ACT.

______

The Conference convened in pursuance of Article 17 of the Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions was held at Geneva from July 3rd to nth, 1928.

It drew up and adopted the Supplementary Agreement of even date and also the Protocol annexed thereto. The Council of the League of Nations appointed as President of the Conference :

M. H. Co l ijn , ex-Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

The secretarial work was entrusted to M. St e n c e k , M. Sm ets and M. H u s s l e in , members of the Economic and Financial Section, assisted by M. B ara n d o n and M. A r co leo , members of the Legal Section.

* sje *

The following Members of the League and non-Member States took part in the work of the Conference and appointed delegations composed of the following members :

! GERMANY.

Dr. Ernst T rendelenburg , Secretary of State at the Ministry of National Economy. M. Adolf R e in s h a g e n , Ministerial Counsellor at the Ministry of National Economy. M. Eugen L ô h r , Ministerial Counsellor at the Ministry of Agriculture.

AUSTRIA.

Dr. Richard Sc h u l l e r , Head of Section at the Federal Chancellory, Depart­ ment for Foreign Affairs.

BELGIUM.

M. J. B r u n e t , Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. M. van L a n g e n h o v e , Director-General of Foreign Trade and Chef de Cabinet of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND,

and T h o se P arts of t h e B r it is h E m p ir e w h ic h a r e n o t Sepa r a t e Mem b er s of th e L e a g u e o f N a tio n s.

Sir Sydney Ch a pm a n , K.C.B., C.B.E., Chief Economic Adviser to H.M. Government in Great Britain. Secretary : Mr. Frank A. G r if f it h s , M.C. CHILE.

M. Tomâs R a m Irez F r ia s , Deputy, former Minister of State, Professor of Political Economy and Civil Law at the University of Santiago. I 3 * — 26 —

DANEMARK. Premier délégué:

M. C. J. T. Cl a n , Envoyé extraordinaire et Ministre plénipotentiaire Président de la Commission des traités de commerce’ Deuxième délégué

M. William B o r b er g , Représentant permanent du Danemark accrédité auprès de la Société des Nations.

E g y p t e .

Sadik H e n e in pacha, Envoyé extraordinaire et Ministre plénipotentiaire près Sa Majesté le Roi d’Italie.

ESTONIE.

M. A. Sc h m id t , Ministre adjoint des Affaires étrangères, Délégué esto­ nien à la septième session de l’Assemblée de la Société des Nations.

ÉTATS-UNIS D’AMÉRIQUE.

Mr. Hugh R. W il s o n , American Minister to Switzerland.

Technical Assistants :

Dr. Percy B id w e l l , Representative of the United States Tariff Commission at Brussels.

Mr. Charles E. L y o n , Commercial Attaché of the American Legation at Berne.

M. Pierrepont Moffat, Secretary of the American Legation at Berne.

Secretary of Delegation:

Mr. S. Pinkney T u c k , American Consul at Geneva.

FINLANDE.

M. Rudolf H o lsti, Envoyé extraordinaire et Ministre plénipotentiaire, Délégué permanent auprès de la Société des Nations.

M. Gunnar K ih l m a n , Directeur des Affaires politiques et commerciales au Ministère des Affaires étrangères.

FRANCE. Délégué:

M. Daniel S e r r u y s , Directeur des Accords commerciaux de France, prési­ dent du Comité économique.

M. Roger F ig h ie r a , Directeur des Affaires commerciales et industrielles au Ministère du Commerce. Délégué'adjoint :

M. Ernest L é c u y e r , Administrateur des Douanes au Ministère des Finances.

Expert :

M. Jacques L acour-G a y e t , Agrégé de l’Université, conseiller du Commerce exté­ rieur. Secrétaire :

M. Henry G u e y r a u d , Secrétaire,d’ambassade. — 27 —

DENMARK. First Delegate:

M. C. J. T. Clan, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, President of the Commercial Treaties Commission. Second Delegate:

jl. William B orberg, Permanent Danish Representative accredited to the League of Nations.

EGYPT.

Sadik H enein Pacha, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary accredited to H.M. the King of Italy. i

ESTONIA.

M. A. Schmidt, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, Estonian Dele­ gate to the Seventh Session of the League Assembly.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Mr. Hugh R. W ilson, American Minister to Switzerland.

Technical A ssistants :

Dr. Percy B idwell, Representative of the United States Tariff ]Commission at Brussels.

Mr. Charles E. Lyon, Commercial Attaché of the American Legation at Berne. Mr. Pierrepont M offat, Secretary of the American Legation at Berne.

Secretary of Delegation :

\ Mr. S. Pinkney Tuck, American Consul at Geneva.

FINLAND.

1 M. Rudolf H olsti, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, Permanent Delegate accredited to the League of Nations.

M. Gunnar K ihlman, Director of Political and Commercial Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

FRANCE. Delegate :

M. Daniel Serruys, Director of French Commercial Agreements, Chairman of the Economic Committee. M. Roger F igh iera, Director of Commercial and Industrial Affairs at the Ministry of Commerce. Assistant Delegate:

M. Ernest Lécuyer, Customs Administrator at the Ministry of Finance.-

Expert :

M. Jacques Lacour-Gayet, Agrégé of the University, Counsellor of Foreign Trade.

Secretary:

M. Henry Gueyraud, Secretary of Embassy. HONGRIE.

M. Alfred de N ickl, Conseiller de légation.

Délégués adjoints :

M. Izsô F erenczi, Conseiller ministériel au Ministère du Commerce.

M. Béla K atona, Conseiller au Ministère royal hongrois d’Agriculture.

INDE.

Sir Atul Chatterjee, K.C.I.E., High Commissioner for India in London.

Conseiller technique et suppléant:

Mr. H. A. F. Lindsay, C.I.E., C.B.E., Indian Trade Commissioner.

ITALIE. Délégués :

M. Angelo Di N ola, Directeur général, Institut Crédit foncier.

M. Pasquale Troise, Directeur général des Douanes,

Conseiller technique :

M. Erasmo Caravale, Inspecteur supérieur au Ministère de l’Économie nationale. Experts :

M. A. N avarro, Directeur de la Confédération générale fasciste des commerçants.

M. Luigi Gaddi, de la Confédération générale fasciste de l’industrie italienne.

M. Tassinari, de la Confédération générale fasciste des agriculteurs.

Secrétaire :

M. Guido B orga, Consul de Sa Majesté le Roi d ’Italie.

JAPON. Délégués :

M. Nobumi I t o , Conseiller d'ambassade, Directeur adjoint du Bureau impérial du Japon à la Société des Nations.

M. Juichi T sushima, Commissaire financier du Gouvernement du Japon à Londres, Paris et New-York. Experts :

M. T. H oriuchi, Secrétaire de l’Ambassade du Japon à Londres.

M. T. Y umoto, Secrétaire au Ministère des Finances.

Secrétaire :

M. S. K a d o w a k i, Secrétaire au Bureau impérial du Japon à la Société des Nations. HUNGARY.

ji. Alfred de N ickl, Counsellor of Legation.

Assistant Delegates :

M. Izso F erenczi, Ministerial Counsellor at the Ministry of Commerce. % Béla Katona, Counsellor at the Royal Hungarian Ministry of Agri­ culture.

INDIA.

Sir Atul Chatterjee, K.C.I.E., High Commissioner for India in London.

Technical Adviser and- Substitute :

Mr. H. A. F. Lindsay, C.I.E., C.B.E., Indian Trade Commissioner.

ITALY. Delegates :

M. Angelo Di N ola, Director-General of the Land Credit Institute.

M. Pasquale T roise, Director-General of Customs.

Technical Adviser:

M. Erasmo Caravale, Chief Inspector at the Ministry of National Economy.

Experts :

M. A. N avarro, Director of the General Fascist Confederation of Traders.

M. Luigi Ga d d i, Of the General Fascist Confederation of Italian Industry.

| M. Tassinari, Of the General Fascist Confederation of Agriculturists.

Secretary :

M. Guido B orga, Consul of His Majesty the King of Italy.

JAPAN. Delegates :

M. Nobumi I to, Counsellor of Embassy, Assistant Director of the Imperial Japanese Bureau accredited to the League of Nations.

M. Juichi Tsushima, Financial Commissioner of the Japanese Government in London, Paris and New York. Experts :

M. T. H o r iu c h i, Secretary of the Japanese Embassy in London.

M. T. Y u m o to , Secretary at the Ministry of Finance.

Secretary :

M. S. Kadowaki, Secretary at the Imperial Japanese Bureau accredited to the League of Nations. — 30 —

LETTONIE.

M. Charles D uzmans, Envoyé extraordinaire et Ministre plénipotentiaire, Délégué permanent de la Lettonie auprès de la Société des Nations. Secrétaire :

M. Vilhelm K alnin. LUXEMBOURG.

M. Albert Calmes, Membre du Conseil supérieur de l’Union économique belgo-luxembourgeoise. M. Léon Laval, Vice-Président de la Chambre de Commerce.

NORVÈGE.

M. Gunnar Jahn, Directeur en chef du Bureau central de statistique de la Norvège.

PAYS-BAS.

Dr F. E. P osthuma, Président du Conseil supérieur de l’Industrie (Nijver- heidsraad), ancien Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’In­ dustrie et du Commerce. M. F. M. W ibaut, Membre de la première Chambre des Etats-Généraux, ancien Echevin d'Amsterdam. M. S. de Graaff, Ancien Ministre des Colonies.

POLOGNE. Délégué :

M. François D olezal, Sous-Secrétaire d’Etat au Ministère de l’Industrie et du Commerce, membre du Comité économique de la Société des Nations. Délégués adjoints :

M. Mieczyslaw Sokolowski, Directeur du Département du Commerce au Ministère de l’Industrie et du Commerce. M. Waclaw F abierkiewicz, Chef de Division au Ministère des Finances.

PORTUGAL.

M. A. d ’Oliveira, Ministre du Portugal à Berne et Bruxelles et près de la Société des Nations. M. F. de Calheiros e Menezes, Premier Secrétaire de légation, Chef de la Chancellerie portugaise près la Société des Nations.

ROUMANIE.

M. Constantin A ntoniade, Envoyé extraordinaire et Ministre plénipotentiaire près la Société des Nations. M. Démètre Gheorghiu, Directeur à la banque nationale, ancien Secrétaire général du Ministère des Finances, ancien Directeur général des Douanes. M. César Popesco, Directeur général de l’Industrie au Ministère de l'Industrie et du Commerce. M. J. Gr. D imitresco, Professeur à l’Académie commerciale de Bucarest, Directeur général du Commerce au Ministère de l’Industrie et du Commerce. Secrétaire :

M. Jean A ntohi, Attaché commercial de Roumanie. — 3i —

LATVIA.

j[. Charles D uzmans, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary ; Permanent Latvian Delegate accredited to the League of Nations. Secretary : ft. Vilhelm K aln in . LUXEMBURG.

\[ .ybert Calmes, Member of the Council of the Belgium-Luxemburg Economic Union. jf. Léon L aval, Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce.

NORWAY.

[M. Gunnar J ahn, Director-in-Chief of the Norwegian Central Statistical Bureau.

NETHERLANDS.

Dr. F. E. P osthuma, President of the Industrial Council ( " Ni j verheidsraad "), former Minister of Agriculture, Industry and Com­ merce. I M. F. M. W ibaut, Member of the First Chamber of the States-General, former Alderman of Amsterdam. III. S. de Gr a a ff, Former Minister of the Colonies.

POLAND. Delegate :

|M. François D olezal, Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, member of the Economic Committee of the League of Nations. Assistant Delegates:

M. Mieczyslaw Sokolowski, Director of the Department of Commerce at the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. M. Waclaw Fabierkiewicz, Head of Division at the Ministry of Finance.

PORTUGAL.

M.A. d ’Oliveira, Portuguese Minister at Berne and Brussels and accre­ dited to the League of Nations. M. F. de Calheiros e Menezes, First Secretary of Legation, Head of the Portuguese I Chancellory accredited to the League of Nations.

r o u m a n ia .

M. Constantin A ntoniade, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary accredited to the League of Nations. D. Gheorghiu, Director at the National Bank, former Secretary-General of the Ministry of Finance, former Director-General of Customs. Cesar P opesco, Director-General of Industry at the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. J. Gr. Dimitresco, Professor at the Commercial Academy of Bucharest, Director-General of Commerce at the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. Secretary : Jean A ntohi, Roumanian Commercial Attaché. — 32 —

ROYAUME DES SERBES, CROATES ET SLOVÈNES.

Premier délégué:

M. Constantin F otitch, Délégué permanent auprès de la Société des Natio:'IIS. Deuxième délégué: M. Georges Curcin, Secrétaire général de la Confédération des Corporations industrielles serbes-croates-slo vènes.

SIAM.

Son Altesse le Prince Charoon, Envoyé extraordinaire et Ministre plénipotentiaire près le Président de la République française. Secrétaire et remplaçant: M. Thavin A rthayukti, Attaché à la Légation de Siam à Paris.

SUÈDE.

M. Einar Modig, Sous-Secrétaire d’Etat au Ministère du Commerce.

SUISSE.

M. Walter Stucki, Directeur de la Division du Commerce du Département fédéral de l’Économie publique. Secrétaire : M. Léon Alexandre Girardet, Premier Secrétaire de légation.

TCHÉCOSLOVAQUIE.

M. Vincent I bl, Docteur en droit, Conseiller de la Légation tchéco­ slovaque à Paris (chef de la délégation). M. Frantisek Peroutka, Docteur en droit, ancien Ministre, chef de Section au Ministère du Commerce et de l’Industrie. M. Bohumir H anosek, Docteur en droit, Conseiller au Ministère de l’Agri­ culture. Secrétaire : M. Ladislav Radimsky, Docteur en droit, Secrétaire au Ministère des Affaires étrangères.

TURQUIE.

Son Excellence H assan bey, Vice-Président de la Grande Assemblée nationale de Turquie.

CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE INTERNATIONALE (A TITRE CONSULTATIF).

Le Dr Ernst von Simson, Président de la délégation, Secrétaire d’Etat (S.D.), Président de la Commission politico-commerciale de l’Association de l’Industrie allemande. Le Dr Albert B uisson, Premier Président de Chambre au Tribunal de commerce de la Seine. On. Feruccio Lantini, Député au Parlement, Président de la Confédération générale fasciste du commerce. Experts : Mr Richard E ldridge, Acting Administrative Commissioner for the United States of America. Mr Owen Jones, Administrative Commissioner for Great Britain. Secrétaire : M. Willard H ill, Chef de groupe à la Chambre de Commerce inter­ nationale. KINGDOM OF THE SERBS, CROATS AND SLOVENES.

First Delegate: jl. Constantin F otitch, Permanent Delegate accredited to the League of Nations. Second Delegate: M. Georges Curcin, Secretary-General of the Serb-Croat-SIovene Confede­ ration of Industrial Corporations.

SIAM.

His Highness Prince Charoon, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the President of the French Republic. Secretary and Substitute: M, Thavin A rthayukti, Attaché at the Siamese Legation in Paris.

SWEDEN.

M. Einar Modig, Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Commerce.

SWITZERLAND.

M. Walter Stucki, Director of the Commercial Division of the Federal Department of Public Economy. Secretary : M. Léon Alexandre Girardet, First Secretary of Legation.

CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

M. Vincent Ibl, Doctor of Law, Counsellor of the Czechoslovak Legation in Paris (Head of the Delegation). M, Frantisek P eroutka, Doctor of Law, former Minister, Head of Section at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. M. Bohumir H anosek, Doctor of Law, Counsellor at the Ministry of Agricul­ ture. Secretary : M. Ladislaw R adimsky, Doctor of Law, Secretary at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

TURKEY.

His Excellency H assan Bey, Vice-President of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY).

Dr. Ernst von Simson, President of the Delegation, Secretary of State (S.D.), Chairman of the Commercial Policy Committee of the German Industrial Association. Dr. Albert B uisson, Premier Président de Chambre in the Commercial Tribunal of the Seine. On. Feruccio Lantini, Member of Parliament, President of the General Fascist Confederation of Commerce. Experts : Mr. Richard E ldridge, Acting Administrative Commissioner for the United States of America. Mr. Owen Jones, Administrative Commissioner for Great Britain. Secretary : Mr. Willard H ill, Head of Group in the International Chamber of Commerce. — 34 —

E n foi de quoi les délégués ont signé le In faith whereof the delegates have signed présent Acte. the present Act. F ait à Genève, le onze juillet mil neuf cent D one at Geneva on the eleventh day of July vingt-huit, en simple expédition, qui sera one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight déposée dans les archives du Secrétariat de la in a single copy, which shall be deposited in Société des Nations ; copie conforme en sera the archives of the Secretariat of the League transmise à tous les Membres de la Société des of Nations, and of which authenticated copies Nations et à tous les États non membres repré­ shall be delivered to all Members of the League sentés à la Conférence. of Nations and non-Member States represented at the Conference.

ALLEMAGNE GERMANY Dr Ernst Trendelenburg

AUTRICHE AUSTRIA Dr Richard Schuller

BELGIQUE BELGIUM J. B runet F. van Langenhove

GRANDE-BRETAGNE GREAT BRITAIN ET IRLANDE DU NORD AND NORTHERN IRELAND

ainsi que toutes parties de l’Empire and those parts of the British Empire britannique, non membres séparés de which are not separate Members of la Société des Nations. the League of Nations.

S. J. Chapman F. A. Griffiths

CHILI CHILE Tomâs Ramirez F rias

DANEMARK DENMARK J. Clan. William B orberg.

EGYPTE EGYPT ! Sadik E. H enein

ESTONIE ESTONIA A. Schmidt

ÉTATS-UNIS D’AMÉRIQUE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hugh R. W ilson

FINLANDE FINLAND Rudolf H olsti. Gunnar K ihlman

FRANCE FRANCE D. Serruys

HONGRIE HUNGARY N ickl — 35 —

INDE INDIA H. A. F. L in d sa y

ITALIE ITALY A. Di N ola P. Troise E. Caravale

JAPON JAPAN Ito J. T sushima

LETTONIE LATVIA Charles D uzmans.

LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBURG Albert Calmes

PAYS-BAS NETHERLANDS P osthuma F. M. W ibaut S. de Graaff

POLOGNE POLAND François D o le z a l

PORTUGAL PORTUGAL A. d ’Oliveira. F. de Calheiros e Menezes

ROUMANIE ROUMANIA A ntoniade. D. T. Gheorghiu César P opesco

ROYAUME DES SERBES, KINGDOM OF THE SERBS, CROATES ET SLOVÈNES CROATS AND SLOVENES

Const. F otitch Georges Curcin

SIAM SIAM Charoon

SUÈDE SWEDEN Einar Modig

SUISSE SWITZERLAND W. Stucki TCHÉCOSLOVAQUIE CZECHOSLOVAKIA I b l

TURQUIE TURKEY Hassan

Chambre de Commerce Internationale

Dr B uisson W. H ill

Président :

H. C o l ijn

Secrétariat :

V. J. Stencek C. Smets

A. E. H usslein D r P. B arandon SECOND PART

MINUTES OF THE PLENARY MEETINGS CONTENTS.

Page First Meeting, held on July 3rd, 1928, at 11 a.m. : 1. Opening of the Session : Speech by the P r e s id e n t...... 41 2. Appointment of Credentials C o m m itte e ...... 42 3. Reservations submitted by the Government of C h i l e ...... 43 4. Hours of M e e tin g s ...... 43 5. P ro ced u re...... 43 6. Statement by the Delegation of the International Chamber of Commerce . . 43

Second Meeting, held on July 3rd, 1928, at 4 p.m. :

7. Examination of the Reservation proposed by B elgium ...... 44 8. Adjournment of the Reservation submitted by B u lg aria ...... 44 9. Discussion of the Reservations submitted by C h ile ...... 45 10. Statement by the Estonian Delegate regarding the Reservation formulated by his G o v e r n m e n t...... 46 11. Statement by the Latvian D e l e g a t e ...... 46 12. Statement by the Turkish D e l e g a t e ...... 47 13. Discussion of the Estonian Government’s Reservation (continued) .... 47 14. Statement by the United States D e l e g a t e ...... 47 15. Discussion regarding Products forming the Subject of a Monopoly .... 48 16. Examination of the Proposals submitted by Estonia with reference to Article 6. 50 17. Selection of Requests for Exceptions examinable by the Conference .... 51 18. Examination of the Reservations submitted by N orw ay ...... 51 19. Statement by the Polish Representative regarding the Reservations submitted by his G o v e r n m e n t...... 52

Third Meeting, held on July 4th, 1928, at 10 a.m. : 20. Examination of the Reservations submitted by Portugal...... 53 21. Examination of the Reservations submitted by Sw eden ...... 54 22. Examination of the Reservations submitted by Czechoslovakia...... 54 23. Formation of a Sub-Committee to examine the Reservations submitted by Czechoslovakia regarding Timber in the Round, Sugar-beet and Quartzite. . 55 24. Adjournment of the Examination of the Reservations submitted by Bulgaria 55 25. Procedure regarding Requests for Exceptions 55

Fourth Meeting, held on July 4th, 1928, at 4 p.m. :

26. Report by the Credentials Com m ittee...... 55 27. Adoption of the Reservations submitted by Estonia...... 56 28. Adoption of the Reservations submitted by the United S t a t e s ...... 56 29. Examination of the Reservations submitted by Portugal (continued) . . . 56 30. Examination of the Reservation submitted by Portugal regarding Pine Resin . 63 31. Examination of the Reservations submitted by Sweden (continued) .... 63

Fifth Meeting, held on July 5th, 1928, at 10 a.m. : 32. Examination of the Reservation submitted by Portugal regarding Wool (1continued) ...... 63 33- Examination of the Reservations submitted by Czechoslovakia (continued). . 63 — 40 —

Page Sixth Meeting, held on July 5th, 1928, at 4 p.m. : 34. Withdrawal by Norway of her Reservation regarding Vessels and Shares in Vessels 67 35. Examination of the Reservations submitted by Chile (continued). . . . 36. Discussion of Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Article 17 of the Convention . . y0

Seventh Meeting, held on July 6th, 1928, at 11 a.m. : 37. Discussion of the Draft Articles regarding the Application of Article 17. 74

E ighth Meeting, held on July 6th, 1928, at 5.30 p.m. : 38. Question of the Connection between the Conference on the Import and Export of Hides, Skins and Bones and the Convention...... 78 39. Question of the Application of Article 17 of the Convention (continued). Proposals of the Drafting C o m m ittee...... 80 40. Clause to be inserted in the P ro to c o l...... 81 41. Acceptance of the Reservations submitted by Czechoslovakia ...... 81 42. Question of the Bulgarian Reservations...... 81 43. Statement by the Czechoslovak D elegate...... 82

N inth Meeting, held on July 7th, 1928, at 10 a.m. :

44. Modification of the Portuguese Reservation concerning W ool...... 82 45. Appointment of Drafting C om m ittee...... 82 46. Draft Article submitted by the French Delegation regarding Guarantees to be set up in respect of the Special Conventions on Hides, Skins and Bones. . 82 47. Procedure to be laid down as regards the Maintenance of Reservations . . . 83 48. Statement by the Representative of India regarding the Prohibition on the Importation of Rice into J a p a n ...... 84 49. Restrictions on Cinematograph F i l m s ...... 86

Tenth Meeting, held on July 9th, 1928, at 4 p.m. : 50. Discussion of the Draft Supplementary Agreement to the Convention of November 8th, 1 9 2 7 ...... 90 51. Discussion of the Draft Protocol to the Supplementary Agreement .... 92

E leventh Meeting, held on July 10th, 1928, at 3 p.m. : 52. Discussion of the Draft Supplementary Agreement to the Convention of November 8th, 1927 (continued) ...... 98 53. Discussion of the Draft Protocol (continued)...... 99 54. Adoption of the Final Text of the Agreement and of Sections I to III of the P r o t o c o l ...... 99 55. Adoption of the Final Text of the Protocol, Section I V ...... 99 56. Annexed D e c la r a tio n ...... 100 57. Statement by the Portuguese Delegate concerning Reservations and the Period which must elapse before Denunciation may take place...... 100 58. Question of the Powers of Delegates to sign the Special Agreements on Hides, Skins and B o n e s ...... 100 59. Statement by the Representative of the International Chamber of Commerce . 101

Twelfth Meeting, held on July nth, 1928, at n a.m. :

60. Signature of the Supplementary Agreement to the Convention of November 8th, 1927, for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions. 102 61. Close of the Session...... 103 FIRST MEETING.

Held on Tuesday, July 3rd, 1928, at 11 a.m.

L Opening of the Session : Speech by the President.

The P r e s i d e n t spoke as follows :

Before proceeding to our business in this charming hall which the Director of the International Labour Office has been good enough to place at our disposal, it may be convenient to make a few preliminary observations. In the first place, I should like to extend our warm welcome to the delegation of the International Chamber of Commerce, who gave us such valuable help at our last Conference, and, I am sure, will do so again. And I am equally sure that you would wish me to take this occasion to assure them, on your behalf, of our great regret at the recent death of the American Commissioner at the International Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Basil Miles, who was with us at the last Conference. We hope that they will transmit to the Council of the International Chamber of Commerce our warm sympathy at the unexpected loss in the prime of life of one who contributed in many ways to international friendship and agreement.

All the States Members of the League of Nations and also those States non-Members who have attached their signature to the Convention of November 8th, 1927, have been invited to the present Conference, and I am glad to. note that all have sent their representatives. The purpose of our meeting is laid down in Article 17 of that Convention, which provides that the States on whose behalf the Convention shall have been signed on or before June 15th of this year shall meet between June 15th and July 15th in order to determine : (a) The reservations which, having been communicated to the High Contracting Parties, in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 4, may, with their consent, be made at the time of ratification ; (b) The conditions required for the coming into force of the Convention and, in particular, the number and, if necessary, the names of the Members of the League and of non-Member States, whether they are signatories or not, whose ratification or accession must first be secured ; (c) The last date on which the ratifications may be deposited and the date on which the Convention shall come into force if the conditions required under the preceding paragraph are fulfilled. As to the first point (a), I may state that the procedure contemplated in the Protocol of the Convention dated November 8th, 1927 \ has in general been followed, with only one exception, viz., Chile, whose Government has not made its reservations known within the period prescribed2. However, in view of the short duration of that term and the long distance separating Chile from Europe, the Conference may feel inclined to decide that the reservations made known by Chile be admitted for consideration by the Conference. The task now to be accomplished by us is to examine the reservations which have been suggested in the light of the observations made upon them since they have been made known.

You will all have learned that the Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones reached yesterday evening a successful conclusion. I should like to express on your behalf our sincere appreciation to its President and to all those who have taken part in it for this happy issue — particularly happy for us, since we trust it has removed in a special field certain difficulties which we should otherwise have had to meet. In order to avoid unnecessary work, I should like to invite the delegates of the States which have applied for reservations to confirm at the beginning of the general discussion that these reservations are still maintained by their respective Governments. It is, of course, also desirable that explanations should now be given in cases where none have been made. Then I should also like to have their confirmation that the prohibitions and restrictions the maintenance of which they have claimed were in fact in existence on November 8th, 1927 ; for this is an essential condition if the exceptions to the general rule of Article 2 of the Convention3 are to be recognised. If such prohibitions and restrictions did not exist on November 8th, 1927, they will be irrelevant, and will therefore not fall within the scope of our discussion.

1 See document C.21.61.12.1928.II, First Part, B, No. 2, Section IV, ad Article 6, ad No. 4, it. 2 February 1st, 1928. The Convention referred to in the discussion is that on the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions (see document C. 21. M. 12. 1928. II, First Part, under B, No. 1). — 42 —

Furthermore, we shall have to examine whether and to what extent some applications for exceptions are different in character from those falling within Article 6 of the Convention Some of the applications received may already be covered by one of the paragraphs of Article 4 ; if so, they do not require inclusion by this Conference as not pertaining to the matter under consideration under Article 6. The same remark applies to restrictions which are rather in the nature of measures of control designed to ensure the quality or origin of the goods exported, or are imposed for other purposes entirely unconnected with protection. If it were possible to determine applications of that kind beforehand, we should only have to consider whether the remaining applications for import and export prohibitions and restrictions are in conformity with the letter and spirit of Article 6 in connection with Article 2. It is the clear intention of the Convention to do away with import and export prohibitions imposed for purely economic purposes and as instruments of international commercial policy. Article 6 permits, first, only such exceptions as are recognised to be the result of such situations of fact or of law as would prevent a State from immediately undertaking as regards certain specified products the engage- ments entered into under the Convention ; and, secondly, other prohibitions or restrictions the abolition of which would involve a country in grave difficulties, while their maintenance would not prejudicially affect the trade of other countries.

Moreover, it goes without saying that States on whose behalf the Convention has been signed between November 8th, 1927, and June 15th, 1928, not only assume all the obligations laid down in the Convention, but also recognise the exceptions conceded on November 8th, 1927. On the other hand, it is established that the States which have endorsed the Convention have assumed no other obligations than those which existed on November 8th, 1927. Consequently, the High Contracting Parties will be free to reject or to accept the reservations proposed since that date. Having dealt with the reservations for which application has been made, I propose that we should proceed to fix the conditions required under paragraph (b)1, viz. : “ . . . For the coming into force of the Convention and, in particular, the number and, if necessary, the names of the Members of the League and of non-Member States, whether they are signatories or not, whose ratification or accession must first be secured.” This done, we have still to fix the last date as contemplated in paragraph (c)1, viz. : “ ... The date on which the ratifications may be deposited and the date on which the Convention shall come into force if the conditions required under the preceding paragraph are fulfilled. ” As far as point (c) is concerned, we shall have to take into consideration the time which must necessarily elapse in obtaining ratifications from the respective Parliaments. Moreover, after the last date for ratification, a further period must elapse before the number of ratifications can be communicated to the various States. We are now better able than we were in November last to measure the difficulties we have to overcome before our task can be successfully completed. Those difficulties should, however, not deter us from reaching our goal. Not only is it imperative that this attempt at multilateral agreements, which promise so well for the sound development of commercial relations between States, should prove a success, but it is also necessary to inspire that confidence which is so badly needed for the economic recovery of Europe and of the whole world. This confidence is even essential in order to prevent the situation from becomin'g worse. In more than one country with low tariffs there is a growing tendency to take defensive measures against countries with high tariffs. It is only by achieving concrete results that the League of Nations will be able to counteract such tendencies and prevent them from spreading to other countries. In October and November 1927, the proceedings of our Conference met with success. It would be indeed deplorable if the good results then obtained should now be frustrated. I am confident that every one of you will be inspired above all things with the desire to carry this Conference to a favourable conclusion and, with this confidence, I declare it open.

M. S erru y s (France) thanked the President for his very clear statement of the hopes there were for the results of the present Conference. Its members would set to work with a confidence increased by the knowledge that M. C olijn was their President. He might rest assured of their most friendly co-operation.

2. Appointment of Credentials Committee.

The P resident asked the members of the Conference to send their credentials as soon as possible to the Secretariat. The Conference had to appoint a Committee for the verification of credentials and he would propose the following members : M. B runet (Belgium) and M. H olsti (Finland). This Committee would be assisted by a member of the Legal Section of the Secretariat.

1 Article 17 of the Convention of November 8th, 1927. — 43 —

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) expressed his appreciation of the present proposal. He assumed that the credentials issued for the previous Conference would be valid for the present Conference. Xhat was, at any rate, the reasoning of the Belgian Government as regards its own delegates, g e w o u ld add that, if this view was shared by his colleagues, the work of the Credentials C o m m itte e would be confined to the examination of the credentials of new delegates. The present Conference might be said to be the normal sequel to that held in November 1927.

The P r e s i d e n t asked whether M. Brunet’s assumption could also be taken to apply to delegates who had powers given to them by a Government which was no longer in office.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) replied that, as regards credentials issued by the Head of the State, the question did not arise. Certain special cases, however, might occur, and the Credentials Committee would deal with them as they arose.

M .H o ls t i (Finland) said that he would be ready to be a member of the Credentials Committee.

The P r e s i d e n t proposed that the Committee examine the powers of the various delegates ; in cases of doubt, it might either suggest that the delegates ask for new powers or it might put the matter to the Conference.

M. I t o (Japan) remarked that his own credentials were on a similar footing to those of the Belgian delegates. He therefore supported M. Brunet’s suggestion.

3. Reservations submitted by the Government of Chile.

The P r e s i d e n t said that it would be necessary for the Conference to decide whether it was prepared to discuss reservations which had been applied for by Chile after the expiry of the period laid down in the Convention. The acceptance of these reservations for discussion did not necessarily mean that the Conference would accept their substance. The Conference decided to discuss these reservations.

4. Hours of Meetings.

The P r e s i d e n t proposed that the Conference meet as a general rule from 10 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. This would enable it to avoid the hotter parts of the day. The President’s proposal was adopted.

5. Procedure.

The P r e s i d e n t said that, as he had pointed out in his opening speech, some Governments might not desire to maintain all the reservations which they had applied for in the document distributed to the Conference1. He would ask the representatives of those countries to state at the beginning of the Conference which reservations they were prepared to abandon. In the second place, there would be the question whether the remaining reservations really came under the scope of Article 6 of the Convention. Certain countries might not feel that all of those reservations need necessarily be maintained. After delegates had stated which reservations they desired to maintain and the Conference had decided whether these came under the scope of Article 6, the representatives of other countries would be given the opportunity to claim similar exceptions. The two classes would then be considered in the light of whether they existed on November 8th, 1927.

6. Statement by the Delegation of the International Chamber of Commerce.

M. Albert B u is s o n (delegate of the International Chamber of Commerce) said that M. von Simson, head of the delegation, regretted that, as he was detained at another Conference, he would be unable to take part that day in the work of the present Conference. The delegation °f the International Chamber of Commerce would convey to the Council of the International Chamber of Commerce the kind words of condolence which the President had spoken regarding the death of Mr. Basil Miles. He had been greatly touched by the President’s remarks. M. Albert Buisson then continued : I should also like to express our thanks to the President of the Conference for his kind words in reference to the delegation of the International Chamber of Commerce. It gives us great pleasure to co-operate with you again, and we will continue the collaboration which began with the Conference that drew up the important Convention to which you have come to put the last touch.

1 For the list of exceptions claimed by various Governments under Article 6 of the Convention, see Annex 9. — 44 —

There is no need for me to remind you to-day of the work which the International Chamber of Commerce has performed since its formation in the field of freedom of trade, and particularly as far as concerns the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions. We have always believed — and our belief is stronger than ever to-day — that it is absolutely necessary that all countries should adopt the most liberal economic policy, so as to remove all the difficulties which have done so much harm. The circles which we here represent have no doubts as to the possibility of realising this policy, which is essential both to the development of industry and commerce and to the economic life of all nations. After the results of the Conference of October last, we observed that, though it marked a very real progress, the Convention which you then signed encouraged rather than satisfied the hopes which the business world had based upon it. We had to admit that, in spite of your great efforts and in spite of the broad-minded spirit of co-operation and unselfishness in which you worked, it had been impossible to achieve at that time the removal of all economic pro­ hibitions and restrictions. In the meantime, however, undoubted progress has been made in this direction ; the economic interdependence of the world appears more and more clear to the peoples, and freedom of trade is no longer regarded as an ultimate ideal, as it was a few years ago, but as an absolute necessity. The International Chamber of Commerce is convinced that the present Conference will be anxious to go still further towards admitting this necessity, so that the reservations accepted last year may be reduced so far as possible and the results of this Conference may prove a great step forward. In conclusion, I should like to thank the Council of the League of Nations for the honour which it has done the International Chamber of Commerce by inviting it to take part in your discussions. I should also like to assure you that the International Chamber of Commerce welcomes the opportunity to offer its earnest collaboration, and our delegation’s presence here is the surest evidence of the moral support of its members. (The meeting rose at 11.50 a.m).

SECOND MEETING.

Held on Tuesday, July yd, 1928, at 4 p.m.

7. Examination of the Reservation proposed by Belgium.

The P resident asked the delegate of Belgium whether his Government maintained its request the acceptance of which governed its accession to a later agreement with regard to the export of bones.

M. B runet (Belgium) reminded the Conference that, as was noted in the document forwarded to Governments by the Secretariat1, the request of the Belgian Government was of an absolutely conditional nature. Its essential aim was to allow contracting parties the opportunity to exchange their views on the regime of restrictions applied in many countries to the export of bones, both in the shape of export duties and prohibitions properly so called. As the President had stated in his speech at the morning meeting, the basis an of agreement in this connection had been found. This agreement would mark an appreciable progress upon the present position, and it would also make it possible to hope that later developments would furnish still greater improvements on the present situation. The Belgian delegation could not but congratulate itself that the aim of its Government in making a reservation regarding bones had been secured under circumstances which could be considered as extremely satisfactory from two points of view : the agreement drawn up would be an appreciable improvement on the existing situation, and it would be the first inter­ national agreement for the limiting of Customs duties by convention.

The P resident said that this request, having been withdrawn by the delegate of Belgium, might now be removed from the list.

8. Adjournment of the Reservation submitted by Bulgaria.

In the absence of the delegate of Bulgaria, it was decided that the question of the main­ tenance by the Bulgarian Government of its claim for the prohibition of the export of rose-trees or roots or cuttings thereof, under the terms of paragraph 1, Article 6, and the question of

1 Document C.I.A.P. 23 and the first and second Addenda thereto. tjie reservation of that Government with regard to the importation of products used in the falsification of national products, should be adjourned until the delegate’s arrival.

Discussion of the Reservations submitted by Chile.

The President announced that the Conference had decided that the reservation of the Government of Chile \ although presented after the fixed time-limit, should be discussed. With regard to the second request of the Government of Chile, he doubted whether it was suitable for discussion by the Conference. The Government of Chile was requesting an exact interpretation of an article of the Convention, and, in his opinion, it would be unwise { o r the Conference to give such an interpretation. He asked the delegate of Chile, in explaining his position, to take this view into account.

M. Ramirez Frias (Chile) thanked the Conference for having taken into consideration the reservations put forward by Chile. His Government had made certain statements and reser­ vations, the former regarding the interpretation placed upon certain of the provisions of the Convention by the Chilian Government on signing it. The reservations applied to : (i) the export of scrap iron and zinc waste ; (2) the export of guano ; and (3) the export of brood mares. These three reservations have been made in conformity with the text of the Con­ vention ; the first in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 6 ; the second in conformity with paragraph 8 of Article 4, and the third in conformity with paragraph 1 of Article 6. As regarded guano, the commercial exploitation of this product had been a State monopoly for forty years. The restriction on the export of mares had been adopted by the Chilian Govern­ ment in order to protect its national interests. Chile felt that these three reservations were acceptable as they were formulated on the basis of the text of the Convention and because the reasons for them were perfectly just.

The P resident asked whether prohibitions and restrictions on scrap iron and scrap zinc and the prohibition on the export of mares had been in force on November 8th, 1927.

M. Ramirez Frias (Chile) replied that the guano monopoly had been in existence for forty years. As regarded the other products, he had not the necessary details before him, but he would furnish the information at the next meeting. He felt sure that, as regarded the export oi mares, scrap iron and scrap zinc, the restriction had been in force before November 1927.

The P resident pointed out that, until the facts had been established, it would be difficult to discuss any claim for exception. Everything depended on the point whether the measures in question had been in force on November 8th, 1927.

M. Serruys (France) expressed the view that reservations 1 and 3 of the Chilian Government might be discussed later. This was not the case with the second reservation. The question w’as also different as regarded the importation of Chilian nitrate of soda, which had been referred to inM. Villegas’s letter of June 18th, 19281. This was a request by Chile asking the Conference to decide whether a certain prohibition was compatible with Article 4. Chile wished to be assured that paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 4 could not be called into play by the other High Contracting Parties to forbid or restrict the import into their territory of Chilian nitrate of soda. It was not the duty of the Conference to reply, but if members would refer to Article 6 of the Protocol of the Convention they would find that : “ Any High Contracting Party may make known by a communication addressed to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations any prohibitions or restrictions which he desires to be able to maintain in virtue of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 6. "... Any applications and observations made by the High Contracting Par­ ties shall be examined at the meeting provided for in Article 17 of the Convention. ” The Convention, however, did not state that signatory Powers could ask for explanations °n the matter which had already been settled. The matter only concerned new requests. It would be seen by reference to Article 17 of the Convention that : “ Between June 15th and July 15th, 1928, the Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall invite the duly accredited representatives of the Members of the League of Nations and all non-Member States on whose behalf the Convention shall have been signed on or before June 15th, 1928, to attend a meeting at which they shall determine : “ (a) The reservations which, having been communicated to the High Con­ tracting Parties in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 4, may with their consent be made at the time of ratification ...”

See Annex 10. — 46 —

It therefore appeared from this passage that the competence of the present Conference was limited to dealing with Article 6. The question raised by Chile regarding nitrates was therefore not one to be dealt with by the Conference. As regarded the Chilian reservation on guano, the point might have come up before the Cog, I ference if it had not been a question of a monopoly. Monopolies were not covered by Article 6 They clearly came under Article 4 and belonged explicitly to those classes of prohibitions and restrictions which were not forbidden by the Convention If the Conference dealt with this question, it would be creating a precedent which would be very dangerous. M. Serruys there- fore felt that the examination of the nitrates problem and of the reservation on guano should not be dealt with, not for substantial but for formal reasons.

The P resident thought that the views expressed by M. Serruys were the same as those that he had himself indicated. He proposed, therefore, that the Conference should not take into consideration the request of the Government of Chile as regards nitrate of soda and guano,and that the discussion on the exceptions with regard to scrap iron and scrap zinc and to mares should be adjourned until the following day or until the next day but one.

M. R amirez F rias (Chile) also asked the Conference to postpone the discussion relating ts] his country for a day or two. m m A greed.

10. Statement by the Estonian Delegate regarding the Reservation formulated », | his Government.

The P resident requested the delegate of Estonia to state whether his Government; maintained the reservations it had formulated.

M. S chmidt (Estonia) replied in the affirmative and proceeded to explain the reasons why his Government had been led to make certain reservations. Article 4 provided for certain classes of exportations. Amongst others, it provided for a class of prohibitions or restrictions affecting gold, silver, coins, currency notes, banknotes or securities. The Estonian Government considered that platinum, pearls, precious stones and corals were to be considered as similar to the substances mentioned in Article 4. Estonia possessed Customs laws which contained express provisions on this subject. This prohibition only applied to exports, and it should be pointed out that Estonia was not a country which produced these goods. The prohibition, therefore, would not have any damaging effect on other States. The Estonian requests were also in conformity with Article 6. The other reservations of the Estonian Government concerned eggs and butter. The C o d -I vention itself had foreseen the possibility of restrictions such as those applied by the Estonian I Government. It had provided that no obstacle should be made to the practice of restricting the export of certain goods in order to preserve the quality of those which were exported! Estonia therefore considered that she had the right to continue these established practictl without making a reservation. These steps, however, would have a general effect, since tha had led the Government to insist that all exporters obtain a special permit. These were tq reasons for which the Estonian Government had felt it desirable to make these reservations. The measures to which reference had been made did not tend to restrict exports, but mereb to maintain their quality. On the contrary, Estonia had every interest in the development of her export trade. The measures which were being applied were not contrary to the spirit of the Convention, but were in harmony with it. They did not constitute a hindrance to commerce.

I 11. Statement by the Latvian Delegate. fma r ; M. Duzmans (Latvia) said that the position of Latvia was identical with that of Estonia- Latvia, however, had signed without making any reservations, despite the control exercised | by the Government over the export of butter, but this measure fell under Section III,1 Article 4, ad No. 7, of the Protocol to the Convention of November 8th, 1927. Having stated this fact, the delegate of Latvia wished to point out that, in his opinion, t drafting of Article 4, No. 7, and of some passages in Section III of the Protocol relating thereto, I was not clear, and might lead to different interpretations that would be dangerous in the future. The Latvian Government considered that the control of butter, eggs, etc., was covered by I Article 4, No. 7, but if the Conference were to agree th at other States might make reservation!I on the same point, then Latvia would be compelled to make reservations also. The adoption bvI the Conference of the Estonian reservations would necessarily imply that the interpretatioc I of th e Latvian Government was not correct. If, therefore, the Conference discountenanced tin interpretation by admitting th e Estonian reservations on the point, Latvia would have to submit| exactly the same reservations as Estonia. — 47 —

Moreover, the Latvian Government was not the only one that considered reservations of the kind formulated by Estonia to be useless. The Italian Government had taken a similar

VieWThe Italian Government’s letter1 covered the definite case of the export of Estonian butter and eggs, and the list of the measures of control of these articles was intended to assure the main­ tenance of the quality of the exported products. This category was not included among the prohibitions which the Convention was to abolish. Several other States had also shown that thev a c c e p te d this interpretation. It was not possible to ignore the interpretation of Article 6, “ Matters for the Conference ”. M. Duzmans would plead the arguments used by M. Serruys „ his reply to the delegate of Chile. It was necessary to interpret Article 6 and to define this interpretation. Any other method would be dangerous.

The President, while recalling that the Chair did not, of course, take any part in the discussion, wished to warn the Conference once more that it should not be led into giving an interpretation of any article of the Convention. Such an interpretation, once given, would be sanctioned, and, in his view, it would be unwise to take so serious a step. If a certain country maintained a prohibition or restriction under the terms of Article 4, and its maintenance under that article was afterwards disputed by another country, Article 8 provided for the settlement of the dispute.

12 Statement by the Turkish Delegate.

' Hassan Bey (Turkey) recalled that Turkey had signed the Convention without making any reservation. It found itself, however, in the same position as certain other Governments which had formulated reservations. Thus Norway had formulated reservations on the export of ships. There still existed in Turkey a law on the coasting trade which might be compared to the Norwegian system.

The President, intervening on a point of order, begged to draw the attention of the delegate of Turkey to the fact that at present the Conference was only discussing the reservations of the Government of Estonia.

13. Discussion of the Estonian Government’s Reservation (continued).

M. B runet (Belgium) agreed with the President that it would in some respects be unde­ sirable for the Conference to take a formal decision on the interpretation of any one article. There was no reason, however, why opinions should not be expressed as to the scope of individual articles. Such opinions, however, would be purely personal ones and would not commit the Conference. He himself felt some doubt as to whether the Estonian Government’s request regarding butter and eggs was covered by Article 4, Clause 7, of the Convention. In Estonia an authorisa­ tion was necessary for the export of these products ; but according to the laws communicated to the Conference it did not seem that, if the requisite conditions as regards quality were fulfilled, jauthorisation was necessarily given by the competent Minister. Was not the action of the Ministry of Commerce based on considerations other than those relating to the quality of the products ?

M. Schmidt (Estonia) explained that firms had to obtain the approval of the Minister of ; Agriculture and the Minister of Commerce in order to be entered on the list of firms exporting butter (or eggs). If the butter (or eggs) submitted by an export firm to the inspecting organi­ sations was found to be of good quality, it could be exported without further formality.

14. Statement by the United States Delegate.

Mr. W ilson (United States) said that a point of great interest had arisen which should be settled, viz., whether or not the Conference was competent to give an interpretation of the various articles of the Convention. He thought that he would be a bold man who would venture to dis­ pute the opinion of the President, and he did not himself feel this courage, but nevertheless he wished to submit certain points for the consideration of the Conference. When the Convention had been signed in November of the previous year, there had been twelve commodities under reservation. At present there was a total of fifty-two commodities under reservations that had been either accepted or agreed upon. Moreover, some of these commodities had been placed in large categories, such as “ agricultural produce ", and therefore, if the various items were to be enumerated, a total of some thousand articles in all would be obtained. It seemed to him that the Conference must consider, not only the working of the invention in practice, but also — a more immediate matter — the assurance of its ratification, t should consider whether the presence of a great number of reservations would be in favour

1 See document. C.I.A.P. 25. - 48 - of this ratification. In his opinion, the Conference should reduce to a minimum the number of articles to be specified in the Annex to the Convention as exceptions. He had been struck by the remarks of the President, in the previous meeting, on the point as to whether certain reservations fell under the terms of the present Convention. In his view however, there was a difference between an interpretation of a clause of the Convention and a decision of the Conference with regard to a special case. It seemed to him that the Conference was competent to take such a decision. How else could it be arrived at ? By arbitration perhaps ; but this method was very cumbersome. There were, however, among the claims to exception, a large number of border-line cases, some of which had perhaps been presented by Governments through excessive meticulousness. With regard to these cases, could not the Conference give a direct answer, either in the affirmative or in the negative ?

The P resident said that he wished to make his point of view clearer. He feared that the knowledge of the facts that the Conference possessed was not sufficient to enable it to decide whether certain prohibitions and restrictions would fall under one of the paragraphs of Article 4, For instance, a State might claim an exception for a certain article under the terms of paragraphs Article 4 : “ Prohibitions or restrictions applied to products which, as regards products or trade, are or may in future be subject within the country to State monopoly t to monopolies exercised under State control. ” How could the Conference decide whether a given article was an article of monopoly or not: If it were to take a decision on such a point, it would exceed the bounds of prudence. The same objection would apply to a commodity for which exception might be claimed under the terns of paragraph 4 of the same article : “ Prohibitions or restrictions imposed for the protection of public health or for the protection of animals or plants against disease, insects and harmful parasites."

The same difficulty would arise with regard to a claim to maintain a prohibition or a restric­ tion with a view to maintaining a standard quality in certain products. He feared ■—although, of course, it would be for the Conference to decide on this point — that if the Conference were to take a decision with regard to certain reservations, it would exceed its competence.

15. Discussion regarding Products forming the Subject of a Monopoly.

M. D uzmans (Latvia) apologised for reverting to a question on which he had already spoken, He thought that, in any case, it would be necessary to give an interpretation of the second letter sent to the Secretary-General by Portugal1. The fact that Portugal appealed to Article 6 and to Article 5 in order to formulate certain reservations implied that there would be such an inter­ pretation. The case was the same with regard to Czechoslovakia and to Finland, as was evident from the letters from these countries2, and also with regard to France, the Government of whict country had asked, in a letter dated January 27th, 1928 2, whether certain measures were com patible with the clauses of the Convention. If reservations were requested, it would be in vai to attempt not to undertake interpretations and, if the Conference were to oppose these reques it would be necessary for both parties to find grounds for including particular cases in the scoj of certain articles. He suggested, therefore, that the Conference should not take too restricted a view of ils competence. If the method that he proposed were to be accepted, hesitation on the part of th various States would decrease. The reservations would also be fewer.

M. S erru y s (France) said that, in his opinion, the question was one of method. The obser­ vations of the delegate of the United States had shown the very clear desire of the Conference to arrive at a doctrine. This was essential. M. Serruys had cited a text, at the beginning of the meeting, precisely in order to open a discussion. With a view to defining its task, the Conference could take a decision on the texts on which its competence was based. The delegates could not give interpretations, for they were not competent to do so, but they could take note of facts. When Chile referred to the guano monopoly, the reply might be given:

1 This letter is as follows : [Translation.'] “ Geneva, February 1st, 1928. “ I have the honour to confirm my letter of yesterday’s date on the subject of the reservations ma* by the Portuguese Government to the Convention of November 8th last on the Abolition of I m p o r t am Export Prohibitions and Restrictions. “ I would further add that, as indicated in paragraph x of Article 6, in virtue of which they were made, these reservations refer to temporary restrictions, some of which the Portuguese GovernniM hopes to be able to abolish in the near future. They are due to an abnormal situation and thus were also formulated in accordance with Article 5. (Signed) F. de Calheiros e Menezes. ’ 2 Reproduced in document C.I.A.P. 23. — 49 —

„ ^efer to Article 4 This was not an interpretation, but a statement that a fact and a text ■responded. In the case of Estonia, the national law was covered by the interpretation that ie Conference had itself given K When it was noted that the cases of Chile and of Estonia were covered by a certain text, lFithout there being any necessity of interpretation, the statement was correct, but when Estonia tsked for the views of the Conference on platinum, this was a case of interpretation. The Con­ ference could only refer to paragraph 6 of Article 4, which applied to gold and to silver but not to platinum. The latter could not be considered as coin. The Conference would thus fail to keep to the point at issue. It would not so fail in the case of guano. This question had been included in the scope of Article 4. The reason why the Estonian reservations regarding butter and eggs were excluded was because the text of the Convention was definite. Thus, in short, any request for explanation

o n subjects not included in the Convention would be set aside, and an acceptable compromise thus reached. Was platinum covered by paragraph 2 of Article 6 ? The question was a delicate one. The needs of Estonia might conflict with the needs of other States. With regard to platinum, there was a large country which was not represented in the Conference, and which had the mono­ poly of its trade. It would be serious if the sources of platinum were to be restricted. Might the Estonian constitutional law allow an appeal to paragraph 1 ? It was necessary, therefore : (1) to ask under what paragraph of Article 6 the question re­ garding platinum fell for consideration, and (2) to come to a decision on the economic expediency of granting the Estonian request.

The P resident wished to ask M. Serruys a question in connection with his speech. Had Jl. Serruys gone so far as to state that the Conference would be in a position to declare that a certain exception claimed would in fact be covered by paragraph 8, or by any other paragraph of Article 4 ? A State might say that some article was a monopoly, or, as in the case of Estonia, that the only object of the prohibition or restriction was to maintain the quality of the article. A State might be convinced that its claim was covered by Article 4, but could the Conference ay that this article was a monopoly as provided for by Article 4 ? He requested M. Serruys to give his opinion on this concrete question.

M. Serruys (France) praised the caution of the President. He reverted to the views which he had already submitted and explained them further. It would be necessary to inform the Sovernment of Chile, which had raised the question of guano, of the decision of the Conference egarding Article 6, and of the reasons for that decision. The reply would be that this question eferred to a monopoly, and thus did not concern Article 6. The Government of Estonia might >e informed that the question it had raised referred to paragraph 7 of Article 4 rather than to Article 6. It would not be stated whether any request was legitimate or not. The Conference vould state that guano was not covered by Article 6 and that milk appeared to be covered by Article 4, paragraph 7. The part played by the Conference should be limited to such a statement.

The President thanked M. Serruys for this further statement of his views.

M. Stucki (Switzerland) drew the attention of the Conference to a precedent that had been rated in November 1927. A letter from the Swiss delegation2 showed that the Swiss Govern­ ment had then been in the same position as that in which Chile and Estonia found themselves at ’resent. Switzerland had raised the question of the monopoly of the import of wheat and of he regulation of the export of electric power. She had asked to be informed to what extent nese two points were compatible with the provisions of the Convention, and she had been given r reply. Since the President had noted that there had been no objection to the Swiss inter­ relation3, why did not Chile and Estonia take the same action as Switzerland had taken in the irevious year ?

The President pointed out that precedents were not always wise.

M. Serruys (France) recalled that at that time the Conference was dealing with Article 4. t could therefore legalise the interpretation of Article 4. The position was no longer the same. ^ the present time, the Conference was dealing with Article 6.

M. Brunet (Belgium) also thought that the situation was quite different from what it had )een in November 1927. At that time the Convention had not been signed. The text was in °urse of being drafted, and all questions of interpretation which were raised were intended as °mmentaries for the benefit of the judicial bodies which would subsequently, in execution of Article 8, have to interpret the Convention whenever disputes between States arose out of its

, ®ee document C. 559, M. 201, page 23, Section III, ad Article 4, ad No. 7. , ®ee document C. 21. M. 12. 1928. II, page 241. Ibid. page 130, No. 24. — 50 — application. The opinions expressed by the members of the present Conference, however, would only represent personal views, and the Conference, as such, should refrain from expressing opinions. He also agreed with the practical conclusions reached by M. Serruys.

16. Examination of the Proposals submitted by Estonia with reference to Article 6,

The P resident thought that the position was now sufficiently clear to enable him to proceed to the following question : Did or did not the proposed exceptions of Estonia fall for consideration under the terms of Article 6 ?

M. Ramirez Frias (Chile) wished to ask M. Serruys a question. If the Conference rejected a proposed reservation because it would not come within the scope of Article 6, but would be covered by one of the paragraphs of Article 4, and if it were found subsequently — perhaps after the Convention had been ratified — that that reservation was not covered by Article 4, what I would be the position of the country making the reservation ?

M. Serruys (France) outlined as follows the various stages of the problem which presented itself : The Conference would begin by saying that there was a question of monopoly. Was ; monopoly justified under Article 4 ? The Conference did not know, but the case submitted wa similar to that provided by Article 4. It did not come under Article 6, and the request should therefore be rejected. The second phase would be reached when the Conference noted that the substance in question was analogous to that covered by Article 4. A Power maintained this monopoly. If a Government came and told this Power that the question was not one of a monopoly, what could the incriminated Power do ? It was quite impossible to have recourse to arbitration under Article 4. The accusing Government would then take its stand upon Article 2 and say that it considered that the question would come undei Article 4. It would invite the other country to arbitrate in virtue of Article 2. The accused country would then point out that the question came within Article 4. Arbitration would no longer be possible.

The P resident said that he would put his previous question again, and, if the answer was in the affirmative, he would ask a second question : Would the exception be admitted under the terms of Article 6 ? He drew the attention of the Conference to the fact that both exceptions were claimed under the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 6, and that they were intended to be of a permanent character.

M. Schmidt (Estonia), after recognising that the Conference refused to settle the question of interpretation, added that this had not been the intention of the Estonian Government when making the reservations. Certain delegates had expressed the view that some difficulties might be overcome by a simple statement of the facts. As regards butter and eggs, the Estonian explanations should be sufficient, and the method accepted appeared adequate. One point remained as regarded platinum. M. Serruys seemed to think that Estonia haj asked for an interpretation of the text. This had not been the idea of the Estonian Governmec The request for a reservation which it had put forward was independent of the paragraph regardii silver and gold. M. Serruys further seemed to admit that the Estonian reservation was of a grea practical importance, and that, in the absence of the greatest producing country in the world, Estonia should not prove an obstacle to universal progress. In conclusion, Estonia was not a country which produced platinum. What interest wouli the greatest producing country have in exporting its platinum to Estonia, where it would k prevented from leaving by reservations ? The present legislation in Estonia was not mad: to hinder the progress of the other countries.

M. Schuller (Austria) observed that, of the two Estonian reservations, one fell under Article j and the other (platinum) was not of great importance. Nobody bought platinum in Estonia.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) said that as the Estonian delegate had not put forward any econom ic arguments which justified the application of Article 6, he could not, at the present juncture, see his way to support the proposal.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Great Britain) said that he understood that the only question no* under consideration was whether, in the opinion of the Conference, the. proposed reservations did or did not fall under the terms of Article 6.

The P resident said that the question at present was whether the claims for excepti01 were to be considered ; their admittance would be the second question.

M. Serruys (France) asked that the question should not be put as a whole. As regarded butter and eggs, the Conference should be asked to decide that the question did not come un

Article 6. There would be unanimity on this point. There would then remain only the question of platinum to be settled.

The President, noting that no other members wished to speak on these points, asked for an indication of opinion on them. The second point, the question of the exceptions claimed with regard to butter and eggs, would be treated first. He put the following question : Did did not the exceptions applied for fall for consideration under the terms of Article 6 ? or The Conference was unanimously opposed to the consideration of these claims.

The P r e s i d e n t asked whether the claims for exceptions with regard to platinum, precious stones, pearls, coral, etc., fell for consideration under the terms of Article 6. An indication of opinion having been given by roll-call, the Conference declared itself to be favour of the consideration of these claims.

Selection of Requests for Exceptions examinable by the Conference. 17-

The P r e s i d e n t thought it would be well first to clear the list of all claims for exception that would not be considered, and then to discuss the question of the admittance of claims. He explained that the previous Conference had accepted the reservation of the United States, ibut that, for purely formal reasons, the question of its acceptance would again be raised.

The Conference was unanimously in favour of the consideration of the reservation of the United :Slates.

i8. Examination of the Reservations submitted by Norway.

M. J ahn (Norway) recalled that his Government had made two reservations, one with regard to cereals and flour, and another with regard to the provisions of the Shipping Law of June 22nd, 1928. With regard to the former reservation, he had received, on the previous day, the following Itelegram from his Government : “ With reference to paragraph 8, Article 4, of the Convention, the Norwegian Government withdraws the reservation concerning cereals and flour, as a State monopoly will be introduced when the Law of the Kingdom of June 22nd, 1928, regarding the supply of cereals comes into force.” With regard to the second reservation, he wished to give the following explanation. The object of the provisional Law of July 21st, 1916, had been the preservation in the country of the necessary tonnage for the supply of the country during the war. Later in the war, regulations had been in force with regard to maximum rates for Norwegian vessels serving for the supply of the country. At the same time, however, it had been decided that shipowners who had ships running with maximum freights should be compensated for their losses by equal distribution of these losses among Norwegian tonnage. The maximum-freight system had been abolished several years previously. The Norwegian Government had, however, found it necessary to maintain the Law of July 21st, 1916, until the liquidation of this settlement had been concluded. Nevertheless, exemptions from the prohibition of sales, as established by the law, were now regularly granted. M. Jahn explained that these provisions were in no sense measures for the protection of Norwegian shipping The Norwegian shipowners had never had any protection except their own ability, which had hitherto proved sufficient.

Sir Sydney C h a p m a n (Great Britain) said that he was strongly disposed to think that the rproposed reservation dealt with a matter which was not a prohibition within the meaning of the Convention as understood by the Conference. From the letter of the Italian Government dated April 20th, 1928, it would seem that that Government shared this view. The provision ln question, as he understood it, did not constitute any real prohibition of the exportation of vessels. It was only a regulation relating to the removal of vessels from the Norwegian Register. The entry of vessels on this Register assured privileges, but it also entailed obli­ gations. It appeared to him, therefore, that this regulation was not an export prohibition in the ordinary sense of the term.

The P r e s i d e n t wished to ask the delegate of Norway another question : Was a Norwegian shipowner allowed to sell a ship to a shipowner of another nationality and to export the ship to Norway or to another country ?

M. I t o (Japan) asked M. Jahn whether in Norway it was necessary to register a ship which frad just been constructed, and, if that were the case, whether the owner was free to sell it as he wished.

M. J ahn (Norway), replying to M. Ito, stated that there was no restriction on exporting ships U1u at a Norwegian shipyard and that the regulation in question only concerned ships entered °n the Norwegian Register. Furthermore, he said that it was not necessary to enter ships — 52 —

constructed in Norway on the Norwegian Register. With regard to the question of the President he replied that, according to the Law of July 21st, 1916, it was necessary to obtain permission to sell a ship, but that this permission was always given. This law was only a provisional one and would be abolished, he thought, in the near future. The only reason for its maintenance was the fact that the maximum-freight settlement had not yet been liquidated.

With regard to Sir Sydney Chapman’s question, he stated that the provision in question was, of course, from the formal point of view, concerned chiefly with the registration regulations which may be regarded as an export prohibition, its object being to have a control of shipowners during the liquidation of the maximum-freight settlement.

H a s s a n Bey (Turkey) reminded the Conference that Turkey was not in exactly a s i m il a r position to Norway. There was a law regarding coastal trade ; it forbade the sale abroad of ships or shares. The Turkish Government had not felt it necessary to make reservations, because it considered that this case would come within the scope of the Convention. If other Governments made reservations of this nature, the Turkish Government would also do so. The request for reservations would undoubtedly have to be made before February 192S but it would, of course, apply to all countries which had signed in November 1927. Turkej had, however, just signed. Its request might therefore be taken into consideration.

M. Serruys (France) said he would not express his views on the intrinsic value of the Nor­ wegian and Turkish requests. The Norwegian request, as regarded shares in steamship companies, could not come under Article 6, but only under Article 4. Turkey had one argument in her favour that she had not invoked. When a request was put forward by a State, another State had the right to ask for a similar reservation. Norway had made a reservation ; Turkey had therefore the right to make a similar one.

The P resident noted that the second reservation had been withdrawn. He asked for an indication of opinion as to whether a claim to exception with regard to the shares fell for consideration under the terms of Article 6. The majority of the members of the Conference was opposed to consideration of this reservation.

The P resident asked for an indication of opinion as to whether the remaining claims for exception fell for consideration under the terms of Article 6. An indication of opinion having been given by roll-call, sixteen members declared themselves in favour of and seven members opposed to consideration of these claims.

19. Statement by the Polish Representative regarding the Reservations submitted b) his Government.

M. D olezal (Poland) recalled that, in a letter of January 31st, 1928, his Government made two classes of reservation, some of which were general and the others special. This letter containei1 the following passage : “ The Polish Government desires to state, however, that, until the free circulation of products essential to Poland’s foreign trade — some of which are covered by Article 6 and the Annex and which are still subject to prohibitions and restrictions- is restored, for the duration of the Convention, by means of bilateral agreements or in some other manner, it cannot see its way to submit the Convention to the Chambers for ratification. “ I have also the honour to inform you that, for the same reasons, the Polish Government, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, claims two exceptions, namely, in regard to the export of crude oil and the import of synthetic organic dyestuffs and colours or colouring matter containing them, as well as organic intermediate products used in the manufacture of such dyestuffs, colours and colouring matter. ” Although M. Dolezal was not aware that the first point referred to paragraph (6) and (c) of Article 171, he desired to state that he maintained a general exception formulated in the first paragraph of the above-mentioned letter. Before passing to the special reservations in the second paragraph of the letter, he rem inded the Conference of the attitude which Poland had adopted in November last. His Government had then rightly maintained that it would be more easy to renounce the exceptions which it had put forward if all countries did the same. However, in order to render easier the development of industrial and agricultural progress, M. Dolezal was glad to inform the Conference that his Government was unconditionally giving up the two special exceptions mentioned above, those on dyestuffs and crude oil.

1 Convention of November 8th, 1927 (see document C.21.M.12.1928.II, page 13). — 53 —

The President, speaking on behalf of the Conference, thanked the delegate of Poland for this striking contribution to the success of the Conference. The remainder of the discussion was adjourned to the next meeting. (The meeting rose at 6.50 p.m.)

THIRD MEETING.

Held on Wednesday, Jidy 4th, 1928, at 10 a.m.

20, Examination of the Reservations submitted by Portugal.

The P resident asked the Portuguese delegate to state whether his Government desired to maintain the exceptions it had demanded, and whether these prohibitions had been in force on November 8th, 1927.

M. d ’Oliveira (Portugal) was glad to inform the Conference that his Government, in the desire to facilitate full agreement on these questions, and in order to contribute to the development of freedom of international trade, had decided to abolish all reservations concerning import, s This action, however, did not mean that it adopted the policy of free trade. It desired to preserve I' its right to provide equitable protection for national production by means of Customs duties. The Portuguese Government had therefore abolished all prohibitions and restrictions on imports. As far as exports were concerned, Portugal, filled with an equal desire to reach an understand­ ing, had renounced all reservations she had made with the exception of three. 1. She maintained the exception concerning the export of raw cork. Portugal, like Spain and Algeria, was an important producer of cork and could not allow all the raw material concerned to be at the disposal of foreign trade or foreign industry ; she wished to reserve a small portion for home industry. He explained that this reserve only affected cork bark in its natural state before it had been submitted to any process of manufacture. Cork in planks, agglomerated, cork waste, and cork raspings, having already passed through a preliminary process of manufac­ ture, were of concern to foreign industry, whose interests were thus safeguarded. Hungary, where the manufacture of corks for bottles was carried on on a wide scale, need have no feelings of disquiet in this connection. Portugal, therefore, while maintaining this prohibition, would not hinder international trade. This prohibition, which dated from 1910, would have no harmful ■ effect and had never given rise to complaints from other countries. M. d’Oliveira thought that members of the Conference would be ready to recognise the good­ will displayed by his Government in this matter and would allow the exception it proposed to maintain. He hoped that they would do so all the more readily in view of the economic difficulties which his country had suffered since the war and owing to the war. 2. The Portuguese Government also wished to maintain the prohibition on resin in its raw I state as extracted from the pine. Foreign industries would have to pay heavily for this product in the raw state and would prefer to buy it in Portugal already manipulated by the home industry of that country, and sold in the form of essence of turpentine, resin, colophony and other products. P Up to the moment, no foreign country had made any complaint regarding this prohibition. 3. The third prohibition covered certain categories of wool used in local industries, and was indispensable to them. Portugal was a small wool-producer, and if she abolished this prohibition would be obliged to import, which would considerably increase the already heavy burdens on her industry. M. d’Oliveira pointed out that these three reservations concerned export, and that, from the standpoint of international trade, Portugal was of much more importance as an importing than as an exporting country. The exceptions were asked for in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention. He therefore urged the Conference to adopt the reservations which he had made.

The P resident pointed out that M. d’Oliveira had stated that the prohibition on raw c°rk had been in force by November 8th, 1927, but he had not stated whether the other two prohibitions fulfilled this stipulation, which was necessary for their acceptance.

M. d ’Oliveira (Portugal) replied that all the reservations he had asked to be maintained had been already in force by November 8th, 1927. (This was the condition laid down in the Annex to Article 6 of the Convention.) He desired the Conference to examine these reservations, not as questions of principle, but from the point of view of the very difficult economic position °f Portugal, bearing in mind that the exceptions asked for did not harm anyone.

5 * — 54 —

The P resident noted that the question resolved itself into whether these exceptions came under paragraph I of Article 6 or under paragraph 2, for when the Portuguese Government had enquired into the possibility of making exceptions to the Convention of November 1927 it had based its request on paragraph 1 of Article 6. M. d’Oliveira now took his stand upon paragraph 2 of Article 6. The President asked M. d’Oliveira, therefore, under what paragraph of Article 6 were these exceptions asked for.

M. d ’Oliveira (Portugal) replied that, for the reasons he had given, the reservations which he asked to be allowed to maintain were covered by paragraph 2 of Article 6.

The P resident, in view of the fact that no objection had been made, announced that the reservations of the Portuguese Government would be taken into consideration.

21. Examination of the Reservations submitted by Sweden.

The President asked the Swedish representative to explain the exceptions which his Govern­ ment desired to maintain and to state whether they had been in existence on November 8th, 1927.

M. Modig (Sweden) said that his Government maintained its reservations concerning the export of scrap iron. This prohibition had been in force prior to November 8th, 1927, and was of a purely defensive kind. The measure had been somewhat reluctantly adopted by the Swedish Government. It was not in conformity with the general policy of Sweden, which had always been hostile to prohibitions and restrictions.

No objection having been made, the P resident said that the reservations demanded by the Swedish delegation would be taken into consideration.

22. Examination of the Reservations submitted by Czechoslovakia.

The P resident asked M. Ibl (Czechoslovakia) to explain what exceptions his Government intended to maintain and whether these had been in force on November 8th, 1927.

M. I bl (Czechoslovakia) said that the reservations claimed by his Government had been in force before November 8th, 1927, in conformity with Article 6, paragraph 4. Some of the exceptions which his Government desired to maintain were covered by Article 4. The exceptions regarding imports covered by Article 4 were the following :

Pink clover seed ...... *...... Sugar-beet seed ...... Article 4, No. 4. Seeds of conifers and shoots of forest trees ...... ) Matches ...... Article 4, No. 8. The exceptions regarding export (Article 4) were :

Pink clover seed I Article 4, No. 4. Live gam e...... Hop plants .... Article 4, No. 7. Apart from these reservations, which were covered by Article 4, there were three reserves among the other reservations concerning timber in the round, sugar-beet and quartzite. They were of local interest and concerned a number of neighbouring countries. The Czechoslovak delegation thought that it would be preferable, and in consequence proposed, that these three reservations should be examined by a Sub-Committee composed of the countries concerned with the object of achieving a satisfactory solution. If that proposal were adopted, the full Conference would have to discuss the following reservations in virtue of Article 6 : cattle and swine for slaughter and breeding, motor-cars, wine, salicylic acid and its derivatives. M. Ibl added that all these derivatives had been asked for by his Government for a temporary period in virtue of Article 6, paragraph 1. He would refrain for the moment from giving the reason for these reserves, in view of the fact that they had already been stated at the Conference in November, and had been circulated in writing by his Government1. He reserved his right, however, to return to them and complete them before the Conference took any decision in regard to them. (The Conference adjourned for ten minutes in order to allow time for the Czechoslovak delegation to submit a written list of the reservations which it desired to maintain. The President pointed out that a certain number of reservations submitted by M. Ibl were covered by Article 4- The present Conference, however, was only concerned with reservations asked for in conformity with Article 6.)

1 See document C.l. A.P. 23 (Addendum'. F orm ation of a Sub-Committee to examine the Reservations submitted by Czecho- Slovakia regarding Timber in the round, Sugar-beet and Quartzite.

The President proposed that a Sub-Committee be appointed to examine the reservations made by Czechoslovakia regarding timber in the round, sugar-beet and quartzite. The Sub­ com m ittee would be composed of representatives of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany and Hungary and its Chairman would be M. Schuller (Austria). The proposal of the President was adopted.

The P resident noted that the Conference had agreed that the unconditional reservations were in conformity with Article 6 and could be taken into consideration. With regard to the other exceptions, the President proposed that the Conference should await the reply of the Sub-Committee.

24. Adjournment of the Examination of the Reservations submitted by Bulgaria.

The P resident, noting the absence of the Bulgarian representative, proposed that the examination of the Bulgarian reservations should be adjourned. The proposal of the President was adopted.

Sir Sydney C h a p m a n (Great Britain) asked whether a Bulgarian delegation was going to take part in the Conference.

T h e P r e s i d e n t replied that he was in communication with the Bulgarian representative accredited to the League.

25. Procedure regarding Requests for Exceptions.

The P resident proposed, to avoid all confusion in the discussions of the Conference on the requests for reservations in conformity with Article 6, to have a list of these reservations drawn up and circulated. (The Conference rose at 11.15 a.m.)

FOURTH MEETING.

Held on Wednesday, July 4th, 1928, at 4 p.m.

26. Report of the Credentials Committee.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) announced that the Committee on Credentials had completed its work. He read the Committee’s report, as follows : “ The Committee appointed by the Conference to examine the credentials of delegates has proceeded to review the relevant documents communicated to it by the Secretariat. “Before undertaking this review, the Committee thought right to determine a method of procedure as regards those members of the present Conference who were duly accredited to the Conference of October 17th, 1927. “ The Committee, endorsing the opinion expressed by certain Governments, has come to the conclusion that these delegates were duly qualified to represent their Governments at the present Conference, which is, in point of fact, only a continuation of the meetings held in October and November 1927. “ Certain doubts were raised at the first meeting of the Conference with regard to the position °f those delegates who were accredited to take part in the previous Conference by Governments which have since fallen from power. This question deserves the greater attention in that there has been a somewhat long interval between the two Conferences. " The Committee has come to the conclusion that, as regards the delegates of countries placed in this position, the powers issued previously should be regarded as valid provided they have not been invalidated by the new Government. “ Under the rules enunciated above, the delegates of Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Uenmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Poland, Roumania, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Siam, 'veden, Switzerland and the United States of America who attended the previous Conference may be regarded as duly authorised to take part in the present one. - 56 -

" As to the newly appointed delegates, the position is as follows : “ The delegates of Estonia, Norway and Turkey have received full powers from the Head of the State ; the representatives of Chile, Finland, India, Portugal and Roumania have been accredited by an intimation to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations either from the Minister for Foreign Affairs or from the representative of those countries on the Council or from their permanent representative accredited to the League of Nations or, lastly, from the competent Government department. “ Finally, two delegations, those of Denmark and Czechoslovakia, comprise, in addition to the delegates who took part at the previous Conference, certain new members. In their case, for Denmark we have received a notification from the permanent representative accredited to the League of Nations and for Czechoslovakia a notification from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. ” (Signed) J. B runet. The report was adopted. R. H olsti.

27. Adoption of the Reservations submitted by Estonia.

The P resident recalled that the claim of Estonia had fallen for consideration under para­ graph 2, Article 6.

M. Schmidt (Estonia) said that he would confine himself to recalling that he had already explained the situation from the point of view of his country, and that there was no possibility that the reservations claimed would occasion difficulties at a later date for international commerce. The two conditions defined by paragraph 2 of Article 6 had been fulfilled. He did not think, therefore, that the Conference should oppose the Estonian request for a reservation. Moreover, he would be pleased to furnish the Conference with any explanations that it might need. The Conference decided to accept the claim of Estonia according to the terms of paragraph 2, Article 6.

28. Adoption of the Reservations submitted by the United States.

Mr. W ilson (United States) said that he thought all the members of the Conference were familiar with the claim of the United States, since the matter had been discussed in the previous year. He wished to point out, however, that this reservation was of no importance to international trade.

The Conference decided to accept the claim of the United States according to the termsoj paragraph 2, Article 6.

29. Examination of the Reservations submitted by Portugal (continued) 1.

M. d ’Oliveira (Portugal) said that he had nothing to add to his statement of the previous meeting. He would confine himself to replying to any objections that might be made.

M. de N ickl (Hungary) explained that Hungary had opposed the maintenance of the Por­ tuguese reservation concerning cork bark on account of reasons of principle. The delegate oi Portugal had recognised that Portugal and Spain had indeed a virtual monopoly of the production of this material. It was precisely the aim of the Conference to put an end to these monopolies of production which certain countries enjoyed, but, in view of the fact that the interests of Hungary with regard to the cork industry were less important than the interests of many other countries, Hungary would adopt the same attitude as that of the States whose interests in this matter were greater than its own.

M. d ’Oliveira (Portugal) pointed out that the prohibition of the export of cork bark would not in any way constitute an obstacle to the export of cork in the form required by foreign industries. Since 1910, that was to say, since the date on which the prohibitions of the export of cork had commenced, the customers of Portugal who had bought half-finished cork from the country had never protested. Since 1910, Portugal had concluded commercial agreements with several of its customers, including Belgium (a large producer of corks and other articles of the cork industry), and no difficulty had occurred. M. d’Oliveira hoped that the delegate of Hungary would be fully satisfied by these expla­ nations and asked whether other countries had objections to make.

M. W ibaut (Netherlands) said that he had listened with attention in the previous meeting to the explanations of the delegate of Portugal on the reservation regarding wool, but that

1 See Third Meeting, No. 20. — 57 — jjjese explanations had not convinced him. It was still his impression that it was wished to aintain a certain level of prices in the case of this article in the interests of Portuguese 'ndustry. He regretted that the Conference had no information proving that the Portuguese réservation would have no effect on international trade. A delegate of Portugal had said that his country needed a certain quality of wool. There was nothing to prove, however, jjjat other countries did not also require this quality. In these circumstances, might the re5ervation be admitted according to the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 6 ?

M. d’Oliveira (Portugal) said that he wished to complete the explanations that he had jready given. His meaning had been that Portugal did not possess enough wool of the quality that it required for its national industry. If i t were to authorise the export of this w0Ol, the quantity of which was already insufficient, Portuguese industry would have to import the wool at higher prices.

M. S erru y s (France) asked for supplementary information. He noted that Portugal had made three claims for reservations. In virtue of what paragraph of Article 6 had these claims been made ? At the outset Portugal had presented them in accordance with paragraph 1, but a t the previous meeting it had appealed to paragraph 2, which provided for permanent reservations. M. Serruys pointed out that the three reservations in question were of different kinds. In the case of wool and resin, it was a question of keeping these materials within the limits of national economy. In the case of cork bark, it was a question of assuring to national labour the possibility of working on this material. In the former case, the reservation concerned the material properly so called ; in the latter case, it concerned national labour. M. Serruys was aware that Portugal had to meet particular difficulties to which its representative had alluded at the previous meeting ; he did not wish to increase these diffi­ culties, but he thought that the Conference should take a decision, not on the three claims taken as a whole, but rather on each of them separately. Did Portugal request a permanent exception for each of the three materials for export, or would it be satisfied with requesting a temporary exception in the case of cork bark on account of the temporary difficulties that it had to overcome ? In the latter case, the reservations concerning cork bark would come under paragraph 1. The other two reservations would come under paragraph 2. It would be advantageous to define which were the relevant paragraphs for each of the reservations requested.

The P resident saw no objection to following the suggestion of M. Serruys. The discussion of wool would therefore be continued.

M. Di N ola (Italy) saw no reason why the Portuguese reservation should be opposed. In the case of wool, as a raw material, the production of Portugal was not sufficient for the national industry. International trade would not therefore be affected. Accordingly, M. Di Nola thought that the reservation might be admitted under paragraph 2 of Article 6. As to cork, its export was not really prohibited, since it occurred after the cork had undergone a preliminary preparation. The Conference was confronted by a fact which must correspond to an economic need, and perhaps it was in the interest of the purchasers them­ selves. Italy, therefore, did not oppose any of the Portuguese reservations.

The P r e s id e n t pointed out that, of course, it was well understood that the only point now under discussion was the article “ wool”.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Great Britain) thought that the Conference should scrutinise with special care reservations that were claimed as permanent, and particularly when they related to a great world industry. He felt some hesitation concerning the reservation claimed in respect of wool, and he wished to ask the delegate of Portugal two questions. The delegate of Portugal had referred to certain classes of wool. Might not the claim of his Government be confined to limited classes ? Would it not be possible to make the claim m virtue of the terms of paragraph 1 of Article 6 ? Such a claim would be a far less serious °ne. He greatly feared that the appearance simply of “ wool ” on the list of exceptions under paragraph 2 of that article would create a very unfavourable impression.

The P r e s id e n t drew the attention of the Conference to Section 4, ad Article 2 (b), of the Protocol1.

M. W ibaut (Netherlands) said that he could not yet agree with the argument of the delegate of Portugal. M. d’Oliveira had stated that the quantity of certain classes of Portu­ guese wool, a quantity which, moreover, was not specified, was not sufficient for the industry °f the country.

. ( "By allowing the exceptions referred to in Article 6, paragraph 2, the High Contracting Parties have not mended to give perpetual recognition to their existence, but merely to indicate that the necessity of abolishing ese exceptions is not so imperative, in view of their slight importance in international trade. ” - 58 -

M. d’Oliveira seemed, therefore, to take the principle as granted that, if a country did not produce a sufficient quantity of a raw material used by its industry, it might be admitted that it was entitled to prohibit the export of this material. This principle, however, was a dangerous one. There were many countries which had to import raw materials and which nevertheless had signed a Convention without making any reservation. M. Wibaut said that he was more convinced than ever that it was a question of prices rather than of anything else. Paragraph 2 of Article 6 provided for the admission of reser­ vations in the case where the abolition of certain import and export prohibitions or restrictions would have no harmful effect on the trade of other countries, but in the present case how was it to be known that there were not foreign industries which would be willing to buy the special wool of Portugal and would compel this country to import other wools ? The President had just recalled paragraph 2 of Section IV of the Protocol. M. Wibaut added that, even after having read this article, he did not think that the reservations of Portugal might be admitted. Once more there was no means of knowing whether or not the prohibition of the export of certain classes of Portuguese wool, the quantity of which was unknown, would have an effect on international trade. It would not be sufficient to state that it would not have this effect. As to the principle that the Portuguese argument took for granted, it was impossible to admit it.

M. d ’O l iv e ir a (Portugal) wished to reply in the first place to Sir Sydney Chapman’s question It was asked what classes of wool were under consideration. He could not give this information although he had requested his Government to make statements in this respect. In any case, he could declare that it was only a case of certain classes and not of wool in general. In reply to the question of the delegate of the Netherlands, M. d’Oliveira wished to lay stress that this question was in no sense one of principle. Portugal was only considering the dz facto position. The country was an importer rather than an exporter of wool. The Portuguese woollen industry had only just commenced, and was passing through a difficult period. The reservation claimed would not injure anyone. The two conditions provided for by paragraph 2 of Article 6, which related, on the one hand, to the “ serious difficulties ” with which a country might be faced by the abolition of certain prohibitions, and, on the other hand, to the absence of “ injurious effects on the trade of other countries”, had been fulfilled. It would appear that the Conference should not oppose this reservation. M. d’Oliveira thanked the Italian delegate for the support that he had just given to the Portuguese argument. The delegate of Great Britain had asked whether it would not be possible to consider the Portuguese reservation as falling for consideration under paragraph i of Article 6. M. d’Oliveira said that he would deal with this suggestion in due course. He pointed out, moreover, that, as the President had recalled, the reservations authorised according to paragraph 2 would be no more permanent than the other reservations. M. d’Oliveira thought that he had satisfied the requests of the delegates of Great Britain and of the Netherlands ; he would give, as soon as possible, definite information on the classes of wool which were the subject of the reservation claimed.

M. Stucki (Switzerland) recognised that M. Wibaut’s remarks were just and that they were in accordance with the Convention and with the Conference of November of the previous year. Switzerland could not admit the principle in accordance with which a State might claim that,I as soon as it did not produce a sufficient quantity of a certain material, it should be entitle! to prohibit the export of this material. If this principle were to be admitted, what woum become of the results obtained by the Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones ? Several States! might claim to benefit by this principle. The Portuguese reservations were not admissible within I the scope of paragraph i of Article 6 ; they might only be admitted according to the terms I of paragraph 2. The question of principle set aside, was the reservation claimed so important a one ? M. Wibaut regretted that the Conference had no information on the possible effect of the reservation. M. Stucki recalled, however, that, in November of the previous year, reservations had been admitted in accordance with the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 6 without the delegates being requested to give details. The Swiss delegation, therefore, while opposing the principle that had been pointed out and while agreeing on the question of substance with the delegation of the Netherlands, thought that, despite all the objections, the Portuguese reservation might be admitted according to the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 6.

M. d’O liveira (Portugal) had thought when he had first listened to M. Stucki that the Swiss delegate was opposed to him. He had been happy to find that he was in reality an ally. He entirely agreed with him, for he had never wished to ràise a question of principle but to take his stand on a de facto situation which was in no way harmful to other States.

M. W ib a u t (Netherlands) was happy to discover that M. Stucki agreed with him in principle. He would have been still happier had he agreed on the application of this principle. According to the statement of M. d’Oliveira, it would be very difficult to take a decision immediately. The Portuguese delegate had just asked for details from his Government. It was very im portant to have this information in order to enable the Conference to decide whether or not it should admit a principle which in every other respect was susceptible of condemnation. Did not the President think that the taking of the decision should be postponed until the promised information came to hand ? — 59 —

The P r e sid e n t said that M. Wibaut had anticipated a statement that he himself would have made. He would point out that the Conference, as a whole, was not responsible for the arguments of its individual members. In judging the claim of the Portuguese Government, tjlg Conference should consider whether the facts corresponded with the words of paragraph 2 0f Article 6. He entirely agreed with M. Wibaut that the Conference had not a sufficient knowledge of the facts to enable it to form an exact opinion of the reservation claimed. H e proposed, therefore, that the decision on the reservation regarding wool should be postponed until the following day. He requested the delegate of Portugal to urge his Government to send a reply as soon as possible.

M. D uzmans (Latvia) desired to draw the attention of the Conference to the fact that a dangerous precedent was being created. He thought that the Conference was lacking in logic. In the previous autumn it had not asked delegates to furnish minute details before «ranting reservations. The procedure established in the case of Portugal threatened to prolong the discussion unduly.

The P resident said that, as detailed information had been requested by the delegates of Great Britain and of the Netherlands, he maintained his proposal and would put it to the vote.

M. D uzmans (Latvia) pointed out that what he had said did not apply to wool but to the method of requiring details on the international effect of the admission of any particular reservation.

M. R einshagen (Germany) said that the German delegation was fully aware, after the statements that had just been made by the delegate of Portugal, that the importance of the reservation of the Portuguese Government had been diminished, for the application of this reser­ vation had been limited to raw cork properly so called. Although there was a certain amount of interest in connection with the raw material, the chief interest was in the half-finished commo­ dity. In the case of the Portuguese reservation, the Conference was faced by a question of a monopoly, and the reservation was accordingly an important one. The delegate of Portugal had said that a great number of countries were interested only in the half-finished cork, and M. Reinshagen did not understand, therefore, why the Portuguese Government attributed such importance to the raw material. He did not think that the reservation would affect the general economic position of Portugal, and he doubted, therefore, whether it should be accepted. If, however, the Conference were to accept it, it should do so in virtue of paragraph 1, in order to provide a guarantee that the reservation would not be of a permanent character.

M. Ito (Japan) drew a distinction between the question of principle and the question of fact. As far as the former was concerned, the production of raw cork was limited to a small number of countries which, in practice, possessed a monopoly. The product in ques­ tion, however, was a raw material. The reservation, therefore, ought not to be allowed, for I the whole spirit of the Conference was in favour of the free circulation of raw materials. As far as the question of fact mentioned by Portugal in support of her contention and protected by paragraph 2 of Article 6 was concerned, M. Ito pointed out that, though trade between Portugal and Japan might at the moment be of small account, it was developing on regular lines. Such an increase was mainly due, however, to the import of Portuguese cork into Japan. Cork accounted for about 50 per cent of the trade between the two countries. If the Portuguese reservation were allowed, it would have an undeniable effect on the trade between Portugal and Japan ; consequently, M. Ito doubted whether it would be opportune to allow this reservation, especially in connection with paragraph 2 of Article 6.

M. D uzmans (Latvia) wished to put a question to the Portuguese delegate. The obser­ vations of M. Ito showed that commercial relations were developing between Portugal and Japan owing to the export of cork, and this despite a system of prohibition in force for eighteen years. How could such an increase be explained when a system of prohibitions was in force ?

M. Serruys (France) returned to his previous observations. He was of opinion that the reservation made by Portugal was covered by paragraph 1 of Article 6 and that M. d’Oliveira could be given satisfaction if the Conference had recourse to a compromise. For example, it could agree that the exception covering a period of three years should begin, not from the date of signature of the Convention, but from the date of its enforcement.

M. d ’Oliveira (Portugal) said that he would reply to the various objections that had been made. He continued to fear that the explanations which he had given had not been clearly understood. He had, however, explained that the Portuguese reservation only applied to raw c°rk, whereas the export of cork which interested foreign countries, i.e., half-prepared cork, was left without reservations. The foreign countries would not suffer in any way from a measure the purpose of which was to protect Portuguese labour. — 6o —

M. d’Oliveira regretted that his suggestions had been opposed from reasons of principle He was as strong a supporter of principles as anyone, but he considered that from its very nature the reservation was an exception. There existed important precedents. Account should be taken of the goodwill of Portugal, which had made the sacrifice necessary in signing the Con­ vention. He observed that no practical objection had been made, and no serious damage to trade mentioned. He would insist on the reservation put forward by his Government, and ask that it should be included under the scope of Article 2, paragraph 6. M. d’Oliveira desired to thank M. Serruys for the spirit of conciliation which he had displayed. M. Serruys had just remarked that, in the case of wool and pine resin, the protection was that of raw materials, whereas for cork it was the defence of national labour. M. d’Oliveira desired to remind him that the home industry would require protection in the case of pine resin also, as that product was exported after having undergone certain manipulations which rendered its transport less costly. He hoped that, if the reservation was refused, he would be able to ask for its acceptance under paragraph 1, i.e., as a temporary reservation. At present, however, he was asking for a permanent reservation.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) asked the Portuguese delegate whether the reservation regarding cork could not be specified by the term “ cork in the raw state”. He also suggested that a note should be introduced in the Convention embodying the important definitions given by M. d’Oliveira regarding the nature of the products referred to, as those definitions appreciably restricted the scope of the exception requested. Like his French, Swiss and Italian colleagues, M. Brunet considered Portugal’s co-operation most valuable, and he thought it would be very desirable to take steps to keep it. He added that the Convention signed on November 8th, 1927, contained no exception in favour of Portugal.

M. d ’O l iv e ir a (Portugal) accepted the alteration in the title proposed b y M. Brunet.

Mr. W ilso n (United States) said that the delegation of the United States had always opposed the granting of a reservation with regard to raw materials under the terms of paragraph 2, especially when such a reservation would constitute a virtual monopoly. He therefore opposed the present proposal.

The P r e s id e n t expressed the view that M. Serruys’ point could only be dealt with by the Conference if a proposal were made to that effect by the Portuguese delegate.

M. Se r r u y s (France) observed that the zeal of the Conference in examining the special case of the export of a few hundred kilogrammes of wool or cork was a proof of its conscientious­ ness, but he felt that it was causing a rather disturbing delay in this discussion. He therefore proposed that the Conference vote first as to whether it accepted the Portuguese request under paragraph 2. If the request was rejected, the Conference would vote again as to whether it was acceptable under paragraph 1, and agreement would finally be reached regarding the period of the reservation.

The P r e s id e n t said that the Conference could only vote upon this point on the proposal! of the Portuguese delegate. 1

M. Se r r u y s (France) explained that the proposal that he had just made was a limitation I of the Portuguese request. If this request was accepted under paragraph 1, he would ask for a time-limit. This was according to precedent.

The P r e s id e n t said that he had not realised that this was an amendment on the proposal of the Portuguese delegation ; he had thought that it was a separate proposal.

M. Ser r u y s (France) observed that he had the right to state that he did not wish the proposal to be in unlimited terms.

Sir Sydney C h a p m a n (Great Britain) thought that some of the members of the Conference would find difficulty with regard to certain of the claims for reservations. They might not wish to reject them, but might prefer that they should be accepted under paragraph 1 and not para­ graph 2, or vice versa. The question arose how to deal with such a position, and he would suggest that if, in the discussion, a number of delegates wished a reservation to be placed under a different paragraph to that under which it was claimed, the discussion should be postponed to enable the delegate of the claiming country to consult his Government, perhaps with a view to altering his proposal.

M. D i N o la (Italy) desired to point out that there was not a great deal of difference between paragraphs 1 and 2. In his view, it was not true to state that the reservations coming under paragraph 1 should be temporary and those coming under paragraph 2 perm anent. — 6 i —

It had already been pointed out in Section IV, ad Article 6, of the Final Protocol : “ By allowing the exceptions referred to in Article 6, paragraph 2, the High Contracting Parties have not intended to give perpetual recognition to their existence, but merely to indicate that the necessity of abolishing this existence is not so imperative, in view of their slight importance in international trade.” The difference was therefore in the nature of the reservation. Those coming under the scope of paragraph 1 were of interest to international trade. They were accepted, however, and concerned coal, dyestuffs, etc. The reservations under paragraph 2 were not harmful to international trade, and this constituted the difference. The question was whether the reser­ vations regarding the export of cork and resin had an adverse effect on international trade, u d’Oliveira had explained that prohibition of raw cork had no international repercussion. Other States were free to import cork in the shape of boards. The Portuguese reservation, I therefore, did not affect adversely international trade, and M. Di Nola considered that it I might be taken under paragraph 2 of Article 6.

The P r e sid e n t drew the attention of the Conference to the fact that the Portuguese delegate had put forward a definite proposal. He had asked : (1) whether the reservation could be accepted b y the Conference under paragraph 2 of Article 6 ; and, if not : (2) whether the Conference would agree to accept it under paragraph 1 of this article. There was an amendment by M. Serruys to the second proposal.

M. Ser r u y s (France) said that he was not in agreement with M. Di Nola as regards the interpretation of Article 6. In paragraph 1 of the Protocol (Section IV, ad Article 6), the period of three years was clearly laid down. In paragraph 2 there was no question of a time-limit. This was the essential difference between the two paragraphs, and it was the reason why M. Serruys was not prepared to vote for the Portuguese reservations under paragraph 2. This raised a question of principle, for permanent reservations could have serious consequences. As permission was only granted to export half-prepared cork, there remained the dust and scraps which could not be exported. If the reservation were voted under paragraph 1, it would also have to contain a time-limit.

M. D uzmans (Latvia) was in general agreement with M. Serruys. He pointed out that, as regards the two kinds of reservation admitted in November last, M. Serruys was right. As regards the reservations, however, which the present Conference proposed to grant, M. Duzmans could not agree with his colleague. He referred to Article 18, paragraph 4, of the Convention, which read as follows : “ Furthermore the Convention may be denounced on behalf of any Member of the League of Nations or of any non-Member State after the expiration of the fifth year from the date of the present Convention if, after that period, such Member of the League of Nations or non-Member State considers that any one of the excep­ tions allowed by the High Contracting Parties at the meeting provided for in Article 17 has impaired the effect of the present Convention. ” This passage showed that the reservations asked for under paragraph 2 and which were granted by the present Conference would be limited for a period of five years from November 8th, 1927, which was not the date of the entry into force of the Convention but that of its signature. This would apply to the reservations granted by the present Conference, but would not apply to those accepted in November last.

M. S e r r u y s (France) replied to M. Duzmans that, in addition to paragraph 4 of Article 18, reference should also be made to paragraph 3, which read as follows : “ The Convention may be denounced on behalf of any Member of the League of Nations or any non-Member State after the expiration of the third year from the date of the present Convention if, after that period, any one of the exceptions allowed in virtue of Article 6, paragraph 1, exists.” Some doubt existed as to whether this paragraph 1 as it was in November last or as it would be after amendment at the present Conference would cover the reservations under discussion. M. Serruys proposed, however, that M. Duzman’s proposal should be accepted as regards paragraph 4. The reservation might be removed if, at the end of five years after the date of the Convention, a signatory State found it injurious.

Sir Sydney Chapm an (Great Britain) expressed the view that the present question constituted a test case as to the views of the Conference on the applications for reservations. He felt that a vote showing the opinion of the Conference would help delegates to decide under which of the two paragraphs of Article 6 they would submit their claims to a vote of the Conference. He would suggest that the Conference should indicate whether in its opinion the claim 'n question should come under paragraph 1 or 2, and then adjourn the definite decision until o-morrow, to enable the Portuguese delegate to decide under which paragraph he would prefer to claim. — 62 —

The P r e s id e n t said that he did not quite grasp Sir Sydney Chapman’s proposal.

Sir Sydney Ch a pm a n (Great Britain) pointed out that his proposal was an attempt to discover the opinion of the Conference without making it necessary to reject the Portuguese delegate's proposal.

The P r e s id e n t pointed out that the Portuguese delegate had already stated that, if bis proposal were not acceptable under paragraph 2, he would claim under paragraph i.

Sir Sydney Ch a pm a n (Great Britain) said that he had not realised that this was the case. As he understood the matter, the Portuguese delegate had only reserved the right to put forward a claim under paragraph i if the claim under paragraph 2 were rejected. In view of the fact that the Portuguese delegate had definitely decided to re-submit the claim, Sir Sydney withdrew his proposal.

The P r e s id e n t put the question to the Conference whether it was of opinion that the I reservation claimed by Portugal on raw cork could be accepted under paragraph 2 of Article 6.1 Seventeen members were in favour of acceptance, eight members were opposed to it, and twii members abstained from indicating their opinion.

The P r e s id e n t then asked the Conference whether this proposal would be acceptable] under paragraph 1.

M. S e r r u y s (France) said that he would withdraw his amendment on the understanding that paragraph 4 of Article 18 should be _ taken into account.

M. Cu r c in (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) asked whether the Conference would give an indication of opinion on the reservation on wool or the other Portuguese reservations.

M. I to (Japan) said that he could not accept the declaration of M. Serruys and referred the 1 meeting to page 137 of the Minutes of the Conference of November 1927 *. M. Ito had then said :

“ During the meeting provided for in Article 17, the reservations may be accepted either under paragraph 1 or under paragraph 2 of Article 6. In the two cases, | the High Contracting Parties will only be able to denounce the Convention five years after the date of common signature. ” The difference therefore existed in the period for denunciation of reservations made in | accordance with Article 6, paragraph 1.

M. S e r r u y s (France) said that he could not see where there was any disagreement betweeil himself and M. Ito. He would remind M. Ito that, at the meeting referred to, he had then repliecl that the interpretation of M. Ito was correct from the point of view of the text, but did not ta li account of the possibility of the Conference which would meet in June only admitting exception for a definite time, and M. Ito had said that he was satisfied with this reply. The five years under reference were the five years provided in paragraph 4 of Article til which M. Serruys had just mentioned. M. Ito and M. Serruys were therefore in agreement, as the solution proposed by the latter| was the same as that which M. Ito had in mind.

M. S tu c k i (Switzerland) said that he was afraid all these controversies might side-track I the issue. He felt that the Conference was not called upon to take new action in deciding time-1 limits. The Conference had only to decide whether a reservation was admitted or not.

Mr. W ilso n (United States) said that he agreed with M. Serruys that it was not the task of the Conference to lay down a time-limit, but only to decide whether the claim could come under paragraph 1 or 2. It would be of great help in enabling the members of the Conference to decide on a favourable vote if the Portuguese delegate would voluntarily fix a time-limit | for the application of the reservation.

M. d ’Ol iv e ir a (Portugal) said he was somewhat embarrassed by this suggestion. He had proposed a permanent reservation and it had not been accepted. He now wished to ask f®| a temporary reservation, but, of course, wanted as much as he could get.

The P r e s id e n t invited the Conference to express its opinion as to whether this proposal | could be accepted under paragraph 1 of Article 6.

1 Document C.21.M.12.1928.II. — 63 —

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) observed, in support of his vote in favour of the proposal, that it was quite consistent to do as he had done, namely, to vote in favour both of the first and of the second proposal. The Conference was in favour of the inclusion of this reservation under paragraph i of Article 6, twenty members indicating their opinion, and seven abstaining from so doing.

;0i Examination of the Reservation submitted by Portugal regarding Pine Resin.

The P r e s id e n t invited the Conference to express its view as to whether this reservation could be included under paragraph 2, as claimed.

M. P osth u m a (Netherlands) said he was against the acceptance of this proposal.

At the suggestion of Sir Sydney Ch a pm a n and the P r e s id e n t , M. P osthum a said that, in the light of the acceptance of this reservation by all the other delegations, he would abstain from indicating his opinion.

31. Examination of the Reservations submitted by Sweden (continued) 1.

M. Mo d ig (Sweden) said that he had already put forward the view of his Government as regards the question of scrap iron. He had nothing to add, and would only say that the same reservation had already been granted to nine other States. The reservation was requested under paragraph 1 of Article 6.

The P r e s id e n t asked whether the Conference had any objection to accepting these reservations. These reservations were accepted. (The meeting adjourned at 6.45 p.m.)

FIFTH MEETING.

Held on Thursday, July 5th, 1928, at 10 a.m.

32. Examination of the Reservation submitted by Portugal regarding Wool (continued) 2.

M. d ’Ol iv e ir a (Portugal) said that he had that morning received a telegram from his Government informing him that the brand of wool for which he was requesting a reservation under Article 6, paragraph 2, was “ Marquis de Lema” wool. He had no other information on the matter, and he once more asked that the discussion on the Portuguese reservation should not be complicated by the question of principle, which remained as it was. The exception proved the rule, and accordingly, whenever exceptions arose, the reasons and the circumstances which led to them were specified. He would try to obtain further details as to the brand of wool in question.

The P r e s id e n t explained that the Portuguese reservation concerned only wool of fine r 1 quality known as Marquis de Lema wool.

M. W ib a u t (Netherlands) said that the exception asked for by Portugal in regard to wool, though not very clearly defined or specified, did not seem to him to be of great importance. He thought, therefore, that the Conference should not refuse to grant such an exception.

Sir Sydney Ch a pm a n (Great Britain) agreed with the observations of the Netherlands delegate.

The P r e s id e n t asked whether the Conference would accept this reservation, which was claimed under paragraph 2 of Article 6. The Conference accepted this reservation.

33- Examination of the Reservations submitted by Czechoslovakia (continued) 3.

M. I bl (Czechoslovakia) desired to remind the Conference, before it took a decision 011 the Czechoslovak reservations, of the statement he had made in November 1927 prior to signing the Convention. He had said that Czechoslovakia would accede to the Convention provided,

1 See Third Meeting, No. 21. See Third Meeting, No. 20. 1 See Third Meeting, No. 22. — 64 — inter alia, that the decision taken by the present Conference in regard to reservations did not injure the vital interests of his country. By that statement he intended to show Czechoslovakia’s desire to accept the Convention and at the same time to draw attention to certain economic difficulties with which his country was faced, and on account of which it could not put the Convention into effect immediately. In order to overcome those difficulties and comply fully with the terms of the Convention, Czechoslovakia required a certain period of transition and adjustment, and accordingly the Czechoslovak Government asked — under the terms of the Convention itself •—• for certain temporary reservations. Article 6 expressly stipulated that, when there exists in a country a situation of fact which prevents that country from immediately undertaking the engagements entered into in the Convention, the other countries might autho­ rise it, as a temporary measure, to maintain the necessary reservation. That had been the case with certain other countries which had been granted the reservations they claimed. The Czechoslovak delegation was quite sure that the Conference would take the same liberal view of Czechoslovakia’s position in the cases where that country was obliged to ask for reservations. As regards the grounds for the reservations, M. Ibl referred to the reasons set forth i;i writing by his Government and communicated to the Secretary-General of the Leaguex. Those reasons showed that, as regards live-stock, motors and wines, the admission of reservations was vital for the national economy of Czechoslovakia, and that it was of decisive importance to the Czechoslovak Government that a means should be found of dealing with those question; within the system of the Convention. In order to evince its goodwill and to facilitate the settlement of the matter, the Czecho­ slovak delegation was prepared to undertake to abolish the reservations in question after three years, reckoned from November 8th, 1927. They would thus terminate on November 8th, 1930. He thought that the Conference would appreciate the significance of this statement, since it provided a suitable basis, and at the same time constituted a valuable precedent for the future application of the Convention. Moreover, in order to give a further proof of goodwill, the Czechoslovak delegation stated that it would only ask for three reservations — relating to live-stock, motors and wines — to be maintained under Article 6, paragraph 1, and would renounce the reservation regarding salicylic acid and derivatives thereof.

The P r e s id e n t thanked M. Ibl for having withdrawn his fourth reservation.

Mr . W ilso n (United States) said that he understood that the Czechoslovak Government would agree to abolish the import restrictions after a period of three years. He would like to know whether this decision would mean that Czechoslovakia would also remove the restriction which at present forbade the use for hire of a foreign make of car in Czechoslovakia.

M. I bl (Czechoslovakia) replied that this would be the case.

M. Se r r u y s (France) said that there was a commercial treaty binding France and Czecho­ slovakia which respected the decisions of the Conference. It was based on the system now in force. He asked M. Ibl to agree that the final decisions of the Conference, which would mod if; the present system in force between the two countries, should not prejudice the interest of France.

M. Sc h u l l e r (Austria) said that no one would deny that the economic position of Austria had been, and still was, more difficult than the position of any other country. His Government, however, had asked for no reservations. As far as the agreement between Czechoslovakia and France was concerned, Austria had found herself a considerable time before Czechoslovakia in a similar position, for she had concluded a similar agreement with France. If the Conference granted the reservations asked for by Czechoslovakia (cattle, motor-cars, wines), the Austrian Government would be compelled to ask and to make similar reservations. It would also stipu­ late that no decision of the present Conference should injure the provisions of the agreement signed with France.

M. I bl (Czechoslovakia) gave the assurance that the decisions to be taken by the Conference in regard to his country would not be contrary to the agreement binding Czechoslovakia and France.

M. Di N ola (Italy) thanked M. Ibl for having reduced the considerable list of exceptions which he had submitted to the previous meeting. He hoped that M. Ibl would continue to do so until none were left. He would also like to ask the Czechoslovak delegate for information on one point. On the previous day, M. Ibl had abandoned certain reservations, or rather had withdrawn them from discussion, as being covered by Article 4 of the Convention. That statement should therefore

1 Document C.I.A.P. 23. h interpreted to mean that the restriction regarding pink clover seed was no longer of an onomic but solely of a phytopathological character. e jj p>i Nola therefore concluded that Italy might export pink clover seed to Czechoslovakia, even beyond the quota allowed under the bilateral Convention in force, provided that her product were in conformity with the health regulations. M. Di Nola would also point out that he was unable to understand why Czechoslovakia desired to maintain exceptions, such as those relating to wines and motors, for a further period of three years. Her economic situation, which she alleged as a justification for these reser­ vations, was about as different as was the case in several other countries. The maintenance of s u c h reservations created a precedent which other countries would desire to follow. Italy more especially was directly concerned in the matter. She produced wines and motor-cars. A b o u t 60 per cent of her motor-car production was for export purposes. If, therefore, the Conference acceded to the request of Czechoslovakia, a large number of delegates would be unable to justify their attitude in regard to them when called upon to do so by their Governments. In that case, not only would countries already possessing prohibitions desire to maintain them, but countries possessing no prohibitions would think themselves justified in asking for them. The Conference had just heard the observations of M. Schuller, who had definitely claimed the right for his country to maintain certain exceptions if those asked for by Czechoslovakia were granted. Italy was bound to follow the same course. He would add that several of the exceptions asked for by Czechoslovakia had already been made the object of bilateral conventions by the terms of which Czechoslovakia allowed the import of a rationed quantity of specifically named products from other countries. If the Conference agreed to the reservations proposed by Czechoslovakia, in what position would those countries be when the time came to renew those conventions ? They would already have recognised the maintenance of the prohibitions in question, and they would be less able than before to urge their requests for the total or partial abolition of these prohibitions in the interest of their commerce. The Conference would therefore place these countries in a very difficult position from the point of view of the conventions concluded between them and Czechoslovakia. He would remind the Conference that M. Ibl, in maintaining these reservations, had obviously regarded the disadvantages rather than the advantages which would accrue from the final adoption of the present Convention. These advantages would certainly be very considerable for Czechoslovakia. M. Di Nola hoped that the Czechoslovak delegation would make one more effort to withdraw these three exceptions.

M. Sc h u l l e r (Austria) pointed out that, as far as the reservation concerning pink clover seed was concerned, since it was covered by Article 4, it was a question of a general kind, and therefore whether it was or was not an economic reservation was of no importance.

M. Clan (Denmark) said that one of the reservations —• that on the import of cattle and swine — was of particular interest to his country. In its letter on this question, the Czechoslovak Government said that the reservation had been made because Czechoslovakia : “ Desires to demonstrate the importance she attaches to the efforts which have already been made and need still to be made in this connection, and this not on purely theoretical grounds but also in consideration of her vital economic needs arising out of the country’s intermediate position between East and West. ” He would point out that Denmark had until a few years ago exported cattle and pigs and other agricultural produce to the value of over 50 million Swiss francs to Czechoslovakia. Cattle disease had then unfortunately arisen in Denmark and caused this export to be stopped by Czechoslovakia. He felt that this showed that Czechoslovakia had effective protective measures against the import of unhealthy animals, and the Czechoslovak diplomacy did certainly not need this prohibition as a contractual measure. He would appeal to the Czechoslovak represen­ tative to withdraw his reservation, understanding that his country had sufficient protection by paragraph 4 of Article 4.

M. Se r r u y s (France) agreed with M. Clan and M. Di Nola. It would be impossible to agree that, in order to preserve certain prohibitions and restrictions, it would be sufficient to trans­ fer them from one article to another and thus transform them from economic reservations to health reservations ; that would be quite intolerable.

M. C u r c in (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) paid a tribute to the President f o r the good humour with which he presided over the Conference. His foresight made it possible for it to examine even the widest reservations. His own country, which had for a long time renounced the weapon of prohibitions and economic restrictions, did not think it necessary t o say so once more. M. Curcin had said in November 1927, at the end of the Conference, that his impression had been that the greatest difficulties had been overcome, and that only temporary and inoffensive reservations remained to be examined, admitted or rejected. — 66 —

He was now surprised to see that so large a number of States asked for exceptions whose purely economic character it was difficult to disguise and the existence of which it was difficult to justify. The cause of this lay in the fact that the Conference had refused at the outset to contemplate the economic problem as a wide whole, and that there had been a lack of sincerity in discovering the form of agreement to be reached by all. The result was that a certain number of States had tried to counteract the success of others by means of reservations involving pro. hibitions and restrictions. It was undeniably true that some States encountered difficulties in certain branches of their production, but all States were more or less in the same position, It was only the various branches of production which differed. If the Conference too readily accepted a system of exceptions, insoluble difficulties would appear. For this reason, he would abstain from voting in favour of the reservations proposed. As far as the differences between the economic and health character of certain prohibitions were concerned (sanitary measures), M. Curcin expressed the hope that the League of Nations would find a method of pursuing its action vigorously in order to achieve an agreement uniting the efficacy of veterinary measures with the requirements of international trade.

M. D o leza l (Poland) agreed with M. Clan and M. Curcin. He saw no reason why the economic condition of a country should be improved by the imposition of prohibitions ancl restrictions. To justify her request, Czechoslovakia laid stress on her special geographical situation, which caused her to be the connecting link between East and West. Poland was also in a similar position. M. Dolezal thought that the reservations covered by Article 4, paragraph 4, should be amply sufficient in the case of Czechoslovakia. He asked M. Ibl, therefore, to withdraw all his other reservations.

M. S t u c k i (Switzerland) desired to explain his point of view quite impartially in regard to the Czechoslovak reservations. He perceived with regret that Czechoslovakia desired to maintain three important reservations. He considered them to be contrary to the spirit of the Convention. Nevertheless, Switzerland would abstain from voting in regard to the first two reservations concerning motor-cars and wine, because she was not directly interested. In regard to the third reservation —• that concerning cattle — M. Stucki said that Switzerland could not export her breeding stock owing to the veterinary regulations of other countries, Nevertheless, she did not herself maintain her veterinary regulations. Swiss agriculture was passing through a very grave crisis, precisely owing to the fact that foreign cattle were being imported. If Switzerland agreed to vote for such an economic reservation, she would be compelled to ask to be allowed to make a corresponding reservation. M. Stucki would repeat that his country could not accept the Czechoslovak reservation. If the Conference granted this exception to Czechoslovakia, there were only two courses which Switzerland could follow. She could either withdraw from the Conference or else she could ask for permission to make the same reservation in regard to imports as Czechoslovakia.

M. N ic k l (Hungary), from motives of principle and from practical consideration, was against the exceptions asked for by Czechoslovakia. He entirely agreed with M. Di Nola. I t was impossible for Hungary to accept the Czechoslovak reservations, especially in view of tb fact that she had done away with all prohibitions and restrictions. He could not sign sucl a Convention, more especially because the reservations claimed by Czechoslovakia in respect of wine and cattle were quite inacceptable. Generally speaking, to accept such reservations was to move in the wrong direction. A large number of exceptions would thus gradually be codi­ fied, and this was contrary to the spirit of the Convention. M. Nickl asked M. Ibl, therefore, to withdraw all his reservations.

Mr. W il so n (United States) said that, as regards the reservation on cattle, he was in the same position as M. Clan. He could not see that there was any end consistent with the Conven­ tion which could not naturally fall under the terms of Article 4. As regards the prohibition on motor-cars, the reservation seemed inconsistent in every respect with the terms of the Convention. It was a trade restriction with the admitted object of protecting a local industry, and it was of international importance. He had first felt that M. Ibl’s proposed time-limit would provide a satisfactory solution to the question, but he had noted in the discussion that the growth of prohibitions and restrictions was extremely rapid. They had already seen the possibility of reservations on the part of Austria, Switzerland and possibly Italy. This would entirely alter the position, and he felt that the maintenance of the Czechoslovak reservation would only serve to destroy the value of the Convention. He would like to ask M. Ibl what was the real importance of the maintenance of these restric­ tions up till November 8th, 1930. The Convention could only come into force after it had been signed by a certain number of countries, and even then there was a period of six months allowed before it operated. He felt that he might urge M. Ibl to consider the possibility of withdrawing these reservations in view of the fact that the Convention would not come into force until a date very near that which he proposed. — 67 —

jy D u z m a n s (Latvia) would confine himself to the only reservation which affected the tional interests of his country in view of the fact that she maintained active economic relations i Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovak reservation concerning cattle could hardly be accepted h L atvia. He completely agreed with the observation that Mr. Wilson had just made, more specially if that reservation were really as important as M. Ibl thought it was.

M. S e r r u y s (France) desired to find a basis of conciliation and to propose a compromise. He thought that Mr. Wilson had just made a proposal which would make it possible to reach a

The P r e s id e n t proposed that, in order to give M. Ibl time to answer the criticisms of his proposal, the meeting should adjourn.

(The meeting rose at midday).

SIXTH MEETING.

Held on Thursday, July $th, 1928, at 4 p.m.

------

34. Withdrawal by Norway of her Reservation regarding Vessels and Shares in Vessels.

The P r e s id e n t called upon the delegate of Norway to address the meeting.

M. J a h n (Norway) said that he had requested his Government for further information and that his Government, after reconsidering the question, had resolved to withdraw its claim jpr exceptions for vessels and shares in vessels, deeming that this question was outside the ■scope of the present Convention.

35 Examination of the Reservations submitted by Chile (continued) K ! The P r e s id e n t asked the delegate of Chile whether he had received a reply from his Government. i M. R a m ir ez F r ia s (Chile) said that, although he had not yet received a detailed reply from his Government concerning the exact date of the entry into force of the prohibitions that his Government desired to maintain, he was in a position to state that these prohibitions iiad been already in force at the date of the signature of the Convention, that was to say, °n November 8th, 1927, and that the prohibition regarding the export of guano had been in force many years previously in accordance with the Chilian Mining Law of 1888. As he had I noted that similar statements on the part of other delegations had been considered by the Conference as satisfactory, he hoped that he would be allowed to express his views on the Substance of the question.

I The P r e s id e n t recalled that the Conference still had to take a decision on the question whether the claims for exception of Chile fell for consideration under Article 6, and, if the

1 See Third Meeting, No. 3. — 68 —

decision was in favour of consideration, on the question whether they were to be admitted unde: the terms of that article. He asked for an indication of opinion on the first question. The Conference was in favour of the consideration of the claims for exception of Chile under Article 6.

The P r e s i d e n t said that the question of the admission of those c la im s now remained He recalled that the claims for exception regarding the export of scrap iron and scrap zinc feu for consideration under paragraph 2 and the claims for exception regarding the export of mares under paragraph 1.

M. R a m i r e z F r i a s (Chile) said that he wished to remark on a point of form. In the document which had been distributed, it was stated that there were only two questions concerning Chile under discussion : the prohibition of the export of scrap iron and scrap zinc and the prohibition of the export of mares. Now, no decision had been taken concerning his statement at the time of signature, or on the request concerning the export of guano.

The P resident recalled that the Conference had ruled that the claim regarding the expo; of guano did not fall for consideration under Article 6.

M. R amîrez F rias (Chile) said that the discussion which had taken place after the Conference had decided to adjourn the questions relating to Chile was of value only from the theoretical point of view and did not constitute a decision on the Conference’s competence to accept or interpret or make statements on the text of the Convention, or to decide whether the reservation, regarding guano were covered by Article 4 (8). Accordingly, he ventured to re-open the question with the object of setting forth his view on all the statements and reservations formulated by the Chilian Government. He pointed out, in the first place, that the statement in letter (a)1 concerning the interpretation by the Chilian Government of Sub-Clauses 1 and 3 of Article 4, regarding the import of saltpetre by countries participating in the Convention, was in every way a similar statement to the declaration which had been accepted by the previous Conference in the case of the request of France and of other countries concerning the import of wines, a declaration which had been concurred in by the Conference at its thirteenth meeting on November 7th, 1927 2. It had been necessary for Chile to make this request because it was of really unusual impor­ tance to the country on account of two main facts : in the first place, a large portion of its revenue was obtained from the trade in saltpetre, and if for any reason -—- for instance, an import prohibition or restriction •— there were to be a slump in the market for saltpetre, there would be a deficit in the national budget, which would involve serious administrative, political and other complications which were the corollary of an irregular financial year or of a lack of balance between the expenditure necessitated by the public service and the norma! development of a country. The second fact was of still greater importance : the majority of the other industries of Chib had their chief market in the nitrate zone, which comprised whole provinces, and thus tk paralysis of the nitrate industry, consequent upon a crisis in that branch of the production c Chile, would involve a general economic crisis in the country, the extent and the unfortuna consequences of which Chile had already on certain occasions experienced. On the other hand, the cessation of work in the nitrate zone and that which would folio» in the other industries would lead to considerable unemployment, which would be fraught will serious consequences and would occasion the gravest problems. It was for these reasons that Chile had made the claim of which the Conference had been informed, and it was for this reason that it requested the Conference to accede to this claim. This accession would also facilitate the ratification of the Convention by a country which desired very sincerely to participate in it. He would conclude by some brief remarks on M. Serruys' observation at the previous meeting with regard to the incompetence of the Conference to take a decision on what had been called an interpretation of the Convention. M. Ramirez Frias thought that, throughout the discussion of the preceding days, several cases had occurred which implied a virtual interpretation of the Convention, and which the Conference had nevertheless discussed and endeavoured to solve, particularly with regard to the point as to whether certain requests were covered by the provisions of Article 6 or of Article 4 of the Convention, a discussion which no doubt necessitated an interpretation of the scope of these articles. The statement (b) contained in the Chilian Government’s letter1 was, in its first part, no more than a repetition of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Final Act of the previous Conference3, with the exception of certain ideas which were in absolute agreement with the spirit of good faith with which the clauses of the Convention should be interpreted in order to safeguard these principles.

1 See Annex 10. 2 See document C.2i.M.i2,ig28.II, page 150. 3 See document C.2i.M.12,1928.11, page 45. - 69 —

As to the reservations properly so called1, the reservation regarding scrap iron and scrap ■ c which was based on paragraph 2 of Article 6 2, would not occasion any difficulty, since 'tw as similar to those that had been proposed by other countries and that had been accepted L the Conference. The position of Chile in this respect was more or less identical with that /these other countries, and the prohibition would not entail harmful effects on the trade of le other countries. The same procedure applied to Reservation 3, based on paragraph 1 of Article 6. The n o t i v e of this reservation was one of defence or of national security, and would not be misunder­ s to o d by the Conference. The only reservation that had occasioned an objection that had been anticipated had been second one, regarding guano, which was based both on paragraph 2 of Article 6 and on flo. 8 of Article 4. The objection was based on the fact that the reference to Article 4, paragraph 8, made tie question fall under this provision and thus separated it from objects within the competence of the Conference, that was to say, those of Article 6 inclusive. Now, M. Ramirez Frias would reply that it was equally true that, according to the first basis of the reservation which was to be found in paragraph 2 of Article 6, the question )Vas within the competence of the Conference. For this reason, he considered that the Conference could not neglect to take a decision in this respect on account of considerations of competence. M. Ramirez Frias added that ii would be advantageous to consider and to accept the request, for difficulties and possible discrepancies in the future would thus be obviated.

The P resident said that it would be necessary to consult the Minutes of the Conference. ;nthe meanwhile, the Conference might proceed with the discussion of the two remaining points : he question of the claim for exception regarding the export of scrap iron and scrap zinc, and the question of the claim for exception regarding the export of mares.

M. B runet (Belgium) said he had found that a number of exceptions were allowed by he Convention of November 8th, 1927, regarding scrap iron, but that all the exceptions so 1 lowed came under Article 6, paragraph 1. It would be interesting to know why Chile based Her request on paragraph 2 of that article.

M. RamIrez F rias (Chile) explained that Chile wished to obtain, thanks to the advantages )f paragraph 2, the longest time-limit possible.

The P resident asked for an indication of opinion as to whether the Conference considered hat the claims for exception regarding the export of scrap iron and scrap zinc should be admitted according to the terms of paragraph 2, Article 6. He requested the delegates to take into account the fact that all other claims for exception relating to iron had been admitted according :o the terms of paragraph 1, Article 6. The Conference was opposed to the admission of the claims regarding the export of scrap iron mi scrap zinc in so far as they were based on Article 6, paragraph 2.

The P resident asked the delegate of Chile whether he wished to present the claims for exception in virtue of paragraph 1, Article 6.

M. Ramirez F rias (Chile) said that, if the claim of Chile were not accepted in virtue of paragraph 2, he would renew it, basing it on paragraph 1.

The P resident asked for an indication of opinion from delegates. The Conference was in favour of the admission of the claim for reservation of the Government ’/ Chile regarding scrap iron and scrap zinc according to the terms of paragraph 1, Article 6.

The P resident asked for an indication of opinion concerning the claim for reservation egarding the export of mares. The Conference was in favour of the admission of the claim for reservation of the Government 'I Chile regarding the export of mares according to the terms of paragraph 1, Article 6.

The President observed that, as regards the request for a reservation submitted by fhe Chilian Government on the export of guano, the Conference had already declared itself ^competent to take a decision on that request. In his opinion, the Conference should make a formal decision to the effect that it was not competent to judge the merits of the case.

M. Ramirez F rias (Chile) said that, since it was the opinion of the Conference that the other questions raised by Chile of which he had just spoken had been in general set aside on grounds

1 See Annex 10. International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions (see document U2i.M.I2.i928.II, First Part, B, No. i).

6* — 70 — of incompetence at the meeting of Tuesday last he would not press his observations, on the condition that it was agreed that the Minutes would state clearly that a preliminary agreement regarding the incompetence of the Conference to come to a decision on these questions had alone prevented their examination.

The P r e s i d e n t thanked the delegate of Chile for his acceptance of the views of the President and of the Secretariat. The next item on the agenda was the discussion of the claims for reservation of the Government of Czechoslovakia. M. Ibl had asked, however, that he should be allowed more time to consider the argy. ments that had been advanced at the previous meeting. He was sure that the Conference would grant M. Ibl’s request. A greed.

36. Discussion of Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Article 17 of the Convention \

The P r e s i d e n t said that the Conference would now discuss paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)

M. S e r r u y s (France) commented on the proposal which had just been distributed to delegates concerning the application of Article 17. The Conference has already agreed on the interdépendance of the States ratifying, and on the fact that ratification by certain States might promote and assist ratification by others, Which were the States which should ratify in order to give effect to the Convention ? V arious theories had been submitted in November of the previous year. The object of some of these was the determination of a minimum number of States the ratification of which would be necessary for the entry into force of the Convention. The object of others was the drafting of ‘a kind of map of ratification in order that at any rate all the important geographical areas might be covered. Finally, according to others, it would be for each of the States to announce the list of those States on the ratification of which its own ratifications would depend. He did not think a fixed number of States could be laid down, particularly as the importance of States from an economic point of view varied considerably. It was obvious that a Convention which was not ratified by France or Great Britain would not be of much value even though ratified by a considerable number of other States. The proposal before the Conference covered bot ideas. A certain number of States had been laid down, and they had been chosen as far as possible with a view to covering certain geographical areas. In some cases there were, of course, certain other States which should ratify as well, but he thought that the States which were mentioned would promise their ratification. For instance, if Austria were to ratify, she would probably do all in her power to induce Hungary to follow her example. Paragraphs B and C of his proposal referred to the time-limit. The Conference wouli see that it was one of approximately two years. That was because it was desirable to leave : full parliamentary year for ratification. If there were sufficient ratifications, including tho; of the States mentioned here, the Convention would then enter into force ; if not, there w; a provision in the last paragraph of Article 17 which laid down the procedure to be followei if the necessary ratifications had not been secured by that period. It might be asked why the United States had not been included. His reply would k that it was very desirable that the United States should ratify, and that it was to be hoped that they would see their way to doing so, but that, in case their ratification should be delayed, this was no reason for holding up the economic development of Europe. Europe needed these reforms very badly, and it had therefore been decided that it would be wise to provide for the possible coming into force of the Convention before it had been ratified by the United States. As the Conference was aware, a certain amount of time was required, for ratification was a slot? process. He wished to draw the attention of the Conference to the Polish reservation3, which, he thought, was rather a dangerous one, because, if the Convention were to be limited by such regulations, its effectiveness would be greatly reduced. He thought that the period of two years for which provision had been made would probably help Poland and assist her to ratify the Convention on the same terms as the other States.

The P r e s i d e n t said that, when he had received this proposal, he had consulted the Secretariat with regard to it. As a result of this consultation, he would ask M. Serruys to alter the date that he had suggested (October 30th) to September 30th.

1 International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions (see docum ent C.21.M.12.1928.II. First Part, B. No. i). *. See Annex 10. 8 See document C.I.A.P. 23. — 7i —

g S e r r u y s (France) accepted the proposal of the President.

jl B r u n e t (Belgium) thought that the provision to which paragraph A of the proposal auestion referred was too rigid. It made the entry into force of the Convention conditional ratification by the fifteen States named therein. If a single one of those States refused ratify, they would have to resort to the complex procedure laid down in Article 17 of the onvention. But there were some of the States named whose co-operation did not appear bsolutely necessary — his own country, for example. However important a part Belgium jffht play in international trade, he could not think that her failure to ratify the Convention ould prevent its entry into force. In economic matters, the liberal traditions of Belgium i ere so well known that no country need be alarmed if she should fail to ratify. The same ' binent might apply to others of the States mentioned in paragraph A of the proposal. ° He therefore suggested a compromise, namely, that the Convention should enter into force Ipon ratification by a specified number of countries, of which only a proportion — two-thirds, jr example — would be mentioned by name. In this way, the amour-propre of all countries mid be safeguarded, and, if Belgium, for example, were not mentioned by name, he would L| in no way affronted on that account.

Mr. L i n d s a y (India) understood that at present the discussion was limited to paragraph A; itherwise, with regard to paragraph B, he would have asked M. Serruys not to hasten matters much. With regard to paragraph A, he associated himself with M. Brunet’s proposal. He would oiture to point out an omission on the part of M. Serruys, who appeared to forget that there ïre not only the United States and Europe to be considered, but also Asia, a large continent itha vast population, the imports and exports of which were of great importance. If the total umber of countries were to be limited to fifteen, of which ten countries were to be considered s being of special importance, he thought that one Asiatic country should be included in the iter group. In his view, a suitable country would be Japan.

Mr. W ilson (United States) said that he wished to clear up any misunderstanding on the art of his colleagues with regard to the suggestion that, if the United States were to be omitted, eir amour-propre would be wounded. The United States recognised that this was primarily question for European States. He thought that any ground for anxiety on the part of a State liich might lead to delay in ratification would not be one dependent on the action of the nited States, for the latter had no prohibitions to remove.

M. Stucki (Switzerland) wished to support the Drafting Committee’s proposal. The work f the delegates would not be concluded by the signing of conventions ; they would have to influence their respective Parliaments, and Parliaments required clearness above all. They would ;k what countries were included in the Convention. It would be preferable that not only le number, but also the names, of the countries might be given. It was hardly likely that Brunet’s system would satisfy certain members of Parliament. M. Stucki wished to make proposal that would go further than that of the Drafting Committee. He asked that the United [tates and Japan should be added to the list, both of these countries being so important to all [Uropean countries. It would be impossible to add all the countries of, for instance, Asia, it it was important to show that the Convention was not a matter of solely European concern. November of the previous year, a protracted study had been made of the reservations of !apan. After so much time had been devoted to the examination of the position of Japan, would not be understood why it should now be set on one side.

M. Trendelenburg (Germany) agreed with M. Stucki’s proposal. He had himself intended F suggest that the list should not be limited to European countries. Although the Convention [was primarily, although not exclusively, of European concern, it would be desirable that other parts of the world should be affected by it. With regard to M. Brunet’s remarks, he did not think that the appearance of a country F1 the list in any way affected the prestige of that country. It was purely a matter of economic [perest ; certain countries assumed obligations with the knowledge that certain other countries p the trade of which they were interested were assuming similar obligations. He agreed with M. Stucki that the United States and Japan should be included in the list given in paragraph A. This inclusion would justify the long interval suggested by M. Serruys.

M. I bl (Czechoslovakia) agreed with M. Stucki. In order to obtain the adherence i®fthe Parliaments, it would be necessary to enumerate the important States. The list should I toefore be lengthened. The ratification of Czechoslovakia was dependent on the ratification l certain countries that were of importance to this State, that was to say, specially of the Recession States of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. M. Ibl proposed, therefore, that M. Serruys’ list should be lengthened by the addition of e Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and of Hungary. — 72 —

M. Di N o la (Italy) thought that the question now under discussion was perhaps the most difficult one that the Conference had to solve. It was a question of drawing up ^ list of the States the ratification of which was necessary for the entry into force of the Con­ vention. It would be dangerous to lengthen this list too much. If it were made too short this would be an obstacle to the adherence of certain States. M. Serruys’ view was just’ import and export problems were, no doubt, world problems, but they were more particularly European ones. Doubtless the support of the United States and of Japan was very desirable If these States were to ratify the Convention, M. Di Nola thought that their appearance on the list would be welcomed with satisfaction. M. Serruys, however, had carried prudence to o far The signatory States would be pledged even in respect of the non-signatory States. A l l thé States with which each of the States already quoted had an important trade s h o u ld he included in the list. Since Italy was on the list, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Turkey, with which countries there was much Italian trade, should be added. F o r the same reason, Hungary, Greece and Egypt should be added. As to M. Brunet’s proposal, M. Di Nola appreciated the scruples on which it had been based. He thought, however, that it was essential that the States should be mentioned by name, Moreover, it would be possible to make a compromise. For instance, it might be indicated that the entry into force of the Convention would depend on the ratification of a larger numbs of States than the number of States mentioned by name.

The P resident was afraid that M. Di N ola’s proposal would give rise to a number of diffi culties. Out of a total of twenty-nine States, twenty-two had been named, and he did not think this number could possibly be increased. M. Di Nola had desired that a country which had not even signed the Convention should be included in the list. He knew, of course, that the Convention provided for such a case, but it would surely be dangerous to expose the ratification of the Convention to the risk of delay on account of a State which had not even signed it.

M. S c h u lle r (Austria) said that, instead of a general list of the States the ratification oi which was necessary, there might be a special list for each country. This solution would have definite advantages. For instance, Austria would say that its ratification would depend on the signatures of five given States. As soon as these five signatures had been obtained, Austria would be pledged. All that would be necessary, therefore, would be that each of the signatory States should draw up the list of the States on the ratification of which its own ratification depended. The total number of the States mentioned might amount perhaps to twenty o f twenty-two, but the names of these States would not all appear simultaneously. A Committee might be appointed to consolidate the list drawn up by each of the States.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Great Britain) thought that the Conference should choose between a very small and a very long list. For the moment, he would not say which he preferred. It the list was to be long, however, it would be difficult to admit certain countries. That difficulty might be overcome by including in the list all the countries which had already signed the Convention. The advantage of that procedure would be that the Conference would shoi that it assumed that every country signing the Convention would ratify it. If they had ti wait for the necessary number of ratifications, they might have recourse to the last clause Article 17.

M. Clan (Denmark) supported M. Schüller’s proposal. The only way to discover tk countries the ratification of which it was necessary to obtain for the entry into force of the Con­ vention would be to ask each delegate to indicate the countries the ratification of which hi own country required. For instance, Sweden was the predominant economic unity in northern Europe, and its ratification would be an essential preliminary to that of Denmark.

M. Schuller (Austria) feared that the President thought that the long list and the special list were identical. In point of fact, there was a great difference between them.

H assan Bey (Turkey) thought, in view of the fact that the Conference considered all countries on an equal footing, that the entry into force of the Convention should depend on the ratification of all the countries that had hitherto signed it.

The P resident said that there were three proposals now before the Conference. In the first place, there was Sir Sydney Chapman’s proposal, which had the support 0 Hassan Bey, that there should be a list of all States which had already signed the Convention Secondly, there was M. Serruys’ proposal that there should be a small list. After the adoption of the various amendments, however, this list would no longer be a small one.

Thirdly, there was M. Schüller’s proposal that each State should be asked to indicate the other States of which it would be necessary to obtain the ratification if the State in question ratified the Convention also. The Conference should take account of these three proposal’ in the course of the discussion. — 73 —

H. P o s t h u m a (Netherlands) submitted a fourth proposal, which was that no State should h mentioned by name. He thought that in practice the procedure would be the same, since n any case, if the system of the list on which States were mentioned by name were to be 'd o p te d , in the very probable event of a State refusing to ratify, it would be necessary to have I rec0Urse' to the procedure provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 17.

M. Serruys (France) thought that the danger consisted in the possible difficulties that would arise from too numerous ratifications. If the maxima guarantees were to be required, no result would be reached. It was necessary to make real, even if slow, progress. If it I ffere required that all the States represented on the Conference should ratify, as Sir Sydney ■ wished should be the case, there would be no possibility of success. The result of the proposal I of the delegate of Great Britain, supported by the delegate of Turkey, would be that in October I 1029 there would be a meeting for further discussion. This would be no solution, but only I a delay. The result of M. Schüller’s proposal would be the same. No State would forget its I rela tio n s with all the other States. Further, the total number of States the ratification of which I would be demanded by the various individual States would constitute a longer list than that I which Sir Sydney desired. Austria would require the ratification of Spain, in the same way las M. Di Nola had already asked, on behalf of Italy, for that of Egypt, of Turkey and of 1 Greece, which had not signed the Convention. Was it possible to believe that M. Stucki, for I instance, would be satisfied in respect of his own country with the adherence of three or four ■ neighbours ? M. Serruys therefore maintained his proposal. He wished the League to take l a step forward, but without undue ambition. It seemed that a number of delegates wished that the United States and Japan should Ibe added to the list. Nobody would seek to depreciate the importance of these States, but 1 the slowness of the ratifications of the American Parliament, which governed half a continent, [was well known. The case of the Cassel Conventions of 1907-09 should be remembered. To require the presence on the list of the United States would perhaps be to lose precious time, in the course of which some States which were perhaps ready to abandon their restrictions I would maintain them while awaiting a general Convention. M. Serruys wished, finally, to render a tribute to M. Brunet, who had stated that certain States, faithful to their liberal traditions, would not take measures that would cause anxiety Ion the part of other States even if these States did not ratify the Convention. He thought, ! therefore, that Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands and Denmark might be removed from the I list. In their place might be added the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, ; Hungary and, despite certain dangers, the United States and Japan.

M. Stucki (Switzerland) said that he supported the view that M. Serruys had so clearly Istated, although M. Serruys had omitted to reply to the proposal of the delegate of the Nether­ lands. This proposal, however, seemed to him unacceptable. If the system did not provide [for the mention by name of any States, no Parliament would ratify. As to M. Schüller’s proposal, if this were to be accepted, the duty of each delegate would Ibe to consult the export statistics of his country and to say which ten countries were the Imost important to it. In the case of Switzerland, the ratification of Spain, Mexico and Australia, ■States which were not participating in the work of the Conference, would be required. The ■number of States mentioned would be two or three times as great as would be the case if the ■Drafting Committee’s proposal were to be adopted. As to Sir Sydney Chapman’s proposal, M. Stucki associated himself with M. Serruys' " 1 views on it.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) asked M. Serruys, who had based the alteration of his original list !'°n his remarks, to add to this list a few unnamed countries. He felt bound to press the [proposal he had previously made on the subject.

M. Ito (Japan) supported M. Serruys’ view, for he thought that there was reason for appre­ hension concerning the ratification of distant countries. European interests were of primary [concern. For Japan, the ratification of a country like Hungary or Roumania was of no importance ; that of a country like India was, on the contrary, of capital importance. Now, p certain previous Conventions — for instance, in that on Telegraphs — two systems had been provided for —■ one for European countries and one for non-European countries. M. Ito proposed that the Drafting Committee’s proposal should be refashioned to this effect. The ratification of all the European countries on the list would be necessary if each of Re European countries were to be pledged. The ratification of the other countries would be necessary if the Convention were to be put into force in non-European countries.

M. Ibl (Czechoslovakia) warmly supported M. Serruys’ proposal.

M. Schuller (Austria) said that he was prepared to accept M. Serruys’ proposal, but thought, nevertheless, that the two proposals might be combined. He proposed that each ! ™ States should announce the States on the ratification of which its own ratification depended, electing the States from the list. — 74 —

M. Se r r u y s (France) thought that, at this stage of the discussion, a compromise be contemplated. He proposed that M. Brunet’s request might be met by determining given number of States -twenty-two, for instance — the signature of which would be necessa^ for the entry into force of the Convention.

M. S c h u l l e r (Austria) requested, for his part, that each of the States might m ake if, adherence conditional on that of certain other States which it would select from the list. 7^ number of States mentioned by name on this list would be less than the number twenty-tWo as in the case of the previous list. Thus all the plans would be accepted and strengthened in such a way as to lead to a working solution.

Sir Sydney Ch a pm a n (Great Britain) pointed out that his proposal had only been a suggestion with a view to providing an alternative to a long list, and that he had not advo. cated the suggestion. He agreed that there was much to be said in favour of a small list But one objection, and this was hypothetical, was the possibility of unfavourable reaction it the Parliaments of countries which were not included in the list. If the Conference, wht informing these Parliaments of its desire that they should ratify the Convention, were ; imply that their ratification was not of much importance, there might be ground for appt hension that these Parliaments might unduly delay their ratification.

The P r e s id e n t proposed that M. Serruys, M. Brunet, M. Schüller and himself should me before the next meeting in order to discuss the compromise that had been suggested. This proposal was adopted.

The P r e s id e n t added that the present discussion would be resumed at the next meeting, If time allowed, the question of the relations between the Conventions on the Export of Hides, Skins and Bones and the general Convention would also be discussed at that meeting. (The meeting rose at 6.10 p.m.)

SEVENTH MEETING.

Held on Friday, July 6th, 1928, at 11 a.m.

37. Discussion of Draft Articles regarding the Application of Article 17.

The P resident requested M. Serruys to make a statement regarding the Drafting Committee; proposed text.

M. Serruys (France) said that the draft1 before the members was the result of a co promise which had been reached during the discussion at the previous meeting. The Commit!: which had prepared the draft had endeavoured to prepare a list of names of States which woi not bî unduly cumbrous. The list only contained certain States whose acceptance of the Con­ vention. presented an essential interest. The Committee had not mentioned certain countrie of considerable economic importance, because their traditional liberal policy was well knofl and constituted to some extent a guarantee that they would accept. An explanation of this would be found in the passage which the Committee would late suggest for insertion in the Final Act. M. Serruys referred to the first paragraph proposed for insertion in the Final Act, whirl read as follows :

“ The High Contracting Parties . . . have also thought it best to omit mentioning States where the importance of the economic interests at stake or considerations of geographical situation would have been the only justification. ”

M. Serruys explained that the inclusion of these particular countries in the list should not be taken as an indication that there was some doubt about their intentions, but merely as at expression of the interdependence of their interests. It was desirable that these States should take part in the Convention. In drawing up the text and in preparing the list, the Committee had acted for purely practical ends, and had endeavoured to lay down the minimum cl' guarantee. M. Serruys would add one personal remark to these general observations. The fact that the name of the United States was put in brackets was not to be taken as lessening t k

1 See Annex 2. — 75 —

•ffl ortance of their participation ; quite the contrary. The Conference had always looked hopefully vards the United States. They were, however, on the eve of a presidential election, and nternational difficulties might arise which would result in postponing for a time the ratifi­ cation of the Convention. Mr. Wilson had himself loyally recognised that unforeseen difficulties might arise at the oment of ratification, and M. Serruys felt that the inclusion of the name of the United States mjeht ultimately prove a cause for delay in the application of the Convention. It was this w h ic h the Committee had endeavoured to avoid.

Mr. Lindsay (India) observed that the date for the deposit of ratifications or accessions had been advanced from October to September 19291. As he had already warned the Con- i (;rence, it would be difficult for his country to put matters up to its Legislative Assembly I at great speed. His Government would suggest, without pressing the point, a period of two L-ears for the deposit of a ratification. As, however, the question of a time-limit appeared to be extremely important to European countries, Mr. Lindsay would waive any formal objection j to the date of September 30th, 1929.

Mr. W ilson (United States) referred to the words “ not later than September 30th, 1929”. He would like to know what would be the position of a State which had not been able to notify its ratification within that period.

The P resident said that the text meant that those countries which had not ratified before September 30th, 1929, could afterwards adhere to the Convention.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Great Britain) suggested that the intention of paragraph B would be clearer if the words “ contemplated in paragraph A” were added after the word " Ratifica­ tions” in the first line.

M. Serruys (France) said that he would endeavour to solve the difficulties of interpretation raised by Mr. Wilson. There was a close connection between the two paragraphs of the draft. If ratification or adhesion were notified before September 30th, 1929, the ratifying or adhering State could make the entry into force of the Convention subordinate to the ratification by one or several States. If, on the other hand, ratification were only notified after September 30th, 1929, the country had no longer the right to make the entry into force conditional in this way. After that day, the country would only be able to adhere without having the right to benefit from the condition of " interdependence of interest”. Article 16 would come into play in this matter. M. Serruys recognised that the draft did not at first sight express all that lay in it.

The P resident read the new text. It was to the following effect1 : “ On condition that its ratification shall be deposited with, or that its accession be notified to, the Secretariat of the League of Nations not later than September 30th, 1929, each Contracting Party may ...” etc.

M. von Simson (International Chamber of Commerce) said that he merely wished to state I the point of view of the International Chamber of Commerce, which he represented. The business world had three desiderata which were also those of the Governments represented j at the Conference, namely : (1) that the Convention should enter into force as rapidly as j possible ; (2) that its effects should be as far-reaching as possible ; (3) that the formula for [ its entry into force should be as simple as possible. He considered the third point the most important, as that was the first time that what might be termed an international treaty of commerce was being made. The formula chosen might possibly serve as a model for future use, and for that reason it ought to be a simple one. M. von Simson considered that the periods allowed for the entry into force of the Convention were somewhat long. He realised that this was a matter where opinion differed, and that, while some Governments might find the periods short, the business world undoubtedly found them extremely long. A period of one year and a half was too much, for if its entry into force were long delayed, the Convention might lose much of its value for the commercial world. Further, the most important thing to which M.von Simson held was the formula which would enable the Convention to be applied over the greatest possible area. This was a legal and diplomatic question, which lay rather beyond the purview of the International Chamber of Commerce, and he would trust himself to the wisdom of the Conference. He felt that the present text was a suitable one and did not think that a better could be found than that of M. Serruys.

M. Ito (Japan) asked for an explanation with regard to the word “must” in paragraph (£>). Would ratifications or adhesions be no longer accepted after the date mentioned ?

1 Provisional translation. — 76 —

M. Serruys (France) explained that this date only referred to the possibility of making ratification depend on the adherence of other States, and of invoking the “ interdependence of interests”.

M. T rendelenburg (Germany) said that he would have liked to see the disappearance of the bracket around the words “ United States”, so as to give all countries which ratified W- September 30th a chance to choose the countries on whose ratification their own would he conditional. He would point out that the list of names only granted the countries a possibility 0j making conditions, but it did not necessarily follow that States would make their ratifications dependent upon those of all the countries mentioned. The conditions of ratification would depend on the interest which the countries had in their neighbours’ adhesions. For instance with regard to aluminium, the German Government proposed to remove all export duties, and had already abolished the prohibitions, but the inclusion of the United States in the list would be a proof that they had not only been ready to help in the conclusion of the Convention but were also prepared to carry it through.

The P resident pointed out that the Drafting Committee had only put the name of tl> United States in brackets owing to a fear that its ratification being made a condition fc that of other States might delay the application of the Convention.

M. Schuller (Austria) expressed the view that it would be dangerous to leave the nam of the United States on the list unless in brackets, for a certain number of States might b tempted, in order to delay their acceptance or to disguise their refusal, to make the ratificatioi of the United States a condition.

M. Trendelenburg (Germany) said that he would maintain his proposal.

M, Stucki (Switzerland) said that he had been the first to make mention of the Unite States on the list. He would support M. Trendelenburg’s proposal. He was convinced that if this point of view were adopted, the result would not be failure. The other countries must be given the power to select even the United States as the condition of their ratification.

M. T rendelenburg (Germany) said that he agreed with the observations of M. Stucki His Government wished it to be possible for it to make its ratification conditional upon that of the United States, though it hoped that such a necessity would not arise.

M. S erruys (France) said that M. Trendelenburg assured the Conference that he was anxious to have merely the theoretical possibility of being able to make his ratification con­ ditional upon that of the United States, but that he would not use this privilege as a means for delaying the enforcement of the Convention. M. Serruys did not doubt the perfect loyalty of the German delegate, but he considered that there might be States which would wish to save time realising that the United State: for internal reasons might be compelled to delay the ratification of the Convention. Thi: would enable certain States to prevent its entry into force.

M. I to (Japan) said that he had no wish to delay the entry into force of the Conventio He would, however, like to see the name of the United States on the list. For geographic reasons, Japan might make her ratification conditional upon that of the United States.

M. Schuller (Austria) again referrred to the proposal of M. Trendelenburg, and suggested that, in order to avoid any possible delay, each delegate should at the present meeting choosf the States on whose decision his country’s ratification would be conditional.

M. Serruys (France) said that, in spite of M. Schüller’s anxiety to obtain a speedy decision, he felt that a decision as to the names of the countries could only be taken after parliamentary discussion. He even felt that the Conference should recommend to the Governments not to make their ratification dependent on that of too great a number of States. There would also be some countries which would find that the periods allowed were too short. M. Serruys said that he could not accept M. Schüller’s suggestion and that, if it were adopted, he would abstain.

The P resident said that his experience of parliamentary life led him to believe that, if the delegates proposed a bill for the adhesion of their country if certain other countries adhered, the Parliament would not be likely to accept.

M. Schuller (Austria) agreed with M. Serruys and the President with regard to the difficulties which would arise out of a parliamentary discussion of a Convention, but felt that the danger of its not being ratified was insignificant. The question which would be put to Parliament would be a proposal to accept a Con­ vention whose entry into force was conditional on the ratification of a certain number 01 named States and not that of all those on the list. He felt that his proposal was also based on a knowledge of parliamentary procedure. — 77 —

M. B runet (Belgium) said that the wording proposed for the second paragraph of the text explaining why certain countries were not mentioned was too rigid in its reference to States which “ at present have no prohibitions”. Belgium, one of the countries referred to in that niragraph, still had prohibitions, although the products to which they related were unimportant. The text should be brought into accordance with the facts. He therefore proposed that the paragraph be drafted as follows : “ They have omitted to mention certain States owing to the fact that, as the latter have at present hardly any prohibitions of real importance ...”

The P resident said that the Drafting Committee would take account of the suggestions of M. Brunet.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Great Britain) agreed with M. Stucki that the present draft would be important as forming a precedent for future occasions. He was afraid that paragraph B would be taken by some countries as an invitation to their Parliaments to lay down conditions governing their ratification. If it were found in September 1929 that only one of these conditions remained unfulfilled, any solution of the difficulty would involve further references to Parliament, and in consequence considerable delay.

M. Serruys (France) said that he supported the observations of Sir Sydney Chapman, and considered that the position contained two dangers. There was, first, that of inviting I the Parliaments to make their ratifications conditional, and, secondly, that of increasing the number of States whose ratification would constitute the condition. He felt that the Govern­ ments should be invited not to make their ratification dependent on that of a large number of States. M. Serruys therefore proposed to insert the following text1 in the Final Act : “ The Conference declares that, in the application of paragraph B of the above article, it is desirable that, during the procedure of obtaining parliamentary approval, the Governments of the High Contracting Parties should retain sufficient freedom of action in order to ensure, either by direct negotiations or through the intermediary of the Secretariat of the League of Nations, the simultaneous participation of certain States without assuming the legal obligation to make the entry into force of the Convention conditional upon too rigorous an application of paragraph B, an applica­ tion which they could not renounce without passing a new law. "

The P resident observed that it was not certain that Parliaments would be prepared to accept such a proposal. He wondered whether the Governments could not persuade their Parliaments to take the action which M. Serruys suggested.

M. Serruys (France) observed that this referred to a Bill for ratification, and that Parliament would not be in a position to reject such a Bill. The question might even be put in another way, e.g., in the shape of a resolution. M. Serruys said that his text was really advice to the Governments and not to the Par­ liaments. It only aimed at obtaining the enforcement of the Convention as quickly as possible.

M. Di N ola (Italy) said that he considered that the question was being complicated instead of simplified. There would, however, be one simple means of settling the problem ■— to make the ratification conditional upon that of twenty named States. In this way the Conference would see what interdependence of interest existed. These twenty States should be taken from those which were on the list. He felt that it would in any case be probable that States would wish to designate a fairly number of States, in view of the interdependent interests which existed.

M. W ibaut (Netherlands) remarked that the uncertainty of the position seemed to increase I as the discussion continued. M. Serruys had proposed one amendment and M. Di Nola another. To remove this uncertainty, he would venture to make a modest proposal (his country was not one on the list), and if his proposal were adopted, he felt that all the danger would be avoided. An appeal might be made to all the States whose delegates had taken part in the work of the Conference and those States which had signed would be asked to ratify the Con­ vention. The number might be put at twenty or twenty-two. He would personally prefer twenty-two. Such a plan would show that the Conference had confidence in its own labours.

M. Schuller (Austria) said that he had taken part in preparing the draft, and had himself Made the proposal contained in paragraph B. He was now prepared to withdraw his motion, jie would propose two solutions for the uncertainty to which the discussion appeared to have • He was, in the first place, ready to accept the number of sixteen States as the figure

Provisional translation. ■—-So —

Convention with regard to the Protocol on Hides, Skins and Bones1. After the first sentence of Section IV (Articles 2, 3, 4), there should be added the words : “ exception faite pour ies États visés au paragraphe précédent”.

M. Se r r u y s (France) agreed with M. Dolezal. This modification of the text would indicate that the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Roumania, Poland and Lithuania were free to act as they pleased.

It was agreed that these words should be inserted.

The P r e s id e n t asked whether the Conference agreed with the principle advanced by M. Serruys, it being understood, of course, that this principle would be embodied in a draft resolution which was in course of preparation for insertion in the general Convention.

The Conference agreed with the principle advanced by M. Serruys.

(The meeting was suspended for twenty minutes.)

39. Question of the Application of Article 17 of the Convention [continued)2 : Proposals of the Drafting Committee3.

The P r e s id e n t said that the Conference would now discuss the proposals of the Drafting Committee with regard to the application of Article 17. The draft text would be discussed paragraph by paragraph.

M. Sc h u l l e r (Austria) proposed an amendment to paragraph 1. He thought that the text should read as follows : “ parmi ces États, devront figurer les États signalés dans le Protocole ci-après ", and that a Protocol containing the names of these States should be added to the Con­ vention. If the names were mentioned in the Convention itself, the ratification of the Convention by a Parliament would prevent any later modification of the list.

M. S t u c k i (Switzerland) thought that Parliaments usually ratified both Conventions and Protocols, and did not see any advantage in the proposed modification.

M. S c h u l l e r (Austria) thought that these solutions should nevertheless be arrived at in the spirit of his proposed modification.

M. S e r r u y s (France) thought that it was important that no measure should diminish the importance of the engagement entered into by the States. He thought it desirable tha the President should explain the system of the draft article prepared by the Committee at tb meeting, at which all the members of the Conference had not been present.

The P r e s id e n t said that he would be pleased to accept M. Serruys' suggestion. The draft article had been drawn up on the following system. It was necessary to obtain the ratification of the Convention by eighteen States, fourteen of which were to be mentioned by name. The United States would be included among the latter. It would be remembered that, in the discussion at the previous meeting, a considerable amount of apprehension had been evinced that this inclusion might occasion serious delay in the entry into force of the Convention, for it had been considered possible, even if not probable , that the United States, for purely technical reasons, would be unable to ratify within the fixed time-limit. To obviate this difficulty, the Drafting Committee had proposed the insertion in the Protocol of a special clause3. This insertion would remove the danger that the mere contingency of non-ratification by the United States would with certainty prevent the entry into force of the Convention. He proposed that the Conference should now consider paragraph 1 on its own merits in its present form. In the course of the final drafting, it would be possible to take into a c c o u n t M. Schiiller’s proposal relating to M. Serruys’ observation.

The first and the second paragraphs of the draft article were adopted.

1 See Annex 4. 2 See Seventh Meeting, No. 36. 3 See Annex 3. — 8i —

4 0 Clause to be inserted in the Protocol.

Mr. W ilson (United States) suggested that the beginning of the first paragraph of this clause s h o u ld be amended as follows : “ In view of the situation in the United States resulting from the short session of the Congress during the year 1928 to 1929, the High Contracting Parties ...” Agreed.

M. Ib l (Czechoslovakia) pointed out that in the clause in question the words : “ la Con­ vention en date de ce jour" were not clear.

M. Serruys (France) recognised that this was the case, and added that the text should ! read as follows : “ la présente Convention”.

4 1 . Acceptance of the Reservations submitted by Czechoslovakia.

M. Schuller (Austria) apologised for having no written report to present, and explained that an agreement had only just been reached. Its main features were as follows : The delegate of Czechoslovakia had withdrawn the reservations of his Government regarding sugar-beet and rounded timber. The reservation regarding quartzite had been maintained. The Sub- Committee considered that this reservation might be accepted on condition that the quotas fixed in accordance with previous bilateral agreements should be maintained without modifi­ cation for the duration of the Convention. With regard to hop-shoots, Czechoslovakia had stated at first that this question was covered by the terms of Article 4. If this were so, it would not have to be examined. There had been discussion, however, as to whether Article 4 really covered this question, and it had been agreed that this reservation might be accepted according to the terms of paragraph 1 of Article 6 on condition that Czechoslovakia should give a written promise that, once an assurance had been received that in all the other States false descriptions of hop-shoots would not be permitted, the export of hop-shoots to these countries would be made free.

The P resident called upon the delegate of Czechoslovakia to make a statement.

M. Ibl (Czechoslovakia) said that he was prepared to make a statement immediately if M. Schiiller’s report were accepted.

The President asked for an indication of opinion as to whether the Conference accepted the compromise between the neighbouring States. The Conference was in favour of acceptance.

M. Ibl (Czechoslovakia) noted that the Conference had accepted the compromise regarding the reservations of Czechoslovakia, those on quartzite being admitted according to the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 6, and those on hop-shoots according to the terms of paragraph 1 of Article 6, on condition that there was a special written statement on the part of Czechoslovakia and in view of the Conference’s decision regarding the date of the entry into force of the Con­ vention. He agreed with this solution and said that he would not press for the Conference to continue the discussion and take a decision on the other Czechoslovak observations.

42. Question of the Bulgarian Reservations '.

The P resident said that, although the Government of Bulgaria had not sent a delegate to the Conference, as it had been invited to do, it would be necessary for the Conference to take a decision on the Bulgarian reservations. The Bulgarian Government had fulfilled its obligations m so far as it had presented its reservations within the fixed time-limit. The Conference would therefore discuss these reservations.

M. Serruys (France) did not think that the second reservation was necessary. It was covered by paragraph 7 of Article 4. As to the reservation regarding rose-trees, the importance °f the Bulgarian trade in attar of roses was well known. This trade was threatened by many dangers and, among others, by the fact that use was being made in foreign countries of Bul­ garian plants in order to compete with Bulgaria. Moreover, from the international point of view, this reservation was of limited interest, and M. Serruys proposed that it should be accepted according to the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 6.

1 See Second Meeting, No. 8. — 82 —

The P resident said that the view had been expressed that the second reservation did not fall for consideration under Article 6. Was this the general view of the Conference ? The Conference decided that this reservation did not fall for consideration under Article6.

The P resident said that M. Serruys had proposed that the reservation regarding the export of rose-trees and roots and shoots should be accepted according to the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 6.

43. Statement by the Czechoslovak Delegate.

M. Ibl (Czechoslovakia) said that he would present a written statement of the reasons on account of which his Government had withdrawn its reservations regarding rounded timber and beet. This proposal was adopted.

M. I bl (Czechoslovakia) presented the following written statement : “ M. Ibl wishes to make the following statement concerning the reservation of Czechoslovakia with regard to timber in the round : “ In view of the principle indicated in the Final Act of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, Article 5, paragraph 2, and of the examination of the question of timber in the round1 undertaken by the Economic Committee of the League of Nations in its session of June 25th to 28th, 1928, Czechoslovakia, in agreement with the other countries concerned, no longer requests that this question be dealt with by the Conference in its plenary meeting. “ As regards the reservation relating to sugar-beets, M. Ibl stated that the Czechoslovak delegation, while appreciating the importance of the organisation in adjacent countries of the sugar industry, for which Czechoslovakia did not propose to hinder the supply of sugar-beet in frontier areas, understood, after the exchange of views that had taken place, that it might expect the same attitude on the part of the neighbouring countries, and therefore no longer requested that that question should be submitted to the vote of the Conference. ” (The meeting rose at 6.50 p.m.)

NINTH MEETING.

Held on Saturday, July yth, 1928, at 10 a.m.

44. Modification of the Portuguese Reservation concerning Wool.

M. d ’Oliveira (Portugal) referred to the reservation made by his Government which had previously been discussed by the Conference. He desired to make a slight alteration in the title of the reservation, which should relate to “ fine wool ” instead of “ fine wool of the Marquis de Lema brand " (an incorrect specification due to a coding error in the telegraphic instructions received from Lisbon). If the Conference did not vote this reservation under paragraph 2 of Article 6, he would claim it under paragraph 1 of that article.

The Conference decided to accept this reservation under paragraph 1 of Article 6.

45. Appointment of the Drafting Committee.

The P resident proposed the following members for the Drafting Committee : M. Serruys, M. B runet, Sir Sydney Chapman, M. Ito and himself. The Committee would meet in the afternoon, and the Conference hoped to finish its labours with the signature of the Convention on Wednesday. The President’s proposals were adopted.

46. Draft Article submitted by the French Delegation regarding Guarantees to be set up in respect of the Special Conventions on Hides, Skins and Bones2.

Mr. Lindsay (India) referred to the non-adherence of India to the Convention on Hides, Skins and Bones. He was personally inclined to believe that India would have found it

1 Timber in the round is one of the products under investigation by the Economic Committee ; see docum ent C.357.M.h i , page 5, Letter C. 2 This draft, in a somewhat modified form, became Article B of the Supplementary Agreement : see First Part • Official Instruments of the Conference, No. 1. This clause has therefore not been reproduced in draft form. - 83 -

possible to adhere to the terms in which the Convention had now been drafted. His Government’s instructions were, however, that he was not to adhere to it. He agreed to the terms of the draft and to the provisions of the Convention.

M. d ’Oliveira (Portugal) said that he had no instructions with regard to this article. His Government was not represented at the Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones.

The P resident pointed out that he was merely asking whether there was any objection to the draft.

M. N i c k l (Hungary) referred to the first paragraph of the draft article, and asked for certain explanations, particularly whether the provisions in question did not also refer to Hungary. If the Convention did not come into force, would Hungary be among the number of the countries authorised to ask for exceptions ?

M. Serruys (France) replied that only those States could ask to be allowed to set up prohibitions which had the prohibitions in question on November 8th, 1927, and not otherwise. Hungary did not appear to come within the first class. The Conference adopted the draft article.

Procedure to be laid down as regards the Maintenance of Reservations. 47-

The President referred to paragraph 3 of Article 6 1, which read as follows : " The Annex to the present Convention sets forth the exceptions coming within the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs, which have been agreed to on this day’s date in favour of the High Contracting Parties who are mentioned by name in the Annex and who have signed the Convention on that date”, and to the introduction to the Annex of Article 6 2, reading : “ In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 3, and with Section IV (d) of the Pro­ tocol, each of the exceptions maintained in favour of the countries mentioned below is only admitted under the terms of the present Convention if the country concerned appends its signature thereto on this day’s date, and if on that same date the prohibition or restriction which it seeks to maintain is still in force. ” He concluded that the exceptions admitted at the Conference would only be valid for those States which signed the Convention at the conclusion of the Conference. There were, however, certain exceptions. Bulgaria was not represented at the Conference ; the Norwegian delegate was compelled to leave Geneva before the end. He wondered whether Ithe Conference could make certain definite exceptions to the rule. Mr. W ilson (United States) said that he would find it impossible to .sign the Convention until his Government had had an opportunity at least of reading through the document. He wondered whether it would be possible to make a provision that his signature would be valid provided it were given by a certain date.

M. B runet (Belgium) reminded the Conference that, before the signature of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, the United States had been allowed an exception in respect of helium gas under paragraph 2 of Article 6 ; but, owing to the fact that they had not signed the Conven­ tion on November 8th, 1927, this exception had not come into operation. Such a situation might recur unless special facilities were given to the United States, having regard to the fact that the representative of that country would be unable, at the end of the Conference, to append his signature at once to the Supplementary Agreement which was going to be concluded.

M. Serruys (France) thought that Mr. Wilson should perhaps be given some time to sign and suggested August 15th as a suitable time-limit. The date fixed would not be of importance, as a general signature of the Convention by all the States could not be obtained on the same day.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Great Britain) said that it was undesirable to attempt to rush the United States Government. He realised the difficulties that Government departments had m getting matters settled at high speed, especially at this time. But he felt this should be an exception. It was to be hoped that all those countries which could sign at the end of the Con­ ference would do so. He would suggest that members of the Conference be asked individually whether they proposed to sign on Wednesday.

M. Trendelenburg (Germany) suggested that the Conference might perhaps say that the reservations which had been granted could be maintained by countries which did not sign at the

* Of the Convention of November 8th, 1927. Document C.21.M.12.1928.II, page 15. - 8 4 - end of the Conference, provided they had been in force on November 8th, 1927 ; and that in the case of countries not represented at the Conference the same arrangement should apply He would propose September 1st as a time-limit for this class of signature. The Conference adopted M. Trendelenburg’s proposal.

48. Statements by the Representative of India regarding the Prohibition on the Impor. tation of Rice into Japan.

Mr. L indsay (India) spoke as follows : The question which I wish to raise is one which, strictly speaking, falls outside the agenda but as it relates to certain difficulties which have been experienced by my Government, they have asked me to place it before the Conference •—■ not in any way asking for a decision from the Conference in regard to it, or wishing to raise a discussion, but merely to state the facts. It is possible that other Governments which find themselves in a similar position may know what steps to take and what remedies are necessary. The facts relate to difficulties experienced by the Indian Government in regard to the application of the prohibition on the import of rice by the Japanese Government. I do not wish in any way to embarrass my friend M. I to, and I have already discussed the matter with him and laid before him the facts of our case, he very courteously having listened to me anc given me his side of the question. I am sure that, after I have stated the facts, M. Ito will be able to give a very good explanation of his side of the case. The facts are these : During the International Conference of October 19271, the Japanese delegate gave notice of the inability of his Government to undertake immediately, as regards imports and exports of rice, the responsibilities entailed by the Convention. (This was under the first paragraph of Article 6.) No objection was raised to this reservation. Now we come to the practical action which was taken. The Japanese Government issued an Ordinance on March 6th, 1928, which prohibited all imports of rice for six months from March 6th {i.e., the date of promulgation) to August 31st, and a second clause in this Ordinance declared that the prohibition did not apply in cases in which there was special provision under commercial treaties and agreements. At the same time, an order was issued which stated the procedure under which licences could be applied for and granted. The important point in this Ordinance was the second clause, namely, that the prohibition did not apply to cases in which there was provision under treaty engagements. In the year 1924, the Japanese Government had entered into an engagement with the Government of Siam under which the two Governments mutually agreed to surrender the right to impose any prohibitions or restrictions at all. Unfortunately, our treaty engagement with Japan dated from the year 1905, when the idea of imposing prohibitions and restrictions had not come to light, and our treaty engagement with Japan made no reference whatever to prohi­ bitions and restrictions, and provided that most-favoured-nation treatment should be mutually accorded in respect of Customs duties ; there was no reference to prohibitions and restrictions, You can see what the effect of the Ordinance has been. The Siamese Government have this agreement with Japan, and the prohibition which has been promulgated since March last has applied solely to Governments other than that of Siam —- chiefly to India and Indo-China. But there is a second point : provision has been made for the issue of licences, but my instruction are that no licences whatever have been issued, and therefore the merchants in India who wis to export rice to Japan do not know under what terms they are able to obtain licences. The trade is a very important one for India ; it is worth about 50 million gold franc a year, and the immediate effect of this prohibition has been very seriously to affect the export trade in rice to Japan. For instance, the normal season for the trade is from March to August, and average shipments were about 30,000 tons a month. In March they were only 15,000 ton* and in April 4,000 tons. I recognise, of course, that Article 11 of the Convention provides that existing agreements and treaties must be respected, but at the same time the Government of India feels that this particular prohibition has been enforced in a way which is seriously prejudicial to India. Prac­ tically the whole gravamen of the prohibition is falling on India and the least possible injury is being done in the case of Siam, whereas Article 7 of the Convention provides that the least possible injury shall be done to the trade of the High Contracting Parties. Further, Section 7 of the Protocol provides that traders should know exactly in what circumstances licences aie to be granted, but in actual practice matters are so arranged that our traders are not able to obtain licences for the export of rice to Japan. So far as the trade agreement between Japan and India is concerned, diplomatic repre­ sentations are being made, but the difficulty, as you will see, is in regard to the present Convention. Is it going to be enforced when it applies in a practical way between two countries ! My difficulty is enhanced by the fact that, in the earlier discussions on the prohibitions reserved by the Japanese delegate last year, my friend M. Ito remarked that the system of prohibitions, in the strict sense of the term, did not exist in Japan (see page 125 of the Proceedings2) and that Japan worked on the principle of the quota system.

1 First Session of the Conference on Prohibitions. 8 Document C.21.M. 12.1928.II. - 85 -

The Government of India hopes to obtain a satisfactory solution of this difficulty in direct mmuiiication with the Japanese Government, and I do not see how I can ask the Con- c, ce really to advise me or to advise M. Ito how to proceed. I am quite certain that M Ito’s Government and my own will be able to come to some satisfactory solution eventually. We only hope that, when the Convention comes to be enforced, it will be enforced, not merely on the strict terms, but also in that spirit of friendship and brotherhood which should unite all nations.

M. Ito (Japan) spoke as follows : The representative of India would appear to take the view that the Convention on the abolition of Prohibitions and Restrictions is in force at the present time. While we wish this Convention to come into force as soon as possible, it has not yet done so. We are therefore jot yet bound by the Convention, which is still in a state of preparation. As regards pro­ fitions and restrictions, we are at present bound by the provisions of existing bilateral treaties, and the measure taken by my Government should be examined, not in the light of the inter­ national Convention, but in the light of the bilateral treaties which exist in this matter between japan and other countries. This is the first point on which I wish to draw your attention. In the second place, the representative of India would appear to believe that Japan has taken restrictive measures concerning rice after having made a reservation at the last Conference. This, however, is not the case. Power to apply a restriction to rice is granted by Law No. 36 of April 4th, 1921, which authorises the Government to promulgate an Imperial Decree for a definite period providing for measures of restriction on the import or export of rice whenever he need to regulate the trade in this commodity arises. You will therefore notice that this restriction has been in existence for several years. Thirdly, I should like to explain why the Japanese Government adopted this policy at this time. Rice is, as you know, the staple food of the Japanese people. Japanese annual pro­ duction is in round figures 99 million hectolitres. We further import in normal years about 3.6 million hectolitres per year. This import is roughly equivalent to 3.6 per cent of our home production. In normal years this import has to be assured, for otherwise there would be increased prices, which would raise the cost of living for the whole population. In years when there is an exceptionally good harvest, we are not able to export the surplus production owing to the special quality of the produce, and we are therefore compelled to prevent a fall in prices by import restrictions ; otherwise the peasant class, which forms more than a half of our population, would be ruined. Under these conditions, any Government concerned with the welfare of its people is compelled to take means to ensure the import of rice for years of normal supply and of scarcity, whilst it must regulate the foreign import of the product in years where there is a surplus of production. Otherwise the country is placed in an extremely difficult position. The question of regulating the commerce in rice is therefore of vital impor­ tance for Japan. The harvest of the year 1927 has been exceptionally good and has given a surplus of something like 16.7 million hectolitres, i.e., about 17 per cent of the normal production. There is therefore a surplus of about 10 million hectolitres over the national consumption. In view of this situation, the Government was compelled to take measures to regulate the trade in rice in order to avoid the ruin of the peasant class by low prices. The Government has therefore provided that, from March 7th to the end of August 1928, the import of rice is to be subject to a permit from the Government. However, in order to respect the treaty obligations and to cause the least possible prejudice to commerce, these restrictive measures do not apply to products of countries with which treaties of commerce exist regarding rice. Nor do they appply to goods already on the way or goods for which a contract was concluded before the date of the entry into force of the Decree. The representative of India has told us that no authorisation had been obtained for the import of rice from India. I have no information here on the matter, but let us for the moment suppose that his contention is exact. According to my statement, this disadvantageous position for India, if it really exists, must be the result of the situation of India and Japan with regard to conventions. Japan has a great many treaties of commerce with other foreign countries — for instance, with Siam — and some of these treaties contain reciprocal obligations not to pass prohibitive or restrictive measures in the matter in question. As regards these coun­ tries, we are not in a position to apply prohibitive or restrictive measures, being bound by our contractual obligations. The position, however, is different between India and Japan. The Treaty of 1905 only lays down most-favoured-nation treatment in Customs tariffs. There 15 no conventional stipulation as regards prohibitions and restrictions. The position of India differs entirely from that of the countries to which I have referred. If India is in a disadvanta­ geous position owing to the measures taken by my Government, it is due to the fact that there 15 no treaty of commerce between India and Japan regarding rice, and that Japan is bound to execute loyally the contractual obligations she has assumed towards other countries. There 13 therefore a difference in the situation and not a commercial discrimination. The prejudicial position complained of by the representative of India is, I repeat, only the inevitable result 0 the absence of certain forms of commercial treaty between India and Japan. If India con­ cluded a treaty of commerce with us, this situation would disappear. As Japan has always

7* — 86 —

expressed a desire to conclude such a treaty, I may say that India herself holds the key t0 the situation.

The P r e sid e n t observed that, as both M. Ito and Mr. Lindsay agreed that this matter was not on the agenda, he would suggest that the Conference take note of their declaration and that the discussion be closed. The Conference adopted this proposal.

49. Restrictions on Cinematograph Films.

Mr. W ilson (United States) spoke as follows : On January 27th, the French Government addressed a letter to the Secretariat on the subject of film control. This letter has been before the interested Governments for several months and has received much publicity. It has thus created a situation on which, notwithstand. ing the limited scope which the Conference gave to the interpretation of its terms of reference I feel that I must speak. Silence on my part might be construed as acquiescence ; and even if the Conference should not judge itself competent to give a positive interpretation of tb Convention on this matter, yet I cannot allow a negative interpretation to be admitted 1 default. In its letter, the French Government, in entire loyalty, stated that, while the regulatioi which it contemplates relative to the control of the exposition of motion-picture films i; France could not, in its opinion, be described as prohibitions within the strict meaning oi the Convention signed on November 8th, it desired an expression of opinion either from th Economic Committee or under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of the Convention - presumably from this present gathering — on this point. As an interested member of this Conference, to which the French Government has turnet for advice, I take it upon myself to give the viewpoint of my Government in exactly, I assure my French colleague, the same spirit as that which actuates the French Government in making this request. In discussing this question, and venturing to differ in viewpoint from the French Government, I think it unnecessary to assure my colleagues that no question arises of the bona fides of the French Government. In any case, this would not be so, but especially would such 1 question never arise in the minds of those of us who have worked with M. Serruys and realise how near to his heart is the success of this Convention and its proper interpretation. The question is a very complicated one, because it deals, not only with the action of one country, but indirectly, as I shall endeavour to show later in my remarks, with the actions of several others, perhaps many others. To deal directly with the French case, however, it will be necessary that the members of this Conference understand with some measure 0 exactitude just what is the nature of the French restrictive measures. On February i8 t of this year, the President of the French Republic, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the Ministers of Public Instruction, Finance, Fine Arts and the Interior, issued a Decree regulating the showing of cinema films in the French Republic. This Decree established ! Commission of thirty-two members, including, among others, Government officials and repre­ sentatives of the producers and exhibitors of French films. To this body must be presente: for a visa all films which it is desired to show in France. The Cabinet’s decree issufes certa: instructions to this Commission and advises the Commission to take into consideration, i issuing visas, the whole of the national interests involved as well as, when foreign films an concerned, the facilities for the release of French films in the various countries of their origin The Commission so established has had several meetings and issued its first set of regu­ lations on March 12th. It provided, among other things, that all French films, with certain exceptions, relating to public morals and order should receive a visa, but that foreign film would be visaed in the ratio of seven to one for those producers who could prove the sale 0 a French film abroad in countries known as film-producing countries. After certain changes, the Commission approved another series of articles on May 9th, which, I believe, are those now in force. These regulations limit the number of foreign films which may be released within a year and provide that every producer of a French film 0 the first category will receive authorisation to release seven foreign films in France, her colonies and protectorates. In addition, any person who can demonstrate that a French film has been released in a producing country receives a premium to release an additional two foreign films in France. The Commission further establishes, under Article 10, the right to refuse visas to any person, producer, distributor or company, even an intermediary, who has produced, distributed or exploited films which reflect on the fair name of France. Now, gentlemen, what is the meaning, in simple words, of this dry material with which I have been forced to burden you ? To speak as directly and concisely as I can, it means nothing but this : that, over and above a fixed percentage of the number of films introduced last year (and this percentage is good for this year only), an American producer of films must obtain the right to expose those films in France in one of two ways — either by the purchase and showing of a French film, or by arranging with a French producer to obtain one of his seven visa-' which the producer has obtained for making a French film ; furthermore, the total number of foreign films which may be shown in France within a given period is fixed. — 87 —

I have not hitherto used the words prohibition and restriction. It is difficult to perceive, however, how anyone can describe such a situation without using the words prohibition or restriction as applying to the action which the French Government is undertaking.

Let me turn to Article 10, which I mentioned above, and let us envisage for an instant what such regulation might mean. Suppose an American film, the scene of which was laid in any country of the world, introduced as a character a Frenchman whose conduct might be obnoxious to the thirty-two gentlemen sitting on the Commission : under this regulation, not only could that film be refused a visa for French territory — and to this we have no o b j e c t i o n — but every film produced by this company, or any film handled by any person who had even handled this film, might be refused a visa for all time i n France. Surely, gentlemen, I who am a very rare visitor to the films, have frequently seen my countrymen put in a position a n d represented in a way which is objectionable to me as an American citizen. France is not alone in suffering from this misrepresentation. And yet has it occurred to any other nation to endeavour to take such drastic measures to protect their reputation abroad ? Naturally, no one deplores more than I do the bad taste of an American producer who will caricature or falsify the characteristics of a member of any foreign nation, and I the more deeply deplore this in that I am persuaded that one of the best forms of mutual understanding, and one of the best lessons in comprehension between nations, is conveyed by means of the motion-picture films. However, this happy situation must be produced by mutual satisfaction and by mutual d understanding on the part of producers and foreign Governments concerned and cannot, it seem s to me, be produced by the application of force. Carry this thought of Article 10 to a possible extreme and you must envisage the possibility of the exclusion, or at least the restric­ tion, of foreign books, magazines, plays and, in fact, any form of artistic or intellectual productions.

One of the complaints most frequently heard against the system of import and export restrictions and prohibitions, a complaint which was brought by Chambers of Commerce of all nationalities, as was shown by the speeches in the First Conference, lay in the fact that international trade must have a definite and accurate basis for a foreseeable period in advance, in order to lay its plans and carry out its business. To eliminate this state of fluidity and uncertainty was one of the primary purposes for which we were summoned six months ago to write a Convention. Such action as is authorised by the French Decree, which established a Commission which from day to day or from hour to hour may change its rules, goes back to that uncertainty and to those fluid conditions which make it nearly impossible to do business with success. In the motion-picture trade, as in others, a considerable investment is necessary in order to sell goods abroad. There must be offices, there must be distributing centres, showing centres and a hundred other expenses. Under these French regulations, our producers are asked to undertake this expense with no certainty that the field will be open to them in the future. They may establish a distribution service on the basis fixed for a year’s distri­ bution and, as soon as their expense is consummated, the whole basis on which they have built up their service may be altered overnight.

For the sake of clarity, I must ask you to subdivide this question in your minds into two very distinct and separate categories ; the first, the right of a nation to censor the films shown to its own people. To this right we have no opposition to raise. We fully recognise such right in any State. The second category has to do- with the handling of this question for economic purposes or for the purpose of protecting industry. The two might be classed together. It is the action of France in relation to this second category to which we take exception, and wlich, I hope to be able to demonstrate to you, gentlemen, is clearly contrary to the purpose of this Convention. When we drew up our Convention last autumn, it was to do away with restrictive measures on importation — certain specified exceptions were allowed, but it was certainly the spirit — more than that, it was the intent — of the instrument to do away with all other types of formalities and regulations of a nature to restrict importation.

Now, I ask you, what does importation mean ? — in our minds, in the minds of business men, in the ordinary conception of the word ? Does it mean, I ask you, merely the passing of a frontier or the passing of a frontier for a useful purpose ? Does it mean that we Americans are free to ship wheat and cotton to the world, to enter the United States freely, but still may be prevented from distributing this wheat and cotton by so-called international regulations ? Does it mean we can send typewriters, motor-cars or any other form of our products freely to the world but that the other States may, in their discretion, decide which ones of these motor-cars and which ones of these typewriters may be distributed and sold within their frontiers ? Eliminate the question of public order and public morals and the cases are not only analogous but identical.

I cannot conceive that any body of men who have the welfare of commerce at heart, and who have given the labour that you, my colleagues, have given to this Convention, are willing to see it vitiated by a legalistic interpretation. If it should ever be decided that our Conventior has to do with the mere crossing of frontiers for articles of trade, but leaves nations free t( prevent the disposal of these articles within their frontiers, then what, I ask you, is left o this Convention ? The word films was not mentioned through our debates in October. No nation havim similar restrictions brought up this question. I wish this Conference would consider this pojj — it is an important one -— that is, why was this question not raised in the First Conference : Gentlemen, I have made enquiry among the representatives of States having similar restrictions and I have ascertained from certain ones of these representatives that they did not raise thi question because they assumed that, once this Convention was put into force, those restriction' must automatically be dissolved by the States, or at least after six months, as provided h Article 2 of this Convention. There was no question in their minds as to whether a restrictioj on importation meant only the crossing of the frontier or meant crossing the frontier for ; useful purpose. The point may be brought out — and indeed it has been brought out in our conversations - that large film interests of the United States have dealt with the French Government on the basi o f these regulations and have reached a satisfactory agreement, and therefore, why shouli the Government of the United States enter into this question ? I should like to deal with this phase of the question now. In the first place, such filj interests as have dealt with the French Government have acquiesced in, and not agreed to the procedure of that Government. They have so acquiesced because they were faced will a condition in which they stood to lose heavily. They were confronted with a state of fact with which they had to deal and, under force majeure, they took the best they could get, in orde to enable them to continue to do business temporarily. It obviously does not mean tha the case of the United States Government is in any way prejudiced in dealing with the Con vention, which has not yet come into effect, and in discussing what interpretation may h put upon that Convention in the future. I mentioned earlier that this question was broader than the action of France alone, and I earnestly beg you to consider the consequences implied in the acceptance of the French thesii that their action does not violate the Convention. Warning has already been served by certaii States, which implies that they will consider the decision as to France as a precedent ; and as I endeavoured to make clear before, this matter must not be considered alone but as a precedent by which any State which is embarrassed on economic grounds by importation maj set up a machinery again of internal regulation by which it may act in harmony witt the Convention but still against its purposes. It seems to me, gentlemen, that this is one ol the most vital questions with which the Conference has been confronted, because we must decide not a simple question of one exception, but a question of principle by which we establish 1 precedent which may save or wreck the future operation of this Convention. I most earnest]} hope that this question will be treated by all States in the broadest spirit and with the fullest comprehension of the dangers which lie in acquiescing in the French contention. I cannot reach my conclusion without again paying tribute to the spirit of loyalty whicl animated the French Government in bringing this matter before the Conference. If anythin; that I have said has raised a shadow of doubt as to my belief in the sincere good faith in whic the French Government has acted, I can only assure you that nothing could have been mo remote from my intention than to carry such an implication. The French Government sak “ ...although these measures cannot be described as prohibitions within the strict meaning i the Convention.. My Government is not prepared to agree with the French Governmen; even as to this contention, in which the French Government itself must have felt some doubt, ii submitting it to us. But leaving aside for a moment the question of strict interpretation I beg you will not consider this affair merely as one of strict legality, but on a broader and more comprehensive basis, and one calculated to accomplish the broad purpose for which we have written this Convention, namely, to increase the facilities of international trade. I have already stated that I felt called on to speak to-day lest my silence should be construed as an acquiescence in the French plan or in other plans which may follow the French lead. 1 feel, in all candour, compelled to reserve our rights, if in the future need should arise, to have recourse to diplomatic action or to arbitral award under the Convention.

M. S e r r u y s (France) said that Mr. Wilson had just presented a friendly challenge which was not less a challenge for its being friendly. That only proved how dangerous it was to act with complete loyalty. What was the question at issue ? The question referred to measures which were intended in defence of the national interests. A certain number of countries had taken similar measures. England, by a law enacted on November 8th, 1927, had decided that a certain proportion of films of English origin should be maintained in the total number of films licensed for representation, and that the proportion should be laid down in terms of length of film . Italy, Austria and Germany had taken similar steps. France had no regulations establishing prohibitions or restrictions for films. In France the censorship was exercised as a means of defending national ideals. He was quite p rep ared to welcome the various subjects dealt with in Far West films, but on condition that nothing imported and represented constituted an attack on the past achievements of France or her — 8g —

ational traditions and civilisation. A certain national percentage must necessarily be maintained, if there were any regulation, such regulation should only be instituted with the object t protecting the ideal of the country, and not its economic interests. The French Government had proposed to the representative of the United States to settle problem of films, not with the effect of securing a decision against the interests of the United States, but with the view to establishing collaboration between the two countries. He was of opinion that, even after the coming into force of the Convention, there would necessarily be regulations dealing with this matter. Mr. Wilson had just raised the problem n a skilful manner, but one which was quite legitimate. He could not share the view of Mr. Wilson hat no distinction should be made between films and typewriters. There was, in his view, a profound difference between a film and a typewriter or automobile. The difference consisted in the fact that the film made its appeal to the mind. Whatever Mr. Wilson might say, that difference would always exist, and the problem was, and must remain, a moral problem.

He agreed with Mr. Wilson that there would be a certain protectionism in this respect, jut the protection would not be of an economic character. The most precious possession of any country was its intellectual and moral tradition, and France would never make use of her ideals in order to mask a protective policy. The Convention was open to the danger of a reservation being abandoned in its economic form and reintroduced in another article of the Convention as a sanitary exception. Personally, ie would always be opposed to this kind of prohibition. The United States had established certain prohibitions and restrictions on the import of French plants and perfumes as exceptions or sanitary reasons, whereas in substance these prohibitions were, in his opinion, of a purely economic nature. The French regulations were not an economic weapon, but simply a means of moral and intellectual defence. He was definitely opposed to any kind of prohibitions or censorship which iad an economic purpose. It was, however, essential to provide for the defence of the moral heritage of the country and not to lose sight of the necessities of a French film industry. It was impossible that there should not be some regulation on these lines.

M. T rendelenburg (Germany) said that, during the discussion of the reservations, it had been agreed that the Conference could not decide which reservations came under the terms of the Convention and which did not. He therefore felt it was not the task of the Conference to decide whether film regulations in France were or were not compatible with the terms of the Convention. It might be doubted whether, in certain points of detail, the regulations laid down by the French Government were consistent with the Convention ; but he was confident that the French Government would give further consideration to the matter and allay any doubts which might arise. In principle, he agreed with M. Serruys that a Convention could not be intended to tie the hands of countries in such a way that they were precluded from protecting their moral and intellectual interests. In October, the question of films was not mentioned because Germany alone had a system based on the prohibition of films ; but it had been held that all countries were naturally entitled to safeguard these interests in dealing with films. Germany would be obliged to modify her present system, but reserved the right to protect German ideals and traditions where films were concerned. Some protection was necessary in addition to censorship of films, and this might be found in the shape of regulations regarding exhibition or regulations with a view to protecting to a certain extent the existence of a national film industry.

M. S c h u l l e r (Austria) said that he entirely agreed with M. Serruys and M. Trendelenburg. He would remind Mr. Wilson that, in Austria, nineteen films out of twenty were of foreign origin and only one Austrian. Most of the nineteen were American. Austria possessed regulations on this question, which she would find difficult to give up. There was such a thing as Austrian art, there existed an Austrian film industry, and the Austrian Government was bound to take care of it.

Mr. L in d sa y (India) added that India was considering similar legislation. I t was also, in order to show that this was a cultural matter, suppressing films taken in India which might give a wrong conception of Indian culture.

M. Di N ola (Italy) concurred entirely in M. Trendelenburg’s view that the present Conference was not qualified to consider the question raised by the honourable delegate for the United States. The Conference was, in fact, bound by a resolution, which it had itself passed in the course of its discussions, to the effect that it might not deal with the interpretation of the various articles of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, and must confine its attention to the requests for exceptions submitted, in so far as those requests were considered allowable under Article 6 of the Convention. — go —

Furthermore, M. Serruys having just stated that the regulation complained of by Mr. Wilsop was not at present in force, the subject of controversy might be regarded as non-existent.

Since, however, the representatives of the other countries concerned had taken the opp0r. tunity of stating their views on the question of films, he felt bound to add a word with regard to Italy. At the moment, there existed in Italy a system of internal film control which was designed to ensure that a certain — very moderate -— percentage of the films shown should be of national production. That control, which did not affect the importation of foreign films was intended to accomplish the very purposes which had been clearly indicated by M. Serruys It operated in the interests of Italian culture and education and of national ideals — interests which stood much higher than economic considerations. It was undeniable that censorship could not accomplish this by itself. Even if all films shown were morally sound, the public in each country should not be subjected to the constant and in some respects dangerous, influence exerted by films which were produced in other countries and reflected a manner of life and customs differing at times appreciably from those of the country in which they were shown. Even if it were alleged that that meant restrictions, since the Convention of November 8th 1927, had considered restrictions designed to protect human beings against disease to b wholly justifiable, he was convinced that measures intended for the protection of the cultun and individuality of nations must a fortiori be regarded as legitimate. In any case, he would remind the Conference that, in a letter to the Secretary-General of the League, dated April 20th, 1928, his Government had given assurances that any measures applied to cinematographic films would in no case constitute real restrictions of the kind which were to be abolished under the Convention of November 8th, 1927. So far as Italian regulations were concerned, M. Di Nola felt that he could fully confirm the assurances given by his Government.

The P r e s i d e n t suggested that, in accordance with the proposals of M. Trendelenburg and M. Di Nola, the Conference should leave the question at that point, without actually express­ ing an opinion on the substance of the question. The Conference adopted the President’s proposal. (The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m.)

TENTH MEETING.

Held on Monday, July gth, 1928, at 4 p.m.

50. Discussion of the Draft Supplementary Agreement to the Convention of Novem her 8th, 1927

The P r e s i d e n t announced that, in the absence of M. Serruys, M. Brunet would act as Rapporteur for the Drafting Committee for the present meeting. He opened the discussior, and the Preamble to the Draft Supplementary Agreement to the Convention of November 8th 1927.

M. I t o (Japan) wished to make a general statement. There were alternative methods of procedure. I t was possible to have either a single Convention, with such modifications as might be necessitated by the results of the Second Conference for the Abolition of Prohibitions and Restrictions or, alternatively, two separate Conventions. The Japanese Government would have preferred the first alternative, but, in view of the opinion which prevailed on that point, | the Japanese delegation would make no objection.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) recognised that the method recommended by M. Ito would have had certain advantages, the first of which would have been that there would have been only one text. Account had to be taken, however, of the circumstance that the various Agreements would come into force successively, and M. Ito's suggestion would have been difficult to carry out in practice.

M. S c h m i d t (Estonia) wished merely to ask that, in the list of the Heads of States, the words “ The Government of the Estonian Republic ” should be used instead of the words “ The President of the Republic of Estonia ”.

The P r e s i d e n t said that the Secretariat would take note of M. Schmidt’s request.

i See Annex 5. The draft Protocol is given in Annex 6. — 9 i —

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) moved that, in the Preamble, the words “ ont convenu” should rep laced by the words “ sont convenus”, which had been used in the Protocol to the ement. He thought that the Drafting Committee should be given authority to make Agre­ mo'difications of this type. Article B.

M. d’O liveira (Portugal) observed that Article B referred to the Convention on Hides, Skins and Bones. Portugal, however, had not been represented at the proceedings of the Commission on that subject, and the Portuguese Government had no official knowledge of fire text of the Convention that had been adopted. M. d’Oliveira accordingly asked the Con- erence to grant the Portuguese Government a certain extension of time before signing, in ,r(Jer that it might be in a position to acquaint itself with the Convention on Hides, Skins ind Bones. He proposed that this extension should be that stipulated for : “ Countries which, having signed the Convention of November 8th, 1927, were unable to send representatives to the present Conference, and, secondly, to countries which, having been allowed exceptions under Article 6 of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, have not been able to enjoy the benefit thereof owing to their late signature ”.1

M. S c h u l l e r (Austria) thought that there was some misunderstanding. The States which loncluded the Agreement on Hides, Skins and Bones had made no reservations. This special Agreement had no effect on the general Convention.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) supported M. Schuller. He supposed, however, that M. d’Oliveira had more especially in view the Convention on Hides, Skins and Bones, and that he wished to provide for the contingency of his Government’s adhering to the latter Convention.

M. d ’O l iv e ir a (Portugal) was unable to accept this interpretation.

The P r e s i d e n t said that the matter would come up when Section II of the Protocol was discussed.

M. N ic k l (Hungary) suggested an amendment to the wording of Article B. This article laid down that, in the case where the Convention on Hides, Skins and Bones was not put into force, the parties “ agreed that each of them shall be authorised to submit subsequent requests for xceptions which they were entitled to introduce... ”. These requests (for exceptions) had already been put forward, although they had never been examined as such. It would therefore be more logical to say, in the event of the Convention on Hides, Skins and Bones not coming into force, " it would be necessary to take into consideration requests put forward”.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) replied that the draft submitted to the Conference had been framed appropriately to the facts of the position. At the beginning the only requests put forward had been those made by Belgium, Poland and Czechoslovakia. It was possible that, in the event of the special Agreements not coming into force, other States might think fit to put forward 'requests of the same type.

Ha ssa n Bey (Turkey) thought that the request for an extension made by the Portuguese was reasonable. The States represented at the Conference 011 Hides, Skins and Bones jihad committed themselves not to increase their export duties beyond a certain maximum. The signatories to the Convention of November 8th, 1927, had not contemplated any duty, however small. They could not be made to cover, by their signature, commitments that were ■stipulated by the special Convention.

M. S c h u l l e r (Austria) pointed out that the duties in question concerned only States which had signed the Convention on Hides, Skins and Bones.

M. d ’O l iv e ir a (Portugal) said that he was still unconvinced. He had no knowledge how far his Government might be interested in the question of hides, skins and bones, but he would proceed upon the assumption that it did have considerable interests at stake. His Government had not sent representatives to the Commission because it had reserved its right to watch the proceedings without committing itself. M. d ’Oliveira was not prepared, by signing the general Convention, to recognise implicitly the special Convention, with which his Government was not acquainted.

The P r e s i d e n t said that he feared that the Portuguese delegate was under a misapprehension as to the amount of freedom his country would have after signature. It would only be allowed such prohibitions as had been explicitly permitted under Article 6.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) emphasised the fact that the undertakings given by the States signatories of the special Agreements only bound those countries. They afforded safeguards to other States which were not asked to give any undertaking in return.

1 See Annex 5, Section II, ad Article A, litt. (b) second half. — 92 —

The P r e s i d e n t reminded the Conference that this point would be discussed under Section I[ of the Protocol.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Great Britain) proposed a draft amendment which he felt would meet the wishes of the delegate of Portugal. He would suggest that the text read as follows : “ It being understood that certain countries which would have submitted reset- vations relating to hides, skins and bones have refrained from doing so in consequent of an agreement made between them, it is agreed by this Conference that, if this agreement should fail, these reservations may subsequently be submitted for con- sidération by the parties to the Convention. ”

M. d ’Oliveira (Portugal) thanked Sir Sydney Chapman, but observed that his request was really simpler. He only desired to put before his Government the text of the Convention on Hides, Skins and Bones. If the Portuguese Government found that the provisions of that Convention were not such as it could adhere to, it might go to the length of refusing to sign the general Convention. M. d’Oliveira sincerely hoped that such would not be the case, but he felt that, as a representative of his country, he was bound to show some scruples. Ht asked for an extension to be granted till October 31st, i.e., the same period as that granted t States which were not represented at the present Conference.

M. Di N o la (Italy) expressed the view that it would be better to discuss the question immediately, and to remove any misapprehension under which M. d’Oliveira might be labouring. The Conference had before it the general Convention providing for the abolition of all pro. hibitions save where special reservations were made. Supposing that the Portuguese Government already knew the terms of the Convention on Hides, Skins and Bones, it would be in a position to decide whether to accept or reject it. But, in either case, it would already be bound by other ties. The special Convention on Hides, Skins and Bones, had nothing whatever to do with the general Convention on Prohibitions. If Portugal had some interest in the question of hides and bones, its only course was to ask for a reservation at the outset.

M. B runet (Belgium) pointed out that there was a lacuna in Article C, and proposed to insert the following words after the list of States whose ratification is required : “ Ratifications must be deposited before September 30th, 1929”. In the present draft, that date, September 30th, 1929, was only mentioned incidentally at the end of the article. A specific statement such as that suggested would seem to be necessary.

M. D uzmans (Latvia) agreed that, without M. Brunet’s amendment, the date mentioned in the last paragraph would have, formally speaking, no foundation to rest upon, and the paragraph although intelligible in itself, would nevertheless not be quite clear. The Conference adopted the proposed modification.

Article D.

M. B runet (Belgium) asked that, in accordance with the decision of the Drafting Committee the word “ sinon ” be replaced in the second paragraph of Article D by the words " dans I

51. Discussion of the Draft Protocol to the Supplementary Agreement1.

Section I.

M. Ito (Japan) proposed to suppress the word “ partout” in the French text of Section I. This proposal was adopted.

Section I I (a), Section I I (b).

M. S tu ck i (Switzerland) felt that the Portuguese delegate might rest assured that he would not put his Government into a difficult position. It had been agreed on November 8th, 1927, that the present Conference would only examine reservations submitted before February 1928. The Portuguese Government had not submitted any reservations on hides, skins and bones. Fur­ thermore, it had been agreed that only those prohibitions should be admitted for discussion which were in force before November 8th, 1927. According to the documents before the Conference, it would appear that in Portugal there was no prohibition or restriction on hides, skins or bones in November 1927. In any case, the question could not have been discussed. The situation was therefore simple. Even without the assistance of the special Convention, Portugal could not to-day introduce a reservation on hides, skins or bones. Its legal and

1 See Annex 5. — 93 —

radical position was perfectly clear. While it would be extremely regrettable if the Portuguese delegate refused to sign the Convention, M. Stucki could see no reason for making an exception in his favour.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) noted that, even if the question were subsequently re-opened, this could not be done with respect to Portugal, since that country had no prohibition on these goods before November 1927.

M. d ’O l iv e ir a (Portugal) said that he desired to maintain his request. He was unaware whether his Government had or had not special prohibitions in November 1927. It might, however, have some interest at stake in the matter, and M. d’Oliveira was unable to say how far this might be the case. He would therefore suggest an extension of the time-limit. He proposed that the following words should be added in paragraph (b) of Section II of the Protocol : "and to the countries which have not signed the Convention on Hides, Skins and Bones’’.

M. Ibl (Czechoslovakia) observed that no year was mentioned after the words “ August 31st” in paragraph (b).

The President said that the second part of ( b) would appear to be somewhat ambiguous, and proposed that it should be amended to read as follows : “ .. . And, secondly, to countries which forfeited the exception granted under Article 6 of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, through inability to sign on that date.” This proposal was adopted.

M. Schuller (Austria) proposed the addition of the following words at the end of paragraph (J) : “and likewise to Portugal

The P r e s id e n t observed that the first proposal was rather too wide. If there was a choice between the proposals, he would prefer that of M. Schüller.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium), in spite of his desire to give satisfaction to the delegate of Por­ tugal, could not help saying that the addendum proposed by his colleague set up a principle which it would be difficult to justify.

M. d’Oliveira (Portugal) accepted the amendment of M. Schüller, adding that he would even be prepared to accept a shorter extension.

H a ssa n Bey (Turkey) supported the original proposal of M. d’Oliveira.

M. Curcin (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) felt that both amendments were superfluous, but that, if a choice had to be made, it would be better to adopt the more restricted.

M. Modig (Sweden) said that his country was also one of those which were not represented at the Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones. He would, however, sign the general Convention. He supported M. Schüller’s proposal, and considered that the Portuguese amendment would establish a connection between the two Conventions which had not in reality existed.

The P r e s id e n t put the original proposal to the meeting, observing that the Portuguese delegate had withdrawn his motion, but that it had been re-submitted by the delegate of Turkey.

M. D uzmans (Latvia) asked whether it would not be possible to prepare a brief memorandum on the question raised by the Portuguese delegate. He was convinced that the whole matter was due to a misapprehension. A memorandum on the relations between the two Conventions would serve to remove it.

M. d ’O l iv e ir a (Portugal) suggested that, if the Conference was anxious not to create a precedent, it should advance whatever reason it chose for granting him his request, provided that it was actually granted.

The P r e s id e n t p u t the motion of Hassan Bey to the meeting. This motion was rejected by nineteen votes to tlvo, with six abstentions.

The P r e s id e n t put M. Schüller’s motion to the meeting. There were fourteen votes in favour, eleven abstentions and one vote against.

The P r e sid e n t asked the Netherlands delegate whether, in view of the attitude of the remain- mg members of the Conference, he would be prepared to abstain from voting and not to vote against.

M. Posthuma (Netherlands) said that he would abstain. Af- Schuller’s motion was then adopted. — 94 —

H a s s a n Bey (Turkey) claimed for his country the benefit of the exemption granted to Portugal.

The P resident pointed out that it would not be necessary for Turkey to sign at the close of the Conference as she had proposed no reservations.

M. Ito (Japan) observed that, in paragraph (b) of Section II of the Protocol, the countries referred to were only Bulgaria, Portugal and the United States. Would it not be simpler to name them in the text ?

The P resident said that the Conference could reverse its previous decision, but that it had already rejected the present suggestion of M. Ito.

M. I bl (Czechoslovakia) said that he supported M. Ito’s proposal, as Portugal was now referred to by name without any explanation. The proposal of M. Ito was carried.

The P resident said that there was another amendment to Article B, which consisted ir altering the text to read as follows : “ The High Contracting Parties agree to recognise in the case of Italy the appli­ cation of the provision of the Protocol to the Convention on Hides, Skins and Bones (Section I, ad Article i (a), 1 in the event of the said Convention coming into force.">

M. Ito (Japan) said that he had no substantial objection to the proposal before the Con­ ference. He wondered, however, whether the addition of a paragraph referring to Italy was really necessary. The exception granted to Italy had been provided for in the text of the special Convention, and he doubted the desirability of referring specifically to it in the Supplementary Agreement to the general Convention.

M. di N ola (Italy) expressed the view that the proposal of the Drafting Committee was a necessary one. The Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones had allowed Italy to maintain certain prohibitions until the country was released from certain undertakings in regard to its neighbours. Account had been taken of the conditions existing in countries bordering on Italy. Either the special Convention would enter into force or it would not. If it did so, Italy could produce her reservations on hides, skins and bones, and if it did not, Italy would only benefit by the privilege in question in her dealings with the other signatories of the special Convention.

M. Stucki (Switzerland) observed that the only country which could complain of the new draft was Switzerland. He felt, however, he should admit that M. Di Nola was right.

M. Ito said that he would not insist.

Section II, ad Article A. On the proposal of M. Ibl (Czechoslovakia), it was agreed that paragraph j of Section II, ai Article A, should read as follows : “ (c) Agreeing to the exception of Czechoslovakian shoots in favour of Czechoslovakia under paragraph i of Article 6, the High Contracting Parties declare that their consent has been given in return for the written undertaking entered into by the Czechoslovak delegation to allow the free export of this product to all countries which at present guarantee or may in the future guarantee Czechoslovakia protection by legal or contractual measures of the appellation of origin of this product. ”

The amendment was adopted.

Section I I I , ad Article C. This section of the draft Agreement was adopted.

Ad Article C, paragraph 2.

Sir Sydney C h a p m a n (Great Britain) said that he foresaw some difficulties with regard to the terms of Article C itself3. Some passages of this article were not in accordance with the ideas of the Drafting Committee and he would suggest that it should be referred to the Secretariat for revision.

1 See document C. 349 (1). M. 105 (1). 1928. II, page 8. , 2 This amendment is contained in Section III, ad Article B, of the Protocol to the Supplementary Agreeme see First Part, under B, II. 8 See Annex 5, Article C. — 95 —

Sir Arthur Salter explained that, if a State were to ratify the Convention en bloc without making its ratification dependent on that of another State, and if a second State not included jn the List were to make its ratification dependent on that of certain States on the List (j these specified States were to fail to ratify, then the first-mentioned State would have to re-ratify a Convention containing different provisions on this point.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Great Britain) said that in this contingency there would have to Le a whole series of re-ratifications, which had never been intended, and might involve consi­ derable delay. (The meeting was suspended for half-an-hour.)

Proceedings being resumed, the following revised draft text of Article C was distributed to the Conference : “ The High Contracting Parties agree that the Convention must, in order to be brought into force, secure either the ratification as provided in Article 15 of the said Convention or the accession as provided in Article 16 on behalf of at least eighteen Members of the League of Nations or non-Member States. “ It is permissible for each of the High Contracting Parties to state at the moment of ratification that it makes the entry into force of the Convention, in so far as it is concerned, conditional on ratification or accession on behalf of any of the following countries, which in this event shall be specified, viz. : Austria Hungary Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats Czechoslovakia Italy and Slovenes France Japan Switzerland Germany Poland Turkey Great Britain Roumania United States of America. “ The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall immediately inform each of the High Contracting Parties of each ratification or accession received and of any observations by which it may be accompanied in conformity with the preceding paragraph. “ On October 31st, 1929, the Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall notify all the Members of the League or non-Member States, on behalf of which the Convention has been signed or acceded to under Article 16, of the ratifications deposited and accessions notified before September 30th, 1929. "

The P resident pointed out that the terms of the new text would materially alter what îad been agreed upon at the meeting of July 6th. In the draft text that the Drafting Committee had submitted at that meeting, it had been stipulated that at any rate the fourteen countries mentioned by name1 in the article would have to have ratified before the Convention could enter into force, unless at a later date the ratifying States should decide otherwise. In the new draft this obligation had disappeared.

M. Stucki (Switzerland) asked who was the author of this new draft.

The P resident explained that this was a text submitted for the consideration of the Conference at the request of the Secretariat.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Great Britain) said that he would assume responsibility for this text. He thought, however, that no final decision should be taken in the absence of M. Serruys, who had played an important part in the Drafting Committee. As the President had pointed out, the new text was based on a new principle. The Drafting Committee had not realised what the text that it had prepared involved. If the List were to be an integral part of the ratified Convention and certain countries made no conditions regarding their ratification, and if the List were then to be altered, it would be necessary for these countries to re-ratify. Now, the ratification of certain countries — for instance, the United States — might require considerable time. The question was how to give effect to the ideas of the Conference while avoiding wholesale re-ratification. The adoption °f the revised text would achieve this end, but it undoubtedly constituted a change of principle. He would suggest that both texts should be duplicated and distributed at the next meeting.

Mr. Wilson (United States) drew attention to the following sentence : “ It is permissible for each of the High Contracting Parties to state at the moment of ratification ”, etc.

1 See Annex 2. — gô —

It would appear that this was an encouragement for the legislative body to append the States the ratification of which wras obligatory to the Act of Ratification. If, however, this sentence were to read as follows :

“ It is permissible for each of the High Contracting Parties to state, at the moment of deposit of ratification ”, etc., it would be indicated that the Conference had in mind an executive or an administrative act,

M. Stucki (Switzerland) said that he was not very favourably impressed by this new proposal. It was always regrettable when, after a solution had been reached with difficulty the position to be dealt with suddenly changed. He appreciated Sir Sydney Chapman's view, There was, however, an easy way of obviating the danger that had been pointed out. would be sufficient if the delegates, at the moment of submitting the present Convention for I the ratification of their Parliaments, were to enquire from the latter as to the possibility o( ratification and as to the possibility of modifying, if need be, the list of fourteen States. It was essentially a matter of home policy. M. Stucki did not by any means consider it impossiblt to accept the new solution, but he would prefer that the former position should be maintained

M. Lécuyer (France) regretted the absence of M. Serruys and said that the French delegatio considered that the present text was better than the former one. He proposed that tl discussion should continue.

M. B runet (Belgium) thought that the objection raised by Sir Arthur Salter with reference to parliamentary contingencies was a serious one. After considering the various ways of removing that objection, he suggested that the words : “ Each of the High Contracting Partis will state at the moment of ratification whether it makes the entry into force... ” should be substituted for the words : " It is, however, permissible...” In this connection, he reminded the Conference that States signatories of an international convention were always entitled to make their ratification contingent upon the ratification of other countries. The form of the draft submitted to the Conference would seem to restrict that right.

M. Schüller (Austria), referring to M. Stucki’s statement, recognised that, if each delegate were to receive a second mandate from his Government, the solution would be a satisfactory one. He feared, however, that some of the delegates would not be given such powers. He considered, therefore, that the new text was the better one.

The P resident supported the proposal of Sir Sydney Chapman that the two texts should be duplicated and issued at the next meeting, and said that he wished to make this a proposal from the Chair. The discussion on the point of principle might then take place at the next meeting, and the interval would give delegates the opportunity of more thoroughly considering the text. Another advantage would be that M. Serruys, who would be present at the nes meeting, would be able to take part in the discussion. I

M. P osthuma (Netherlands) wished to submit a third proposal, which was that there sh o l be no list of countries, and that it should merely be stated that each country, when ratifyiil the Convention, might name the country or countries on the ratification of which its own ratiil cation would depend. The list of countries which occasioned such difficulties might thus k obviated, and a solution might be reached at the end of October 1929, when a new Conference might be held to consider the conditions proposed.

The P resident said that he had a serious objection to raise to the proposal of the delegate of the Netherlands. The aim of the Conference and the object of the proposal of the delegate of Great Britain was to avoid the necessity of a third Conference. It appeared, however, that M. Posthuma took it for granted that such a Conference would be held. The two point: of view were diametrically opposed to each other.

M. C lan (Denmark) said that he thought that the revised text that had been distributed was better than the previous text, and that it was more in accordance with the spirit of the Convention. The delegate of the United States had submitted an amendment the object °t which was to remove what might be regarded as an invitation to Parliaments to specify States on the ratification of which their own ratification was conditional. He would suggest tha the printed text should not only be amended as Mr. Wilson had proposed, but that there shou also be inserted the following words, which had the same end in view : “ To indicate to t - Secretary-General, at the moment of ratification...”

Sir Sydney Chapman (Great Britain) associated himself with the reply of the P r e s id e n t to the delegate of the Netherlands and appealed to M. Posthuma not to press his proposa ■ The system of the List had been adopted in principle, and the only question remaining how this system might be put into operation with the least inconvenience. If the prop®’ — 97 —

f the delegate of the Netherlands were to be adopted, a country could make its ratification I conditional on that of a State not even included in the List. M. Posthuma (Netherlands) pointed out that the List was now of quite a different jiaraCter. In the previous text, it had been stated that each of the countries of the List must ratify the Convention before it could enter into force. In the new text, it was only stated tjiat the countries in the List were those on the ratification of which the ratification of any •ven country might depend. Provision had, however, already been made in the Convention for this conditional ratification. In his view, it should be possible for a country to make its ratification conditional on that of any other country. The List was both superfluous and dangerous. He was convinced that it would be necessary to convene another Conference in the following |year, for he could not believe that all countries would fulfil the conditions of this draft.

The P r e sid e n t said that there were two proposals now before the Committee : that of Ithe Chair, that two texts should be duplicated and distributed ; and that of the delegate of the Netherlands, that another text should be duplicated in addition to these.

M. Di N ola (Italy) thought that the presence of three texts would only complicate matters. He was opposed to the solution proposed by the delegate of the Netherlands. Moreover, the other two proposals, which could alone be accepted, were not very different. According to the former of these, States might abstain from mentioning the States on the ratification of ahich their own ratification would depend. In this case it would be necessary to have fourteen ratifications. According to the second proposal, the States were to declare that they desired the ratification of fourteen States. M. Di Nola preferred the first solution, which left the Governments the greatest possible measure of freedom and which took more account of the difficulties which these Governments had to meet.

M. I bl (Czechoslovakia) supported the solution that had been advocated by M. Stucki and M. Di Nola. In the case of the first solution, the point that occupied the attention of the Legal Section was the following : According to one paragraph, it would be necessary that fourteen States mentioned by name should adhere, while, according to another paragraph, it was only necessary to have the adherence of the States mentioned by each of the High Contracting Parties at the moment of its ratification. It was possible that only twelve or thirteen States would be mentioned. Would the Convention then enter into force ? A possible solution was that it would be enough to say that the Convention would enter into force even if the State or States not mentioned by the other States were not to ratify.

M. D uzmans (Latvia) recognised the justice of M. Ibl’s observations, but thought that this solution would be impossible since it consisted in the negation of one paragraph by the other. In one of the first paragraphs, it was laid down that, among the eighteen ratifying States there should be the fourteen which were specifically mentioned. If, following M. Ibl’s proposal, Ithe Conference were to say, in a later paragraph, that the absence of one of these fourteen ratifications would nevertheless not prevent the Convention from coming into force, it would mean that certain stipulations were both made and no longer made by one and the same clause hi one and the same subject. In view of the whole structure of the first text, they could only :hoose between “must” and “ must not”. There was no other alternative. He therefore proposed that they should decide one way or the other. Either the whole paragraph of the first text beginning : “ It is, however, permissible”, should be deleted, or the second text should be accepted.

The President asked for an indication of opinion with regard to the two proposals before the Conference : that of the Chair, that two texts should be duplicated and distributed, the text of the previous draft and the text of Sir Sydney Chapman’s draft, with the amendments suggested by Mr. Wilson, M. Brunet and M. Clan ; and that of the delegate of the Netherlands, who asked that his proposal should be duplicated in addition to these texts. The proposal of the President was adopted, and that of the delegate of the Netherlands was rejected.

Annexed Declaration.

M. Curcin (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) requested that Czechoslovakia should take account of the interests of his country and of Roumania with regard to the present I export quotas, and that an exchange of letters should take place on the subject. M. Ibl (Czechoslovakia) accepted this proposal. The Annexed Declaration was adopted. (The meeting rose at 7.45 p.m.) - 9 8 -

ELEVENTH MEETING.

Held on Tuesday, July 10th, 1928, at 3 p.m.

52. Discussion of the Draft Supplementary Agreement to the Convention of Novem. her 8th, 1927 (continued).

The P r e s i d e n t said that the discussion would be restricted to the alternative texts 1 for the first three paragraphs of Article C. He added that the Conference would decide on the question of principle as to which of the two texts it would maintain.

M. I to (Japan) said that, from the point of view of principle, he preferred the second text1. The original text2 would give rise to legal difficulties, for it contained two contradictor; paragraphs.

The P r e s i d e n t said that he was asking whether there was any objection to the old texl

M. S t u c k i (Switzerland) proposed, for the reasons stated at the previous meeting bjl M. Di Nola, M. Ibl and himself, that the first text should be adopted. i

M. S e r r u y s (France) expressed his regret at not having been present at the previous meeting, He thought that the second text was the better one. No State would lose the advantages that it would enjoy under the terms of the first text, since each State might make its adherence dependent on that of certain of the fourteen States. On the other hand, all the States might enjoy the advantages of ratification without the fourteen States having ratified. If, for some reason, the number of these States were to be reduced to thirteen or to twelve, the entry into force of the Convention would be all the more simple. M. Serruys added, however, that, while accepting the second text3, he should make his acceptance dependent on the adoption of the second draft4 proposed by the Committee, which in his opinion was better than that of Sir Sydney Chapman.

The P r e s i d e n t reminded the Conference that it must first decide whether to accept the principle of the first or second text.

M. S e r r u y s (France) explained the points of difference between the two drafts of the second text1. They were all contained in the following words : “ without, however, being able to mention other States than those designated hereafter”, etc. According to the strict terras I of international law, it was admitted that a State might make its ratification dependent on thai I of a third State which was not a party to an agreement. This was a conditional reservation I properly so called. In this case the scope of this reservation was restricted, since a State migtl not make its ratification dependent on that of States which were not mentioned by name. Fran I could not require the ratification of Spain, or Roumania that of Russia. The necessity il the ratification of a fifteenth, sixteenth or seventeenth State could not be claimed. In ordel to avoid this dangerous extension of the principle of the conditional reservation, the Draftiœl Committee had presented a revised text. M. Serruys was therefore in favour of the second I draft of the second text. !

The P r e s i d e n t asked whether the delegates were in favour of the principle as expressed in the old draft or in the alternative text. j The Conference decided by twenty-two votes to five to accept the principle of the new text.

M. Di Nola (Italy) said that he maintained his point of view, even though it was opposed by the majority of delegates.

The P r e s i d e n t asked whether M. Di Nola would accept the decision of the majority of the Conference.

M. Di N o l a (Italy) said that he would venture to repeat his statement of the previous meeting that he did not see much difference between the two texts. While remaining in favour of the former one, he would certainly sign the Convention.

1 See Annex 7. 1 See Minutes of previous meeting, text distributed after the resumption of the proceedings. 3 The “ second text ” referred to will be found in Annex 7, under the heading : “ Alternative Text for the Firs Three Paragraphs of Article C ”, 1 The " second draft ” referred to is the result of amendments made by the Drafting Committee. It is “ second draft ” which became the final text of Article C of the present Convention. — 99 —

jjl. Stu c k i (Switzerland) said that he would fall in with the majority.

M. C u r c in (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) said that he would also be prepared t0 sign the Convention.

M. I bl (Czechoslovakia) said that he would also be prepared to sign.

Hassan Bey (Turkey) said that he also would concur in the opinion of the majority.

The P r e sid e n t asked the Conference whether it would accept the proposals of the Drafting C o m m itte e 1 as an alternative text. The Conference adopted the proposal of the Drafting Committee.

53. Discussion of the Draft Protocol (continued).

The P resident said that Section IV, ad Article C, paragraph (a) 2 would be amended in accordance with the decision of the Conference. Upon the proposal of M. Ito, the President asked whether the Conference would accept a modification of the penultimate sentence of the paragraph. At present it read as follows : “ If no State which, previous to this date, has deposited its ratification or notified its adherence has raised objection before November 15th, 1929. ” It was proposed that this sentence should read : " If no State which, previous to this date, had deposited its ratification or notified its adherence makes the entry into force of the Convention dependent on the ratification of the United States of America. ”

M. Ser r u y s (France) pointed out that this new text eliminated certain valuable points of procedure, among others the specification of the date — November 15th, 1929. He proposed that M. Ito’s amendment should read as follows : " If no objection has been raised before November 15th, 1929, by any of the States which, at the moment of their ratification or of their adherence, have made their ratification or their adherence dependent on that of the United States."

M. Ito (Japan) said that he was prepared to accept M. Serruys’ text.

M. Stucki (Switzerland) also agreed with this text, but thought it would be better to substitute, for the words “ at the moment of their ratification ”, the words “ at the moment of the deposit of their ratification ”,

M. B runet (Belgium) thought that the statement “ requested by certain States under paragraph 3 of Article C ” was not correct. Properly speaking, it should read : “ requested by one or several States”. He proposed, however, merely to say : “ requested under para­ graph 3 of Article C". The Conference adopted the proposals of M. Brunet and M. Serruys.

M. C la n (Denmark) reminded the Conference of the fact that, as a logical consequence of his previous amendment, a country which made its accession to the Convention conditional on that of certain other countries could also withdraw this proviso by simply notifying the Secretary-General.

54- Adoption of the Final Text of the Agreement and of Sections I to III of the Protocol.

The P resident said that he would now put the text of the Agreement to the vote, paragraph by paragraph. The Conference adopted the Preamble and Articles A and B. The Conference also adopted Article C as amended, Article D and Sections I to I I I of the Protocol.

55- Adoption of the Final Text of the Protocol, Section IV.

The P resident said that he would like to see this declaration placed in the Protocol and in the Final Act.

a 5ee footnote (4) on preceding page. The text which was then under discussion, and had been distributed to delegates, will be found in Annex 8. — 100 —

M. B runet (Belgium) said that he also had asked that this statement should be inserted in the Protocol and not in the Final Act, because the Protocol would' have to be submitted to Parliaments and these would thus know why certain States had not been included in the enumeration of Article C.

M. Calmes (Luxemburg) asked that, for the sentence " they may expect their participation" there should be substituted the sentence “ they may expect their ratification”.

M. D uzmans (Latvia) pointed out that this text excluded accession.

M. Calmes (Luxemburg) proposed that it should read : “ they may expect their ratification or accession”. This amendment was adopted.

56. Annexed Declaration.

The P resident said that he had a proposal for an amendment by the Hungarian anil Czechoslovak delegations. It was suggested to place the words “ and the conditions ” after/ the word " arrangements”. This proposal was adopted.

M. B runet (Belgium) thought that the Annexed Declaration should be placed after the] Protocol in order to be included among the documents which would be submitted to the | Parliaments.

The P resident pointed out that a declaration had been placed at the end when the | Convention had been drawn up in November.

M. Schüller (Austria) pointed out that there was a great difference between the two courses, and that if in November the Annexed Declaration could be placed after the Final Act, on this occasion it contained one of the conditions governing the carrying into effect of the treaty, and should therefore be placed after the Protocol, which would be ratified by the Parliaments.

The P resident put M. Brunet’s suggestion to the meeting. M. Brunet’s suggestion was adopted.

57. Statement by the Portuguese Delegate concerning Reservations and thePeriod | which must elapse before Denunciation may take place.

M. d ’Oliveira (Portugal) read the following declaration : “ On behalf of the Portuguese Government, I hereby state that the period which I must elapse before the Convention of November 8th, 1927, can be denounced ini connection with the Portuguese reservations admitted by the present Conference f and mentioned in Article A of the Supplementary Agreement which we have ju?j concluded, is the period of five years provided for by paragraph 4 of Article i l of the above-mentioned Convention. “ I would add that the Portuguese Government renews for its part anil expressly applies to the reservations which have just been granted to it the statement I inserted by the High Contracting Parties in Section IV, paragraph (a), ad No. 1, of | the Protocol to the Convention of November 8th, 1927. ”

58. Question of the Powers of Delegates to sign the Special Agreements on Hides, Skins j and Bones.

M. Serruys (France) drew the attention of the Conference to a very important question which had remained in abeyance, that of the competence of delegates to sign the Agreements on Hides, Skins and Bones. The delegates had been authorised by their Governments to sign the general Convention. Were they so authorised in the case of the special Agreements ? There were two views on this point. The first was that the greater includes the lesser, and that therefore the delegates might sign the two Agreements. According to the second view, special powers would be necessary, it being intended that the special Convention should enter into force before the general Convention. It was important to come to a decision on this question on the eve of signature.

M. Schüller (Austria) thought that the powers of delegates with regard to the signature of the special Agreements were derived from those that they had received for the first Conference.

M. Stucki (Switzerland) did not agree. Those delegates who were about to sign the special Agreements, which laid down rates of duty, were going further than the others. They ough to have special powers. —- 101 —

M. Schüller (Austria) thought that, even if M. Stucki’s view were to be accepted, it might always be admitted that the necessary special powers might be given at some future date after the signature. This procedure was often followed in the case of the signature of certain | commercial treaties.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Great Britain) said that he did not think it necessary for delegates •o refer to their Governments for special powers. In his own case he had been informed by his Government that his powers to sign the general Convention were sufficient to enable him to sign: the special Agreements relating to Hides, Skins and Bones.

Hassan Bey (Turkey) thought that the point of competence was not to be determined by I the Conference, but that it depended on each of the delegates and on their Governments.

M. S erru y s (France) did not agree with this view. A Conference was entitled to verify I the credentials of delegates, and hence to decide what international guarantees it required. In (the case of the Agreements on Hides, Skins and Bones, these guarantees were of three kinds : ■that of the delegates who had special powers ; that of the delegates who declared that they I had received instructions from their Government to sign ; and, finally, that which the Confe­ rence would have to adjudicate upon, from the theoretical point of view. M. Serruys I proposed that the general Conference should authorise the Conference on Hides, Skins and h ones to rule that special powers were derived from general powers, provided, of course, that leach of the delegates made a statement to this effect.

The P r e sid e n t said that the representative of the Legal Section wished to make a | statement.

Dr. B arandon (member of the Legal Section), said that M. Buero, Director of the Legal ISection, had expressed the view that the powers of delegates covered a special as well as a |general Convention. He would add, for his part, that for the Governments which had expressed [this view the question was already solved.

M. D uzmans (Latvia) considered that the fact of a Government giving its delegate powers ;to act at the general Conference, whilst also sending him to the special Conference, authorised the assumption that the general powers also covered the special Conference. It was difficult to see how such an assumption could be gainsaid. Hence, faced by these jconsiderations, no Government could legitimately refuse to recognise its delegate’s signature |to the Conventions on Hides, Skins and Bones.

M. Ito (Japan) said that M. Serruys had raised a delicate question. "In his opinion, the j Conference was not competent to do more than examine whether delegates’ powers were in due Border. The Conference was not competent to decide whether these powers were valid for other I Conferences. The Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones was an independent Conference and 1 might, if it chose, decide whether delegates’ full powers were valid or not. The question, [however, was no concern of the general Conference.

M. Serruys (France) washed to reassure M. Ito. He was not asking that the general [Conference should take a decision on the question, but merely that it should give its opinion. ■The terms of Article B constituted a link between the two Conferences ; there was certainly lno amalgamation, but there was a connection. The present discussion, which had eluci­ dated the position, would enable the Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones to take a decision (itself.

The P resident asked whether the Conference accepted the view of the representative | of the Legal Section.

M. Serruys (France) thought that, while the interpretation of the Legal Section had come I to the same conclusion as his own, this interpretation was dangerous from the very fact that jit was a legal one. The decision of the Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones should I be a decision on the facts of the case and not a legal one. A legal precedent should not be created by a statement that powers to sign a general Convention necessarily covered a special Convention. The Conference associated itself with M. Serruys’ point of view.

59- Statement by the Representative of the International Chamber of Commerce.

M. Albert B uisson, on behalf of the International Chamber of Commerce, read the following declaration : At the outset of this Conference, I venture to express, on behalf of the delegation of the international Chamber of Commerce, our confidence that the results of your discussions would 1mark a further step towards free trade, which, since the war, the business world has required

8* 102 with increasing urgency. This confidence has not been disappointed. The fact that very fe,v new reservations have been admitted — reservations, moreover, of very slight importance to world trade — is a new and striking proof of the spirit of conciliation and of unity that reigns among you. The Agreement that you will sign to-morrow, and which marks the reconstruction 0j liberalism in the world, will be welcomed with lively satisfaction by economic circles, and I mav now state that you may rest assured that the International Chamber of Commerce, by means of its national Committees, will put all its organisation into action in order to encourage Govern- ments to ratify the Convention. May I also be allowed to tell the members of the Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones of the value that we attach to the results obtained in a particularly difficult matter. These results are all the more encouraging in that they constitute the first international agreement on a specific matter, in which the idea of a maximum tariff has been introduced. We see in these provisions the first realisation of an idea to which the Consultative Economic Committee gave its attention last May and which may perhaps be greatly extended in the future. We wish to congratulate the special Conference on this success and especially its President M. Serruys, who presided over the discussions with his usual competence and power of persuasion, Finally, gentlemen, I must conclude by paying, on behalf of the International Chambe-1 of Commerce, a warm and sincere tribute to the genial and firm authority, the breadth of mir,;J and the great justice with which your President, M. Colijn, has guided your labours to <| happy a conclusion.

The P resident thanked the President of the International Chamber of Commerce for his friendly words. He wished to take this opportunity of seconding, on behalf of the Conference, the expression of gratitude towards M. Serruys, President of the Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones. Had it not been for M. Serruys' ability, he doubted whether the Conference would have achieved such happy results, for the success of the Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones had removed many difficulties from its path. He would add that the Conference was very grateful for the aid of the International Chamber of Commerce, and he expressed the hope that a representative of the Chamber would be present at all further Conferences in order to give his support when necessary.

M. Serruys (France) said that he was deeply moved by this mark of the sympathy of his colleagues. He thought, however, that the praise of his work was undeserved. The success of the Conference on Hides, Skins and Bones had been due above all to the happy progress of international understanding since the World Economic Conference. He hoped that this progress would continue unabated. (The meeting rqse at 5 p.m.)

TWELFTH MEETING.

Held on Wednesday, July n th 1928, , at 11 a.m.

60. Signature of the Supplementary Agreement to the Convention of November 8th, 1927, for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions.

The P resident invited the delegates of the States represented on the Conference to sign, in the alphabetical order of the States, the Supplementary Agreement, together with the Protocol and the Final Act. The President also invited the delegate of the International Chamber of Commerce to sign the Convention. The President said that he had received a communication from the delegate of Norway to the effect that it was not possible for him to be present at this meeting in order to sign the Agreement. The Conference might, however, consider the signature of Norway as secured.

Sir Sydney C h a p m a n (Great Britain), at the moment of signing the Agreement, made the following declaration : " I declare that my signature does not include any of His Britannic M a je s ty s colonies, protectorates or territories under suzerainty or mandate. "

M. S e r r u y s (France) also made the following declaration at the moment of signature “ On signing the present Supplementary Agreement, France declares that b; its acceptance it does not intend to assume any obligation in regard to any 0 its colonies, protectorates and territories under its suzerainty or mandate. " — 103 —

Mr. Wilson (United States) said that, since he had not received from his Government the jnStructions that he was awaiting, he could not sign the Agreement at this meeting.

The President pointed out that those States which, for certain reasons, had not yet signed ^ Agreement might benefit by the time-limit granted to them, viz., August 31st of the present year.

M. d ’Oliveira (Portugal) said that, although a delay had been granted him for the signature of the Convention, he would not take advantage of it, and that he was prepared to sign the invention at this meeting. Before appending his signature, M. d ’Oliveira spoke as follows, in Portuguese : Before concluding, and in order to exercise for the first time the right which belongs to all delegates to conferences summoned by the League of Nations to speak in their own lan­ g a g e , and in order that my words may be more spontaneous, I take the liberty of expressing [0 my colleagues our most sincere thanks for the kind welcome given by this Conference to (he Portuguese delegation. We see therein certain proof of your feelings for the noble and gloriou s country we represent. Our thanks are due to you, M. President, for the efficient manner and impartiality with which you have presided over our labours, and to all members of the Bureau, secretaries and interpreters for the patience, competence and goodwill they have shown in the performance of their delicate tasks.

Before inviting the delegate of Turkey to append his signature, the President read the Mowing letter, which had been presented to him, as a declaration, by Hassan Bey (Turkey) :

“ In signing to-day’s Supplementary Agreement to the Convention of Novem­ ber 8th, 1927, for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, I have the honour to state that my country, not having taken any part in the arrangements regarding the export of hides, skins and bones, considers itself in respect of such export as being bound only by the general stipulations of the said Convention, without being in any way pledged by the above-mentioned arrangements which would exceed the scope of the stipulations in question. I beg you, Mr. Presi­ dent, to inform the Conference of this declaration and to refer to it in the official Minutes of this meeting. (Signed) H assan, Vice-President of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, delegate of the Turkish Government. ” The President announced that twenty-six States had signed the Agreement, viz. : Austria Great Britain and Poland Belgium Northern Ireland Portugal Chile Hungary Roumania Czechoslovakia India Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats Denmark Italy and Slovenes Egypt Japan Siam Estonia Latvia Sweden Finland Luxemburg Switzerland France Netherlands Turkey. Germany

fo Close of the Session.

The delegates having signed, the P resident spoke as follows : Twenty-six States have signed to-day, and two other States, namely, Bulgaria and the United States of America, have been granted time up to August 31st next to append their signature. Moreover, Norway's signature may be regarded as secured. The time has now come to finish our labours, but, before I formally declare this Conference closed, you will perhaps allow me again to say a few words. I think we may congratulate ourselves that we have brought the present state of our work to a satisfactory conclusion, and I cannot but thank you for the support which you have given to the Chair throughout our meetings. I may add on your behalf, I think, a word of thanks to the staff of the Secretariat, which has assisted us in such a wonderful way. The Agreement which we are signing to-day, is, I think, the first multilateral agreement °f importance which directly affects the economic relations between nations, and is a definite step towards the greater freedom in the flow of goods which was so strongly recommended by the Economic Conference last year. In claiming for our Agreement to-day a rather special S'gnificance, I do not want to minimise the importance of the Formalities Convention. That instrument dealt, however, with what might be called the mechanism of commerce, the adminis­ trative hindrances which, like specks of dust, impede the smooth revolutions of the economic Machine. Our Agreement, however, deals with the mechanism itself and with its output. — 104 —

The fact of this Agreement having been signed to-day is therefore of some importance • but it is not yet, of course, what we really want, and in this connection I should like to dra\y your attention to one short sentence from the speech of the President of the Economic Consul tative Committee in May of this year : " Conventions signed at Geneva are useful only in so fa, as they are ratified

I think I may be allowed to remind you that the form of Conference was chosen, in dealing with this subject, in order that there should be sent to Geneva plenipotentiaries, that is to say, persons who would come so qualified as to be able to state exactly to what engagements their countries would be likely to be able to bind themselves. I hasten to add that we all of think, of course, that we have succeeded in drawing up a Convention which will meet win the agreement of the Governments concerned. But I wish to suggest that the status of the members of this Conference throws upon each one a very definite and personal responsibility to explain to those Governments the scope and meaning of our work, the concessions made the importance of the object to be attained, the reasons why they have each of them been willing to put their signature to the document to-day and to use all the influence which lie; in their power to procure its ratification.

I said: “ the concessions made”, and, in conclusion, I hope you will allow me t o s r that I believe those concessions have been very real ones. I have noticed of late a tendent to depreciate what is sometimes called " the spirit of Geneva”. I do not claim for that spirii whatever it may be, any mystical powers. But it does exist, and its worth seems to me to tj proved by practical experience and commonsense, and to be demonstrated by the plain fact that, when representatives of many countries sit down together round a table, discuss each other’s interests and hear each other’s difficulties, they are, at the end, much nearer agreement than they would have been if they had never met. And if they meet in this way, as is the case in our economic work, under the influence, not of some vague ideal, but having before their eyes the obvious desirability of arriving at a practical solution in the interests o general material prosperity, the chances of agreement are greatly increased among men o good-will and commonsense. I think the Convention which we have signed to-day is an example of that kind of agreement, and in the hope that it may be shortly carried into p ra c tic a l effect and may become the precursor of many other similar steps towards international ec o n o m ic agreement, I declare this Conference closed.

M. Di N ola (Italy), on behalf of the members of the Conference, thanked the President for the splendid manner in which he had directed its labours. The present Conference had effected an indisputable improvement on the Convention of November 8th, 1927. M. Di Nola congratulated the President and wished to draw attention to the great benefits of his direction ; the fact that the efforts of the present Conference had produced a tangible result was mainly due to his work. The delegates, on their arrival at Geneva, had abandoned all fear when they had recalled that their work was to be directed by M. Colijn. Their con­ fidence had returned, for they knew his eminent qualities : his manner of directing discussions, his impartiality, competence, firmness and great authority. M. Di Nola agreed with the President that, despite the work accomplished, there st remained much to be done. It would be of great value if the future economic Conferene were to be directed by M. Colijn ; their success would be assured. In conclusion, M. Di Nola, on behalf of his colleagues, assured the President of their feelings of gratitude and respect.

The President assured M. Di Nola that he was moved by his kind words, and thanked him warmly for them. He declared the Conference closed at 12.15 p.m. THIRD PART

ANNEXES — io6 —

ANNEX i.

PROPOSAL BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE.

A p pl ic a t io n o f A r t ic l e 17 o f t h e Co n v e n t io n o f N o v e m b e r 8t h , 1927.—D r a f t A rticles

A.—The High Contracting Parties agree that the present Convention must, in order to be brought into force, secure either the ratification as provided in Article 15, or the accession as provided in Article 16, of the following States : Germany Italy Denmark—Norway Austria—Czechoslovakia— France Finland Roumania Great Britain Switzerland Poland Belgium—Netherlands Portugal.

B.—Ratifications must be deposited with, or accessions notified to, the Secretariat of ti League of Nations not later than October 30th, 1929. Before November 30th, 1929, the Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall inform all States signatories of the present Convention, as well as those which may have acceded thereto in conformity with Article 16, of the ratifications deposited or of the accessions notified before October 30th, 1929.

C.—If all the States enumerated in paragraph A above have deposited their ratifications or notified their accessions before October 30th, 1929, the present Convention shall come into force on January 1st, 1930. In the contrary event, the procedure defined in the last paragraph of Article 17 shall be followed.

ANNEX 2.

PROPOSALS BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE.—SECOND DRAFT.

A p p l ic a t io n of A r t ic l e 17 o f t h e Co n v e n t io n o f N o v e m b e r 8 t h , 1927.

A.—The High Contracting Parties agree that the present Convention must, in order to be brought into force, secure either the ratification as provided in Article 15, or the accessioi as provided in Article 16, of at least twenty States.

B.—Ratifications must be deposited with, or accessions notified to, the Secretariat the League of Nations not later than September 30th, 1929. Each Contracting Party may, on depositing its ratification or notifying its accession, maki the entry into force of the present Convention conditional, as far as it is concerned, on the ratification or adhesion of one or several of the following States : Austria Hungary Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats Czechoslovakia Italy and Slovenes France Japan Switzerland Germany Poland Turkey Great Britain Roumania (United States of America).

C.—Before October 31st, 1929, the Secretariat of the League of Nations shall inform al States signatories of the present Convention, as well as those which have acceded thereto in conformity with Article 16, of the ratifications deposited or of the accessions notified before September 30th, 1929, and, in the event of some of them having been made conditional on the ratification or accession of one or more of the States enumerated in paragraph B above the names of these States.

D.—If it appears from the above-mentioned communication of the Secretary-General of the League of Nations that the conditions required in virtue of paragraphs A and B above were fulfilled by September 30th, 1929, the present Convention shall come into force on January ist.

1930. . In the contrary event, the procedure defined in the last paragraph of Article 17 s"au be followed. * * * — io 7 —

(For possible insertion in the Final Act.)

The High Contracting Parties declare that, in drawing up the List of States figuring in naragraph B, they have been chiefly guided by the interdependence of certain interests affirmed in the course of the Conference’s proceedings. They have omitted to mention certain States owing to the fact that, as the latter have at present no prohibitions, it is believed that their participation may be counted on. They also thought it best to omit mentioning States where the importance of the economic interests at stake or considerations of geographical situation would have been the only justification.

ANNEX 3.

PROPOSALS BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE. —THIRD DRAFT.

Application of A rticle 17 of t h e Co n v en tio n o f N o vem ber 8t h , 1927.—D raft A r tic le TO BE SUBMITTED FOR ANNEX 2 .

The High Contracting Parties agree that the present Convention must, in order to be brought into force, secure either the ratification as provided in Article 15, or the accession as provided in Article 16, of at least eighteen States. These States must include the following : Austria Hungary Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats Czechoslovakia Italy and Slovenes France Japan Switzerland Germany Poland Turkey Great Britain Roumania United States of America. Before October 31st, 1929, the Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall inform all States signatories of the present Convention, as well as those who have acceded thereto in conformity with Article 16, of the ratifications deposited or of the accessions notified before September 30th, 1929. If it appears from the above-mentioned communication of the Secretary-General of the League of Nations that the conditions required in virtue of the first two paragraphs of the present article and of the annexed Protocol were fulfilled by September 30th, 1929, the present Convention shall come into force on January 1st, 1930. In the contrary event, the procedure defined in the last paragraph of Article 17 shall be followed.

(For possible insertion in the Final Act.)

The High Contracting Parties declare that, in drawing up the List of States figuring in Article..., they have been chiefly guided by the interdependence of certain interests affirmed in the course of the Conference’s proceedings. They have omitted to mention certain States owing to the fact that, as the latter have at present scarcely any prohibitions of material importance, it is believed that their participation may be counted on. They also thought it best to omit mentioning States where the importance of the economic interests at stake or considerations of geographical situation would have been the only justification.

P rotocol act A r tic le C.

Owing to the special position of the United States with regard to their parliamentary prospects during the year 1928-29, the High Contracting Parties are agreed that, if the United States’ ratification has not been obtained before September 30th, 1929, in conformity with the provisions of Article C, but the ratifications or accessions of all the other States which are declared indispensable by the same article have been received by September 30th, 1929, the Convention shall come into force on January 1st, 1930, unless, previous to November 15th, I929. one of the States having ratified the Convention by that date or having acceded thereto before September 30th, 1929, raises an objection. In this case, the last paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, shall apply. — io8 —

ANNEX 4.

REPORT OF THE SECOND CONFERENCE ON HIDES, SKINS AND BONES TO THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR THE ABOLITION OF IMPORT AND EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE AGREEMENT REACHED ON HIDES, SKINS AND BONES.

D raft I nternational A g r eem en ts rela tin g to t h e E x portatio n of H id e s , S kin s and B o n e s.

In conformity with paragraph 3 of the Final Act of the Convention signed on November ! 1927, at Geneva, the Council of the League of Nations convened two Diplomatic Conferences which were held at Geneva on March 14th to 16th, 1928, and June 28th to 30th, 1928, wit! a view to securing from the participating States a joint renunciation of the prohibition on hides skins and bones, implying the abandonment of any reservation they might have submittei under Article 6 of the Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions ant Restrictions. The agreement desired by the Conference of October-November 1927 and by the Counci has happily been realised, and the abolition of all prohibitions on hides, skins and bones has been decided upon in concert by the following sixteen States : Austria Germany Poland Belgium Great Britain Roumania Czechoslovakia Hungary Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats Denmark Italy and Slovenes Finland Luxemburg Switzerland. France Netherlands The renunciation by the above States of reservations made by them in virtue of Article of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, was only obtained in regard to hides, skins and bones by an agreement regarding the export duties which are or may be applied by certain of them. The annexed texts of Conventions will give an idea of the conditions of application contemplated, which are agreed to by the various signatory States only on the express condition that the Convention should be ratified by all — a procedure being provided, however, for the eventuality of this condition not being fulfilled. As regards the Convention on Bones, it should, however, be remarked that it expressly allows Italy to maintain the prohibition on the export of raw or dried bones and waste thereof ant horns and hoofs and waste thereof, Italy being unable, owing to her international obligations, to avail herself of the faculty granted to other countries, and notably to certain adjacenl countries, to increase the export duty up to 3 Swiss francs. The export duty existing in Italy, consolidated by the Conventions in force, is 2 papi lire. Thus, if Italy were obliged to renounce the export prohibition, she would find hersel in a position of inferiority as compared with adjacent countries, to the detriment of her glue industry. The Conference nevertheless took note of the declarations made on several occasions by the Italian delegate concerning his Government’s intention of abolishing this prohibition as sooi as it could modify the export duty. The only point on which the Conference concerning the exportation of hides, skins and bones has not pronounced is that of the date of the application of the Conventions, which it regarded as subordinated to the decision to be taken by the Second Conference on the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions as to the application of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 17 of the Convention of November 8th, 1927. In this connection, two systems were proposed in the course of the discussions of the Con­ ference on Hides, Skins and Bones. According to the first, the Conventions on Skins and Bones should be regarded as acts separate from the general Convention, of which the Conference on the Abolition of Prohibitions and Restrictions would take note, only reserving the right of taking any necessary action in the event of the Conventions concerning the exportation of hides, skins and bones, which require the ratification of the various Parliaments, not being ratified by certain signatory States. According to the other system, the special Conven­ tions on the Exportation of Hides, Skins and Bones, being regarded as supplementary to the general Convention on the Abolition of Prohibitions and Restrictions, should only enter into force simultaneously with the Convention of November 8th, 1927, and it would be for the Conference at present sitting to define the relation to be established between the special Conven­ tions and the general Convention as regards both paragraphs (b) and paragraph (c) of Article !?• It will therefore be necessary for the present Conference to consider the problem raised by the Conferences relating to the exportation of hides, skins and bones. — io g —

I h av e the honour, Mr. Chairman, to ask you, on behalf of the latter, to place the question dealt w ith in the present report on the agenda of the Conference over which you are presiding.

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE EXPORTATION OF BONES.

(Heads of States.)

Being desirous of removing the obstacles which at present hinder trade in certain raw I materials, and of giving effect to the recommendation made in the Final Act of the Convention 0f November 8th, 1927, for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, jn a manner as favourable as possible to production and to international trade, Have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries : (List of Plenipotentiaries.) I who, having exchanged their full powers found in good and due form, have agreed on the I following provisions : Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake that, on and after October 1st, 1929, the export I of raw or dried bones and waste thereof, horns and hoofs and waste thereof, and glue-stock shall not be subjected by them to any prohibition or restriction under whatever form or Ïdenomination. Article 2. The High Contracting Parties who at present impose no export duties on the products I enumerated in Article 1, or whose export duties do not exceed the rate of 1.50 Swiss franc I per hundred kilogrammes, undertake not to impose or maintain, after October 1st, 1929, any export duty on these products exceeding the rate of 1.50 Swiss franc. Article 3. The High Contracting Parties who at present impose on the products referred to in Article 1 any export duty in excess of 3 Swiss francs undertake to reduce it as from October 1st, 1929, to a figure not exceeding 3 Swiss francs. Article 4. The High Contracting Parties who at present impose on the products referred to in I Article 1 export duties exceeding 1.50 but not exceeding 3 Swiss francs, but who do not impose I prohibitions on these products, undertake not to increase the rates of duty at present in force.

Nevertheless, export duties not exceeding 3 Swiss francs may be imposed by those High Contracting Parties who impose at present duties in excess of 1.50, but not exceeding 3 Swiss |francs, provided that the duties are now imposed at the same time as prohibitions. Article 5. In regard to the products mentioned in Article 1, no tax, apart from a statistical duty, Imay be instituted or maintained which, by virtue of the respective legislations of the High [Contracting Parties, is not applicable to all commercial transactions of which these products nay be the subject.

Article 6. The present Agreement in no way precludes the conclusion of special agreements between lany of the High Contracting Parties based either on the limitation of export duties to rates llower than those authorised by the said Agreement or on the abolition of all export duties. Such agreements shall not, however, affect the rights of third countries under treaties |based on most-favoured-nation treatment. Article 7. The present Agreement, of which the French and English texts shall both be authentic, ; shall bear this day’s date. I It may be signed subsequently until December 31st, 1928, on behalf of any Member of I., League of Nations or of any non-Member State to which the Council of the League of I at>°ns may have communicated a copy of the present Agreement for this purpose. Article 8. The present Agreement shall be ratified. lhe instruments of ratification shall be deposited before July 1st, 1929, with the Secretary- Leneral of the League of Nations, who shall immediately notify the receipt thereof to all the ^embers of the League of Nations and all the non-Member States on whose behalf the present greement and the Convention of November 8th, 1927, have been signed or adhered to. 110 —

Should the present Agreement not have been ratified by this date by some of the Members of the League of Nations and non-Member States on whose behalf it has been signed, the High Contracting Parties shall be invited by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to consider the possibility of putting it into force. They undertake to participate in thB consultation, which shall take place before September ist, 1929. If by September ist, 1929, all the Members of the League of Nations and non-Member States on whose behalf the present Agreement has been signed have ratified it, or if, un(jer the procedure laid down in the preceding paragraph, those on whose behalf it has been ratified decide to put it into force, the present Agreement shall come into force on October ist, ig2g and this fact shall be notified by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all the High Contracting Parties to the present Agreement and to the Convention of November 8th 1927.

Article 9. On and after January ist, 1929, any Member of the League of Nations and any non-Membtt State referred to in Article 7 may accede to the present Agreement. This accession shall be effected by a notification made to the Secretary-General of the LeagJ of Nations, to be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat. J The Secretary-General shall immediately notify such deposit to all who have signed 1 acceded to the present Agreement. 1 Article 10. 1 If, after the expiration of a period of two years from the date of the coming into force of I the present Agreement, an application for a revision of Articles 2, 3 and 4 has been made to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations by at least one-third of the Members of the League of Nations and non-Member States to which the present Agreement applies, the others undertake to participate in any consultation which may be held for this purpose. Any Member of the League of Nations and any non-Member State to which the present Agreement applies may, if such consultation results in a rejection of this application for a revision, or if it considers that it cannot accept the revised Articles 2, 3 or 4, resume its liberty of action as regards the provisions of these Articles six months after the revision has been refused, or as from the date of the coming into force of the revised Articles 2, 3 or 4, provided notice be given to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. If, as the result of denunciations in accordance with the preceding paragraph, one-third of the Members of the League of Nations and non-Member States which are bound by the present Agreement but have not denounced it demand a further consultation, all the High Contracting Parties undertake to participate therein. Any denunciation made in conformity with the foregoing provisions shall be notified immediately by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all the other High Contracting Parties. Article 11. Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding Article relating to denunciation! the present Agreement may be denounced on behalf of any Member of the League of Natioti or of any non-Member State after the expiration of a period of five years from the date on whil it comes into force, such denunciation to take effect twelve months after the date on whil it is notified to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. 1 Such denunciation shall only take effect in so far as concerns the Member of the Leagffil of Nations or the non-Member State on whose behalf it has been made. Any denunciation made in conformity with this procedure shall be notified immediatelj by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all the other High Contracting Parties If any High Contracting Party considers that any denunciation thus made has created a new situation, and makes to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations a request to this effect, the latter shall convene a Conference in which the other High Contracting Parties undertake to participate. This Conference may, within a period to be fixed by itself, either terminate the obligations arising under the present Agreement or modify its provisions. If any Member of the League of Nations or any non-Member State bound by the present Agreement is unable to agree to the modifications introduced, the said Agreement may be denounced on its behalf, and it shall then be released from its obligations thereunder as from the date 00 which the denunciation which led to the convening of the Conference takes effect.

Article 12. The provisions of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Convention of Novem ber 8th, 1927, and the provisions of the Protocol relating to these Articles, as well as of paragraph (, o f the Protocol to Article 1, shall apply to the present Agreement in so far as the obligations contained therein and the products covered by it allow. As regards the application of t c procedure provided for in the above-mentioned Article 8, no distinction shall be made between the various provisions of the preceding Articles of the present Agreement. In fa ith w h e r e o f the above-mentioned Plenipotentiaries have signed the presen' Agreement. — I l l —

Done at Geneva the eleventh day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, in a single copy, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of the League of Nations, and of which certified true copies shall be delivered to all Members of the League of Nations. P rotocol to th e A g r e e m e n t .

At the moment of signing the International Agreement relating to the Exportation of Bones, concluded this day, the undersigned, duly authorised, have agreed on the following provisions, which are intended to ensure the application of that Agreement : The provisions of the Agreement relative to the Exportation of Bones of this day’s date shall apply to prohibitions and restrictions on the exportation of the products mentioned in Article i of the said Agreement from the territories of any High Contracting Party to the territories of any other High Contracting Party.

Section I. Ad Article I. (a) The provisions of Article i shall apply to Italy only in so far as concerns glue- stock hide. As regards the other goods mentioned in the said Article, the High Contracting Parties recognising that Italy, by reason of conventions concluded with certain countries, is unable to increase her export duty of two paper lire, agree that she may maintain the prohibition at present in force, so long as the stipulation concerning the said rate of export duty also remains in force. (b) “ Bone waste ” includes parings of bone (commonly known as “ dentelles ”) used in the manufacture of buttons and similar articles.

Section II. Ad Article 2. As regards the application of Article 2, the High Contracting Parties, recognising the special situation of Austria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, authorise these countries, not­ withstanding the precisions of the said Article 2, to impose an export duty which may exceed the rate of 1.50 Swiss franc, provided for in that Article, but which must not in any case exceed 3 Swiss francs. Section III. Ad Article 3. In consideration of the annexed declarations signed by the delegates of Poland, Roumania and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, the High Contracting Parties agree that these countries shall be provisionally released from all obligations as regards export duties on the products referred to in Article 1 of the Agreement of this day’s date. i [Translation.] A. D eclaration by the P olish D elegation. The Polish Government having, under the terms of Section III of the Protocol, ad Article 3 above, I ken accorded the right to maintain or levy, without any limitation as to rates, an export duty loathe products referred to in Article 1 of the Agreement of this day’s date, willingly gives an assu­ rance that it will not increase the rates at present in force and will make every effort to reduce I these rates progressively in the future.

\ [Translation.] B. D eclaration by the R oumanian D elegation. While reserving the right to maintain export duties on raw and dried bones and waste thereof, the Roumanian Government declares that it has no intention whatever of maintaining in respect °f these commodities, by means of excessive export duties, the prohibition which has been abolished ; it merely desires to retain full liberty with a view to arriving at a normal situation by the gradual reduction of export duties, a course which it has already pursued in the case of other raw materials.

[Translation.]

C. Declaration by the D elegation of the K ingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Serb-Croat-Slovene Government having, under the terms of Section III of the Protocol, Article 3 above, been accorded the right to maintain or levy, without any limitation as to rates, an export duty on the products referred to in Article 1 of the Agreement of this day’s date, willingly gives an assurance that it will not exceed the rate of 4 Swiss francs and will make every effort 0 reduce this rate progressively in the future.

. _ Section IV . Articles 2, 3 and 4. The High Contracting Parties agree that glue-stock hide shall not be assimilated to the Products referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4 and that, except in the case of the countries referred — 112 — to in Section III of the present Protocol, no export duty shall be levied on glue-stock hide They agree, however, that Hungary may levy on this product an export duty which shall not in any case exceed two-thirds of the duties applicable to the products referred to in Article j of the Agreement of this day’s date.

In f a i t h w h e r e o f the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Protocol.

D o n e at Geneva on the eleventh day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight in a single copy, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of the 'League of Nations, and of which certified true copies shall be delivered to all Members of the League of Nations.

I nternational A g r e e m e n t r e l a t i n g t o t h e E x p o r t a t i o n o f H i d e s a n d S k i n s .

(Heads of States.)

Being desirous of removing the obstacles which at present hinder trade in certain raw materials, and of giving effect to the recommendation made in the Final Act of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restriction; in a manner as favourable as possible to production and to international trade, Have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries :

(List of Plenipotentiaries.) who, having communicated their full powers found in good and due form, have agreed on the following provisions :

Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake that, on and after October ist, 1929, the exportation of raw or prepared hides and skins shall not be subject to any prohibition or restriction under whatever form or denomination.

Article 2. , The High Contracting Parties undertake that, as from the same date, there shall neither be maintained nor imposed on the products referred to in Article 1 any export duty or any charge—apart from a statistical duty—which, under the respective laws of the High Contracting Parties, is not applicable to all commercial transactions in these products.

Article 3. The present Agreement, of which the French and English texts shall both be authentic, shall bear this day’s date. It may be signed subsequently until December 31st, 1928, on behalf of any Member ol the League of Nations or of any non-Member State to which the Council of the League 0! Nations may have communicated a copy of the present Agreement for this purpose.

Article 4. The present Agreement shall be ratified. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited before July ist, 1929, with the Secretary- General of the League of Nations, who shall immediately notify the receipt thereof to all the Members of the League of Nations and all the non-Member States on whose behalf the present Agreement and the Convention of November 8th, 1927, have been signed or adhered to. Should the present Agreement not have been ratified by this date by some of the M e m b e r s of the League of Nations and non-Member States on whose behalf it has been signed, the High Contracting Parties shall be invited by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to consider the possibility of putting it into force. They undertake to participate in this consultation, which shall take place before September ist, 1929. If by September ist, 1929, all the Members of the League of Nations and non-Member States on whose behalf the present Agreement has been signed have ratified it, or if, under the procedure laid down in the preceding paragraph, those on whose behalf it has been ratified decide to put it into force, the present Agreement shall come into force on October ist, 1929- and this fact shall be notified by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all the High Contracting Parties to the present Agreement and to the Convention of November 8th, I9Z7’

Article 5.

On and after January ist, 1929, any Member of the League of Nations and any non-Member State referred to in Article 3 may accede to the present Agreement. This accession shall be effected by a notification made to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, to be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat. The Secretary-General shall immediately notify such deposit to all who have s ig n e d or acceded to the present Agreement. — i i 3 —

Article 6. If, after the expiration of a period of two years from the date of the coming into force of the present Agreement, an application for a revision of Article 2 has been made to the Secretary- General of the League of Nations by at least one-third of the Members of th e League of Nations and non-Member States to which the present Agreement applies, the others undertake to narticipate in any consultation which may b e held for this purpose. Any Member of the League of Nations and any non-Member State to which the present Agreement applies may, if such consultation results in a rejection of its application for a revision, or if it considers that it cannot accept the revised Article 2, resume its liberty of action as regards the provisions of this Article six months after the revision has been refused, or as from the date of coming into force of the revised Article 2, provided notice be given to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. If, as the result of denunciations in accordance with the preceding paragraph, one-third of the Members of the League of Nations and non-Member States which are bound by the present Agreement but have not denounced it demand a further consultation, all the High Contracting Parties undertake to participate therein. Any denunciation made in conformity with the foregoing provisions shall be notified immediately by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all the other High Contracting Parties. Article 7. Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding Article relating to denunciation, the present Agreement may be denounced on behalf of any Member of the League of Nations or any non-Member State after the expiration of a period of five years from the date on which it comes into force, such denunciation to take effect twelve months after the date on which it is notified to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. Such denunciation shall only take effect in so far as concerns the Member of the League of Nations or the non-Member State on whose behalf it has been made. Any denunciation made in conformity with this procedure shall be notified immediately by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all the other High Contracting Parties. If any High Contracting Party considers that any denunciation thus made has created a new situation, and makes to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations a request to this effect, the latter shall convene a Conference in which the other High Contracting Parties undertake to participate. This Conference may, within a period to be fixed by itself, either terminate the obligations arising under the present Agreement or modify its provisions. If any Member of the League of Nations or non-Member State bound by the present Agreement is unable to agree to the modification introduced, the said Agreement may be denounced on its behalf, and it shall then be released from its obligations thereunder as from the date on which the denunciation which led to the convening of the Conference takes effect.

Article 8.

T h e provisions of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, and the provisions of the Protocol relating to these Articles, as well as of paragraph (b) of t h e Protocol to Article 1, shall apply to the present Agreement in so far as the obligations contained therein and the products covered by the Agreement allow. As regards tte application of the procedure provided for in the above-mentioned Article 8, no distinction shall be made between the various provisions of the preceding Articles of the present Agreement.

In f a i t h w h e r e o f the above-mentioned Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Agreement.

D one at Geneva on the eleventh day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, m a single copy, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of the League of Nations, and of which certified true copies shall be delivered to all Members of the League of Nations. P r o t o c o l t o t h e A g r e e m e n t .

At the moment of signing the International Agreement relating to the Exportation of : Hides and Skins concluded this day, the undersigned, duly authorised, have agreed on the following provisions, which are intended to ensure the application of that Agreement.

The provisions of the Agreement relative to the Exportation of Hides and Skins of this day’s date shall apply to prohibitions and restrictions on the exportation of the products mentioned in Article 1 of the said Agreement from the territories of any High Contracting Party to the territories of any other High Contracting Party.

Ad Article 1. “ Prepared hides and skins ” shall, for the purposes of the present Agreement, mean “'des and skins which have undergone some form of preparation for the sole purpose of ensuring their preservation. — 114 —

Ad Article 2. In consideration of the annexed declaration signed by the delegate of Roumania, the High Contracting Parties agree that that country shall provisionally not be bound by the provisions of Article 2 of the Agreement of this day’s date. [Translation,] D eclaration by the R oumanian D elegation. While reserving the right to maintain export duties on raw and dried bones and waste thereof the Roumanian Government declares that it has no intention whatever of maintaining in respect of these commodities, by means of excessive export duties, the prohibition which has been abolished it merely desires to retain full liberty with a view to arriving at a normal situation by the gradual reduction of export duties, a course which it has already pursued in the case of other raw materials {Signed) A ntoniade.

ANNEX 5.

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT TO THE CONVENTION OF NOVEMBER 8th, 1927.

(List of Heads of States.)

Having regard to the Convention concluded at Geneva on November 8th, 1927, for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions ; Having regard to the provisions of Article 17 of the said Convention ; Have appointed as their plenipotentiaries for the meeting provided for in the said article, namely :

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed to the following provisions intended to supplement the provisions of the aforesaid Convention of which they shall form an integral part.

A rticle A.

The Annex to Article 6 of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, is supplemented as follow: for the benefit of the countries named hereafter :

I. Exceptions agreed to under Paragraph x. Bulgaria Rose-trees and roots and shoots. Ex-port, Chile Scrap iron and scrap zinc. Export. Mares. Export. Czechoslovakia Hop shoots. Export. Portugal Fine wool. Export. Cork in the raw state. Export. Sweden Scrap iron. Export.

Exceptions agreed to under Paragraph 2. Czechoslovakia Quartzite. Export. Estonia Platinum, Precious stones, Pearls and corals (in a rough state or finished, loose or mounted). Export- Portugal Pine resin. Export. United States Helium gas. Export-

A rticle B.

In the event of the Conventions concluded on this day’s date concerning liberty of trade in skins, hides and bones not coming into force in default of the necessary ratifications, the High Contracting Parties to the present Supplementary Agreement agree that each of them shall — i i 5 —

aUthorised to submit subsequent requests for exceptions which they were entitled to introduce der the provisions of Article 6 and the annexed Protocol and which they have renounced u y;eW of the aforesaid Conventions. in such requests for exceptions must be addressed to the Secretary-General of the League of

% t i o n s before September 30th, 1929, and shall be notified by him to the High Contracting I parties before October 31st, 1929, at the same time as the communication provided for in Urticle C below. The High Contracting Parties undertake to meet without delay upon receiving an invitation jr0m the Secretary-General in order to examine the requests for exceptions referred to above.

A r tic le C.

The High Contracting Parties agree that the Convention must, in order to be brought into force, secure either the ratification as provided in Article 15 of the said Convention, or the accession as provided in Article 16, of at least eighteen members of the League of Nations or non-Member States, among which the following must be included :

A ustria Hungary Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats Czechoslovakia Italy and Slovenes France Japan Switzerland Germany Poland Turkey Great Britain Roumania United States of America. It is, however, permissible for each of the High Contracting Parties to state at the moment of ratification that it makes the entry into force of the Convention, in so far as it is concerned, conditional on the ratification or accession of certain of the countries named above, which it shall specify. The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall immediately inform each of the High Contracting Parties of each ratification or accession received and of any observations by which it may be accompanied in conformity with the preceding paragraph. On October 31st, 1929, the Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall notify all the Members of the League or non-Member States on behalf of which the Convention has been signed, or acceded to under Article 16, of the ratifications deposited and accessions notified before September 30th, 1929.

A r tic le D.

If it appears from the communication of the Secretary-General of the League of Nations I which is referred to in the last paragraph of the preceding article that the conditions required I in virtue of the first two paragraphs of the said article and of the annexed Protocol have been fulfilled by September 30th, 1929, the Convention shall come into force on January ist, 1930. In the contrary event, the procedure laid down in the last paragraph of Article 17 of the I Convention shall be followed.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Agreement.

Done at Geneva on July ...., one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, in a single Icopy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of the League of Nations : lceitified true copies shall be forwarded to all the Members of the League of Nations and all 1 the non-Member States represented at the Conference.

ANNEX 6.

DRAFT PROTOCOL TO THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT.

At the moment of proceeding to the signature of the Supplementary Agreement to the Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions concluded °n this day’s date, the undersigned, duly authorised, have agreed on the following provisions which are intended to ensure the application of the Supplementary Agreement :

S e c t io n I.

The High Contracting Parties declare that, in the text of the Supplementary Agreement 0 *his day’s date the expression “ the Convention ” shall be taken to mean both the Convention 0 November 8th, 1927, on the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions the Supplementary Agreement of this day’s date. — i i 6 —

S e c t i o n IT.

Ad Article A.

(a) Cork in the raw state, in respect of which an exception has been allowed for Portugal does not include scrap cork or cork in agglomerated form, in shavings or in sheets. (b) Although the exceptions set out in Article A, like those appearing in the Annex to Article 6, have been allowed on the condition that the countries benefiting thereby shall sign the present Supplementary Agreement on the day of the general signature, it has appeared equitable to grant an extension up to August 31st inclusive, in the first place to countries which having signed the Convention of November 8th, 1927, were unable to send representatives to the present Conference, and, secondly, to countries which, having been allowed exception; under Article 6 of the Convention of November 8th, 1927, would not be able to enjoy the benefit thereof owing to their late signature. (c) Agreeing to the exception of hop shoots in favour of Czechoslovakia under paragraph 1 of Article 6, the High Contracting Parties declare that their consent has been given in retun for the written undertaking entered into by the Czechoslovak delegation to allow the free expe of this product to all countries guaranteeing Czechoslovakia the legal or administrative protectic of the appellation of origin of this product.

S e c t i o n III.

Ad Article C.

Owing to the special position of the United States in consequence of the short parliamentary' session in the year 1928-29, the High Contracting Parties agree that, if the ratification of the United States has not been obtained before September 30th, 1929, in conformity with the provi­ sions of Article C, but the ratifications or accessions of all the other countries which are declared indispensable by the same article have been received by September 30th, 1929, the Convention shall come into force on January ist, 1930, unless previous to November 15th, 1929, any High Contracting Party which has ratified the Convention or acceded thereto before September 30th, 1929, raises objection. In this event, the provisions of the last paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention shall apply.

Ad Article C, Paragraph 2.

The High Contracting Parties declare that, in drawing up the List of Countries in Article C they have been chiefly guided by the interdependence of certain interests affirmed in the cours: of the proceedings of the Conference. They have also thought it undesirable to include the names of countries in cases in whi: the importance of economic interests or considerations of geographical situation would ha been the only justification. If they have not included the names of certain countries, it is because the latter at prese: impose few prohibitions of real importance, in consequence of which their participation s anticipated.

I n f a it h w h e r e o f the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Protocol.

D o n e at Geneva on July __ , one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, in a single copy, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat of the League of Nations; certified true copies shall be forwarded to all the Members of the League of Nations and to all the non-Member States represented at the Conference.

*

* *

A n n e x e d D e c l a r a t io n .

The Austrian, German and Hungarian delegations, in accepting in favour of Czechoslovakia the exception of quartzite under paragraph 2 of Article 6, have desired to state that their consent was obtained in return for an undertaking on the part of Czechoslovakia to maintain, as M as the Convention remains in force, the export quotas already existing on the basis o f special treaties or arrangements. — i i 7 —

A N N E X 7.

DRAFTS OF ARTICLE C SUBMITTED AT THE ELEVENTH MEETING.

A r t ic l e C.

T h e High Contracting Parties agree that the Convention, in order to be brought into force, m u s t h a v e secured either ratification as provided for in Article 15, or accession as provided for i n Article 16 of the said Convention, on behalf of at least eighteen Members of the League of N ations or non-Member States, among which the following must be included : Austria Hungary Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats Czechoslovakia Italy and Slovenes France Japan Switzerland Germany Poland Turkey Great Britain Roumania United States of America. The ratifications must be deposited before September 30th, 1929. I t is permissible for each of the High Contracting Parties to state at the moment of the d e p o sit of his ratification that he makes the entry into force of the Convention, in so far as he is concerned, conditional on the ratification or accession on behalf of certain of the countries n a m e d above, which he shall specify. The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall immediately inform each of the High Contracting Parties of each ratification or accession received and of any observations by which it may be accompanied in conformity with the preceding paragraph. On October 31st, 1929, the Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall notify all the Members of the League and non-Member States on behalf of which the Convention has been signed or acceded to under Article 16 of the Convention, of the ratifications deposited and acces­ sions notified before September 30th, 1929.

A l t e r n a t i v e T e x t f o r t h e F i r s t T h r e e P a r a g r a p h s o f A r t i c l e C. The High Contracting Parties agree that the Convention, in order to be brought into force, must have secured either ratification as provided in Article 15, or accession as provided in Article 16 of the said Convention, on behalf of at least eighteen Members of the League of Nations or non-Member States. The ratifications must be deposited before September 30th, 1929. Each of the High Contracting Parties will inform the Secretary-General of the League of Nations at the moment of the deposit of his ratification whether he makes the entry into force of the Convention, in so far as he is concerned, conditional on ratification or accession on behalf of any of the following countries which, in this event, shall be specified, viz. : Austria Hungary Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats Czechoslovakia Italy and Slovenes France Japan Switzerland Germany Poland Turkey Great Britain Roumania United States of America.

A N N E X 8.

DRAFT OF TEXT OF SECTION IV (a) OF THE PROTOCOL AS WORDED AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN THE FIRST THREE PARAGRAPHS OF ARTICLE C.

Owing to the special position of the United States in consequence of the short session of Congress in the year 1928-29, the High Contracting Parties agree that, even if the ratification of the United States stipulated by certain countries under paragraph 3 of Article C has not been deposited by September 30th, 1929, the Convention shall come into force on January ist, *■930, provided always that all the other countries on which the entry into force of the Convention depends and the total number of which would in this case be reduced to seventeen, shall have notified their ratification or accession before September 30th, 1929, and provided that none of he countries on behalf of which ratifications have been deposited or accessions notified before his date raises objection before November 15th, 1929. In this event, the last paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention shall apply.

9 — n 8 —

A N N E X 9.

LIST OF EXCEPTIONS CLAIMED BY VARIOUS GOVERNMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION OF NOVEMBER 8t h , 1927.

I. E x c e pt io n s c laim ed u n d e r P aragraph i .

B e lg iu m . Raw bones (fresh or boiled), including pounded bones1. Export

B u lg a r ia . Rose-trees and roots and shoots. Export

Czechoslovakia. Automobiles. Import Salicylic acid and its derivatives. Pink clover seed, sugar-beet seed. Cattle and swine for slaughter and breeding. Wine (ex No. 109 of the Czechoslovak Customs Tariff). Pink clover seed (ex No. 56). Expot, Hides and skins, raw (No. 83), bones and parings2 (negotiations are to be entered into between the industrialists in the countries concerned regarding these products with a view to the preparation of a joint scheme for an international conference).

P o la n d . Synthetic organic dyestuffs and colours or colouring matter containing them, as well as organic intermediate products used in the manufacture of such dyestuffs, colours and colouring matter. Import

P o r tu g a l. Edible oils, oil, beans, oats and other agricultural produce used for food ; horses, mules, cattle, automobile chassis and bodywork exceeding 1,500 kilogrammes in weight. Import, Poultry, eggs, oil, potatoes, dried vegetables, bread cereals, rice, fresh meat, live-stock, wool, raw cork, cocoons and pine resin. Export,

S w ed en . Scrap iron. Export,

II. E x c e pt io n s c laim ed u n d e r P aragraph 2.

Czechoslovakia. Seeds of conifers. Shoots of forest trees. Import. Sugar beet. Export. Timber, rounded (ex No. 134). Hop shoots (ex No. 56). Live game (hares, partridges, pheasants). Quartzite (ex No. 142).

E sto n ia . Platinum, precious stones, pearls and corals in a rough state or finished, loose or mounted. (Basic tariffs for Customs duties published in the Riigi Teataja — Estonian Official Journal, Nos. 4/5, 1924.) Export, Butter and eggs (export allowed subject to a licence). Laws concern­ ing the conditions required for the export of dairy produce and of eggs. Official Journal, Nos. 85/86, 1924, and Nos. 83/84, 1925. Export.

N o rw a y . Vessels, parts of vessels and the shares of companies owning vessels (Law of July 21st, 1916, and Supplementary Law of July 13th, 1917, prohibiting the sale of vessels to foreign countries). Exfori. Certain cereals and the flour made therefrom (Law of June 25th, 1926, Import concerning the country’s corn supply3). and Export-

P o la n d . Crude oil. Export,

United States of America. Helium gas. Export-

1 Conditional claim. See letter of January 30th, 1928, and telegram of February 9th, 1928, from the Belgi21 Government, reproduced in document C.I.A.P. 23. 2 Conditional claim. See telegram from the Czechoslovak Government of February 2nd, 1928, reproduced ffl document C.I.A.P. 23 ( Addendum). 3 Note by the Secretariat. — The law referred to above mentions wheat, rye, barley and oats. — i i 9 —

III. Exceptions claimed under A rticle 6, without I ndication of P aragraph.

Bulgaria. Products used for the falsification of national products. Import.

Czechoslovakia. Matches (although there is no formal State monopoly, the State enjoys a de facto monopoly since it limits the manufacture, participates in the profits on sales and levies a tax on matches. Consequently, in the opinion of the Czechoslovak Government, this reservation would come under paragraph 8 of Article 4). Import.

A N N E X 10.

EXCEPTIONS CLAIMED BY THE CHILIAN GOVERNMENT UNDER ARTICLE 6.

^Translation.] I am instructed by my Government to inform you that, on June 14th, 1928, after a very careful examination of the question by the competent administrative Departments, Chile signed [the Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions drawn |up at Geneva on November 8th, 1927. The signature which I had the honour of affixing on pile's behalf was preceded by the following declaration :

“ On signing the present Convention, the undersigned declares on behalf of his Government : “ (a) That he is firmly convinced that Nos. 1 and 3 of Article 4 cannot be invoked by the other High Contracting Parties in order to prohibit or restrict the import into their territory of Chilian nitrate of soda, which is mainly employed for agricultural purposes.

" (6) That, in the opinion of the Chilian Government, the Convention affects neither the tariff system nor the treaty-making methods of the participating countries, nor the measures taken to ensure the application thereof, including any steps taken to counteract the effects of dumping. (Signed) Villegas. "

Chile has also adhered to the Annexed Declaration of the same day, signed by France, Greece, |Hungary, Italy, Portugal, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Switzerland. I should be glad if you would be good enough to forward these declarations to the proper huarter, so that they may be examined at the Conference convened for July 3rd next. My Government also takes this opportunity of drawing the attention of the other High [Contracting Parties to the prohibitions or restrictions which it desires to maintain, and which I be obliged if you would likewise submit to the said Conference for consideration :

Upon £he export of :

(1) Scrap iron and scrap zinc, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention. (2) Guano, the export of which is prohibited as the reserves will probably be exhausted in the near future. In my Government’s opinion, this prohibition could also be based on paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the Convention.

(3) Mares, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 6, as my Government has been obliged for the time being to prohibit the export of these animals to meet the requirements of national defence.

(Signed) V il l e g a s,

Chairman of the Chilian Delegation accredited to the League of Nations. — 121 —

INDEX

A bbreviations Agrt. = Agreement. Art. = Article. Conf. = Conference. Conv. = Convention, ■rttee. = Committee. Sec. Gen. = Secretary-General. S. H. S. = Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom. Suppl. = Supplementary. U. S. A. = Unites States of America.

References

Convention and Suppl. Agreement = Convention and Suppl. Agreement for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions.

Agreement Supplementary to Conven­ Brunet, J. tion of 1927 Delegate of Belgium ...... 25 See Supplementary Agreement, etc. Appointed member of Credentials Cttee...... 42-3 Agricultural Produce used for Food Drafting Cttee ...... 82 Competence of Conference ...... 47, 49-50 See Oats, etc. Discussion of text of Agreement, Annexed Declaration and Protocol Austria Annexed Declaration...... 100 Delegation Article B. Reference to hides, skins List ...... 25 and bones agrts...... 91 Views of, see Schuller, Dr Richard Article C. Ratifiation of Conv. : con­ Cinematograph films, measures re 88, 89 ditions and date 71, 73, 78, 92, 96 Commercial treaty with Fran ce...... 64 Article D. Entry into force of Conv. 71, 92 Signature of General remark ...... 90 Agreement ...... 12, 103 Preamble ...... 91 Annexed Declaration...... 23 Protocol, Section II, b. Hides, skins Final A c t...... 34 and bones...... 93 Protocol ...... 18 Protocol, Section IV. Ratification of Conv...... 77, 99, 100 Automobiles Hides, skins and bones...... 93 Rapporteur of Drafting Cttee. in absence Reservations of of M. Serruys...... 90 Czechoslovakia 54, 64, 65, 66, 67, 118, Report of Credentials Cttee...... 55-6 Portugal (withdrawn) ...... 53, i t 8 Reservations of Belgium re bones...... 44 Sarandon, D r. Chile re scrap-iron ...... 69 Estonia re butter, eggs and platinum Member of Legal Section of Secretariat 25 Competence of delegates to sign hides, 47, 49, 50 skins and bones a g rts ...... 101 Maintenance o f ...... 83 Portugal re c o rk ...... 60, 63 tieans U. S. A. re helium g a s...... 83 Signature of Conv. and Agreement 83 Reservation of Portugal (withdrawn) 53, 118 Buisson, Dr. Albert Beet, Sugar Delegate of Int. Chamber of Commerce 33 See Sugar beet Statements ...... 43-4, 101-2 Bulgaria Belgium Reservations re products used for falsi­ D e le g a t io n fication of national products ; rose List ...... 25 trees and roots and shoots Views of, see Brunet, J. Discussed...... 44-5,55,81-2,118 Reservation re bones (withdrawn) .. 44, 118 Item granted ...... 9 Signature of List submitted...... 118,119 Agreement ...... 12, 103 Signature of Suppl. Agreement : extension Final A c t...... 34 of time-limit...... 17, 94. I0 3 Protocol ...... 18 Butter Bones Reservation of Estonia (not accepted) 46, 47, 49, 50-1, 118 Reservation of Belgium (withdrawn) 44, 118 '~,ee Hides, skins and bones Calmes, Albert Bread Cereals Delegate of Luxemburg...... 31 Discussion of Text of Protocol, Sec­ See Cereals, bread tion IV (b) ...... 100 — 122 —

Cattle and Swine Clan, C. J. T. Reservations of Delegate of D enm ark...... Czechoslovakia 54, 64, 65,66,67,118 Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement Portugal (withdrawn) ...... 53,118 Article C. Ratification of Conv. : Veterinary measures ...... 65, 66 conditions ...... 72, g6 Reservation of Czechoslovakia re cattle Cereals, Bread and swine ...... Reservation of Portugal (withdrawn) 53, 118 Clover Seed, Pink See under Seeds Cereals and Flour therefrom Reservation of Norway (withdrawn) 51, 52, 118 Cocoons Reservation of Portugal (withdrawn) 53, « Chamber of Commerce, Int. Colijn, H. Delegation List ...... 33 President of 2nd Int. Conference 7 Views of, see Buisson, Dr. Albert Closing speech ...... 10; Simson, Dr. Ernst von Opening speech ...... 4 Welcome from President...... 41 Appointed member of Drafting Cttee. Death of American Commissioner 41, 43 Competence of Conference 45, 47, 48, Invited to take part in Conf. in an advis­ Tribute to M. Serruys...... ory capacity ...... 7 Tributes to ...... 42, 65, 102, a Signature of Final Act ...... 35, 102 Tributes to ...... 102 Colonies, Reservations re See under France and Great Britain Chapman, Sir Sydney Delegate of Great B ritain...... 25 Conference (ist Int.) for the Abolition Appointed member of Drafting Cttee.... 82 of Import and Export Prohibitions and Colonies, protectorates or territories under Restrictions British suzerainty or mandate, re­ Final Act, see that title servation re ...... 102 Competence of delegates to sign hides, Conference (2nd Int.) for the Abolition of skins and bones a g rts...... 101 Import and Export Prohibitions and Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement Restrictions Article B. Reference to hides, skins Competence re interpretation of articles and bones a g rts...... 92 of Convention 45,-6, 47, 47-50, 68 Article C. Ratification of Conv. : conditions and date 72, 74,75, 77, 94, 69-70,8f Date ...... 7,24 95. 96-7 Article D. Entry into force of Conv. 72 Delegates to Competence re hides, skins and bones Hides, skins and bones...... 92, 101 Reservations of agrts ...... ioo- Estonia re butter, eggs and platinum 50 Credentials, see Credentials Cttee. List ...... 251 Maintenance o f ...... 83 Norway re vessels, etc...... 51 Final Act, see Final Act, etc. Hours of m eeting...... Portugal ...... , ------57, 60, 61, 62, 63 Procedure re examination of . . . 6o, 61, 62 Note by Sec. Gen...... Suppl. Agreement : declaration re sig­ President, see Colijn, H. nature ...... 83, 102 Purpose of ...... 7, 24, Secretariat ...... States represented ...... 7- Chile Delegation Conifer Seeds List ...... 25 See under Seeds Views of, see Ramirez Frias, Tomas Accession to Annexed Declaration re viti- " Convention ” cultural products ...... 119 Convention Meaning of expression in text of Suppl. Declaration re interpretation of cer­ Agreement ...... tain provisions...... 45-6, 68, 119 Signature ...... 119 Convention of Nov. 8,1927, for the Abolition Nitrate of soda, declaration re 45-6, 68, 119 of Import and Export Prohibitions and Reservations re guano ; mares ; scrap Restrictions iron and scrap zinc Accession to ...... 7< ^ Discussed 41, 43, 45-6, 48-9, 67-70 See also Suppl. Agrt., etc. : Article C Items granted ...... 9 Annexed Declaration re viticultural pro­ Letter from M. Villegas...... 119 ducts List submitted ...... 119 Accession of Chile ...... Signature of Article 4. Classes of permanentexceptions Agreement ...... 13, 103 admitted under Convention Final A c t ...... 34 Paragraphs 1 and 3 : interpretation Protocol ...... 19 and application .... 45, 68, 70, Paragraph 4 : interpretation and ap­ Cinematograph Film Restrictions : 86-90 plication ...... 54- — 123 —

Convention ofNov. 8,1927, for theAbolition Convention of Nov.8,1927,for the Abolition 0f Import and Export Prohibitions and of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions (continued) Restrictions (continued) Article 4. Classes of permanent exceptions Denunciation, see above Article 18 admitted under Convention (continued) Entry into force Paragraph 6 : interpretation and See above Article 17 : paragraphs (b) application ...... 46, 49, 50 and (c) Paragraph 7 : interpretation and ap­ Hides, skins and bones agrts., connection plication...... 46, 47, 49, 54, 81 with Paragraph 8 : interpretation and ap­ See Suppl. Agreement : Article B plication 45, 49, 50, 51, 54, 68, 69, 70, 119 Included with Suppl. Agreement in ex­ See also Monopolies pression “Convention” Reservations See Protocol : Section I. already covered by art. 4 ...... 42 Protocol first considered within scope of See Protocol to Convention, etc. art. 4 and subsequently discov­ Ratification ered not covered by that art. 50 Importance of ...... 104 Art. 6. Temporary reservations allowed Polish reservation ...... 52,70 under Convention of U. S. A. Annex : supplement to ...... 9-11 See Protocol of Suppl. Agreement : Paragraph x Section IV Exceptions based on See also above Article 17 : para­ Claimed ...... 118 graphs (b) and (c) Granted ...... 9 Signature ...... 42, 83, 119 Interpretation and application 44, 45, Suppl. Agrt. to 49. 53. 54, 57. 59- 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, See Supplementary Agreement, etc. 67, 68, 69, 70, 81, 82, 84, 118, 119 Paragraph 1 and paragraph 2, differ­ Corals ence between ...... 60-1 Paragraph 2 See Platinum, etc. Exceptions based on Claimed ...... 119 Cork in Raw State Granted ...... 11 Interpretation and application 45, 49, Reservation of Portugal (accepted) 9, 17, 53- 50, 51, 53- 54- 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 4- 56, 57, 59- 60, 61, 62, 63, 118 62, 63, 68, 69, 70, 81, 82, 118, 119 Paragraph 3 Credentials Committee Application ...... 83 Paragraph 4 Appointment of ...... 42-3 Provisions re reservations which Report ...... 55-6 may be claimed at time of rati­ fication ...... 7, 41 C rude Oil See also Suppl. Agreement : Art­ Reservation of Poland (withdrawn) 52-3, 11S icle A Requests for exceptions re hides, skins and bones Curcin, Georges See Suppl. Agreement : Article B Delegate of S. H. S...... 33 Article 8. Arbitration in case of dispute Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement, Application ...... 47 Annexed Declaration and Protocol Article 16. Accession Annexed Declaration re quartzite 97 See above Accession Article C. Ratification of Conv 99 Article 17, application of Protocol, Section II b. Reservations 93 Paragraph 1. Entry into force Hides, skins and bones...... 93 See Suppl. Agreement, etc. : Art­ Reservations of icle D Czechoslovakia ...... 66, 97 Paragraph 2. Second Conference to General statement ...... 65-6 meet ...... 7, 8, 24, 41 Portugal ...... 62 Paragraph (a) Reservations 7, 41, 45 Tribute to M. Colijn...... 65 See also Suppl. Agreement, etc. : Article A Paragraph (b) Ratification, accession Customs Duties and conditions of entry into force 7, 41, 42, Portuguese statement re 53 52,108 See also Suppl. Agreement, etc. : Czechoslovakia Article C Paragraph (c) Date of deposit of rati­ Delegation fications and entry into force 7, 41, 42, List ...... 33 52, 108 Views of, see Ibl, Vincent See also Suppl. Agreement, etc. : Commercial treaty with France ...... 64 Articles C and D Reservations re automobiles ; cattle and Paragraph, final. Procedure to be swine ; game, live ; matches ; quartz­ taken if necessary ratifications not ite ; salicylic acid ; seeds ; shoots ; forthcoming sugar beet ; timber in the round ; See Suppl. Agreement, etc. : Ar­ wine ticle D Discussed...... 54- 55- 63-7, 70, 81, 82 Article 18. Denunciation of Convention Items granted ...... 9- 11 Application...... 61, 62, 67, 100 List submitted...... 118,119 — 124 —

Czechoslovakia (continued) Egypt Signature of Delegation ...... *...... 27 Agreement ...... 15, 103 Signature of Annexed Declaration ...... 23 Agreement ...... i 3j l0. Final Act ...... 36 Final Act ...... Protocol ...... 22 Protocol ...... jg

Delegates to 2nd Int. Conference Estonia See under Conference (2nd Int.) Delegation List ...... 27 Denmark Views of, see Schmidt, A. Delegation Reservations re eggs ; butter ; platinum, List ...... 27 etc Views of, see Clan, C. J. T. Discussed 46-7, 47, 49, 50-1, 55 Signature of Items granted ...... 11 Agreement ...... 13, 103 List submitted ...... ng Final Act ...... 34 Signature of Protocol ...... 19 Agreement ...... 13,10: Final Act ...... 3! Dolezal, François Protocol ...... iç

Delegate of Poland ...... 31 Exceptions Hides, skins and bones ...... 79-80 Reservations of See Reservations Czechoslovakia ...... 66 Poland re dyestuffs and crude oil Film Restrictions abandoned : general exception maintained ...... 52 See Cinematograph film restrictions

Drafting Committee Final Act of ist Int. Conference for Aboli­ tion of Import and Export Prohibitions Appointment ...... 82 and Restrictions ist Proposal for Suppl. Agreement Discussion ...... 70-4 Application of Art. 5, paragraph 2 re Text ...... 106 timber in the round ...... 8; 2nd Proposal for Suppl. Agreement Discussion ...... 74-8 Final Act of 2nd Int. Conference for Abo­ Text ...... 106-7 lition of Import and Export Prohibitions 3nd Proposal for Suppl. Agreement and Restrictions Discussion ...... 80-1 Signature of High Contracting Parties 34-6,102 Text ...... 107 Text ...... 25-36 4th Proposal for Suppl. Agreement Discussion ...... 90-2 Text ...... 114-15 Finland Rapporteur ...... 90 Delegation List ...... 27 Dumping Views of, see Holsti, Rudolf Declaration of C hile...... 45,68, 119 Signature of Agreement ...... 13,10; Duzmans, Charles Final Act ...... 34 Protocol ...... 20 Delegate of L a tv ia ...... 31 Competence of Conference ...... 46-7, 48 Flour Competence of delegates to sign hides, skins and bones agrts...... 101 See Cereals and flour therefrom Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement and Protocol Forest Trees, Shoots of Article C. Ratification of Conv : date 92, 97 Protocol, Section II (b). Hides, skins See under Shoots and bones ...... 93 Protocol, Section IV. Ratification of France Conv...... 100 Delegation Hides, skins and bones...... 93, 101 List ...... 27 Reservations of Views of, see Serruys, Daniel Czechoslovakia re cattle ...... 67 Lécuyer, Ernest Estonia re butter and eggs ...... 46-7 Cinematograph films, measures r e 86-90 Limitation of ...... 61 Colonies, protectorates and territories Portugal re wool ...... 59,61 under its suzerainty or mandate, re­ servation re ...... 13, 20, 102 Dyestuffs Commercial treaties with Austria and Reservation of Poland (withdrawn) 52-3, 118 Czechoslovakia ...... ^4 Hides, skins and bones, article submitted re ...... 82-3 Eggs Signature of Reservations of Agreement ...... 13, 102, i°3 Estonia (not accepted) 46, 47, 49, 50-1, 118 Final Act ...... 34 Portugal (withdrawn) ...... 53, 118 Protocol ...... 20 125 —

atne, Live (Hares, Partridges, Pheasants) Hides, Skins and Bones (continued) Reservation of Czechoslovakia 54, 118 Agreements and Protocols (continued) Reservation of Czechoslovakia 118 lermany Reservations to be submitted in event Delegation of non-entry into force List ...... 25 See Suppl. Agreement : Article B Views of, see Re in shagen, Adolf Suppl. Agreement article re Trendelenburg, Dr. Ernst See Suppl. Agreement : Article B Cinematograph films, measures re.... 88,89 Text ...... 109-14 Signature of 2nd Conference Agreement ...... 12, 103 Conclusion ...... 41 Annexed D eclaration...... 23 Report Final Act ...... 3 4 Discussion ...... 78-80 Protocol ...... 18 Text ...... 108-114 Success ...... 102 treat Britain Guarantees to be set up in respect of agrts. Delegation See Suppl. Agreement, etc. : Article B List ...... 25 Protocols Views of, see Chapman, Sir Sydney Application to Italy of Section I of Cinematograph films, measures re 88 Bones Protocol Colonies, protectorates and territories See Protocol to Suppl. Agreement : under British suzerainty or mandate, Section III reservation re ...... 12, 18, 102 Section IV : modification ...... 80 Signature of Texts ...... 111-12, 113-14 Agreement ...... 12, 102, 103 See also above Agreements and pro­ Final Act ...... 34 tocols Protocol ...... 18 Reservations See above under Agreements, etc. Guano Holsti, Rudolf Reservation of Chile 45, 46, 48-9, 49, 67, 68, 69, 70, 119 Delegate of Finland...... 27 Appointed member of Credentials Cttee 42-3 Hares : Game, live H op Shoots See under Shoots gassan Bey Delegate of T u rk ey...... 33 Horses Competence of delegates to sign hides, skins and bones agrts...... 101 Reservation of Portugal (withdrawn) 53, 118 Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement and Protocol H ungary Article B. Reference to hides, skins Delegation and bones agrts...... 91 List ...... 29 Article C. Ratification of Conv. : Views of, see Nickl, Alfred de conditions ...... 72, 99 Protocol, Section II (b) Reservations 93, 94 Signature of Agreement ...... 14. I0 3 1 Hides, skins and bones 91, 93, 94, 101, 103 Annexed Declaration ...... 23 I Reservations General statement ...... 47 Final Act ...... 34 Norway re vessels, etc...... 47, 52 Protocol ...... 20 Suppl. Agreement : declaration re signa­ ture ...... 103 (letter) Ibl, Vincent

Health Measures ...... 65,66 Delegate of Czechoslovakia ...... 33 Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement, Helium Gas Annexed Declaration and Protocol Annexed Declaration re quartzite 97 Reservation of U. S. A. f accepted j 11, 51, 56, Article C. Ratification of Conv. : 83,118 conditions ...... 71-73 . 97. 99 Sj Skins and Bones Protocol, Section II. Reservations 93, 94 Protocol, Section IV. Ratification Agreements and Protocols of Conv...... 81 Accession : conditional claim of Hides, skins and bones...... 93 -94 Belgium (withdrawn) ...... 44, 118 Reservations of Czechoslovakia 54. 63-4. 64, Amendment to Protocol, Section IV 79-80 70, 81, 82, 97 Competence of delegates to sign 100-1 Ratification and entry into force 78-80, India 82-3, 108, 109, n o , 1x2, 113 Reservations and declarations Delegation Italian ...... 78, 108 List ...... 29 See also Protocol to Suppl. Agrt. : Views of, see Lindsay, H. A. F. Section III Signature of Polish ...... 79,80, III Agreement ...... T3> I0 3 Roumanian ...... 111, 114 Final Act ...... 35 S- H. S...... i n Protocol ...... I 9 126 —

Italy Lindsay, H. A. F. (continued) Delegation Discussion of text of Agreement List ...... 29 Article B. Reference to hides, skins Views of, see Nola, Angelo di and bones agrts...... Cinematograph films, measures re ... 88, 90 Article C. Ratification of Conv. : J Hides, skins and bones : special position conditions and d a te ...... as regards Bones Agrt 78, 108, i l l Hides, skins and bones...... g2/5 See also Protocol to Suppl. Agree­ Rice : import into J a p a n ...... ment : Section III Signature of Live-stock Agreement ...... 14, 103 Final Act ...... 35 See Cattle and swine Protocol ...... 20 Luxem burg Ito, Nobum? Delegation Delegate of Japan ...... 29 List ...... Appointed member of Drafting Cttee ... 82 Views of, see Calmes, Albert Competence of delegates to sign hides, Signature of skins ans bones agrts...... 101 Agreement ...... 14, Credentials of delegates ...... 43 Final Act ...... Denunciation of Convention, 1927...... 62 Protocol ...... Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement and Protocol Mandated Territory, Reservation re Article C. Ratification of Conv. : conditions and date 73, 75, 76, 98 See under France and Great-Britain General statement ...... 90 Protocol, Section I ...... 92 M ares Protocol, Section II (b). Reservations 94 Reservations of Chile (accepted) 9, 45, 46, Protocol, Section III. Reference to 68, 69, ni hides, skins and bones...... 94 Protocol, Section IV (a). Ratification of Conv...... 99 M atches Hides, skins and bones ...... 94, 101 Reservation of Czechoslovakia Reservations of 54 -119 Norway re vessels, etc...... 51 Portugal re raw c o rk ...... 59 Meat, Fresh Rice : import into Japan ...... 85-6 Reservation of Portugal (withdrawn) 53, 11!

Jahn, Gunnar Miles, Basil (American Commissioner at Int. Chamber of Commerce) Delegate of Norw ay...... 31 Message of sympathy on death o f 41,4. Reservations of Norway re cereals and flour therefrom, and vessels 51, 51-2, 67 Modig, Einar Delegate of Sw eden...... Japan Discussion of text of Protocol, Section II b. Delegation Hides, skins and b o n es...... : List ...... 29 Reservation of Sweden re scrap iron 54 Views of, see Ito, Nobumi Rice : prohibition on importation 84-6 M onopolies Signature of Agreement ...... 14, 103 Chilian on guano 45, 46, 48-9, 67, 68, 69, Final Act ...... 35 Covered by art. 4 and not by art. 6...... Protocol ...... 20 Czechoslovakia : de facto monopoly on matches ...... 54- General question ...... 4^ Latvia Norwegian on cereals...... Delegation List ...... 31 M otor-C ars Views of, see Duzmans, Charles Signature of See Automobiles Agreement ...... 14, 103 Final Act ...... 35 M ules Protocol ...... 20 Reservation of Portugal (withdrawn) 53T III Lécuyer, Ernest Netherlands Assistant delegate of France...... 27 Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement Delegation Article C. Ratification of Conv. : List ...... conditions ...... 96 Views of, see Posthuma, Dr. F. E. Wibaut, F. M. Lindsay, H. A. F. Signature of Agreement ...... 15, I0| Substitute delegate of In d ia ...... 29 Final Act ...... Cinematograph film restrictions...... 89 Protocol ...... — 127 —

Nickl, Alfred de Pearls Delegate of H u n g ary ...... 29 See Platinum, etc. Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement Article B. Reference to hides, skins Pine Resin and bones agrts...... 83, 91 Reservations of Reservation of Portugal (accepted) 11, 53-4, Czecoslovakia re cattle, motor-cars 57, 60, 61, 63, 118 and wines ...... 66 See also Protocol of Suppl. Agreement : Portugal re raw c o rk ...... 56 Section II

Nitrate of Soda Platinum, Precious Stones, Pearls and Corals (in Rough State or Finished, Declaration of Chile ...... 45-6, 68, 119 Loose or Mounted)

Nola, Angelo di Reservation of Estonia (accepted) 11, 46, 49, 50-1, 56, 118 Delegate of I t a l y ...... 29 Poland Cinematograph film restrictions ...... 89-90 Delegation Competence of Conference...... 89 List ...... 31 Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement Views of, see Dolezal, François and Protocol Convention 1927 : reservation re rati­ Article B. Reference to hides, skins fication ...... 52,70 and bones agrts...... 92 Hides, skins and bones : reservation re Article C. Ratification of Conv. : agreements ...... 79, 80, i n conditions ...... 72, 77, 97, 98 Reservations re dyestuffs and crude oil Protocol, Section III. Reference to (withdrawn) ...... 52-3, 118 hides, skins and bones agrts 94 Signature of Hides, skins and bones...... 92, 94 Agreement ...... 15, 103 Reservations of Final Act ...... 35 Czechoslovakia re pink clover seed, Protocol ...... 21 wines and motors ...... 64-5 Difference between reservations com­ P ortugal ing under paragraphs 1 and 2 of art. 6 60-1 Delegation Portugal re cork, resin and wool 57, 60-1 List ...... 31 Tribute to M. C olijn...... 104 Views of, see d’Oliveira, A. Reservations re automobiles ; beans ; Norway cattle ; cereals, bread ; cocoons ; cork in raw state ; eggs ; horses ; meat, Delegation fresh ; mules ; oats, etc. ; oils, pine List ...... 31 resin ; potatoes ; poultry ; rice ; vege­ Views of, see Jahn, Gunnar tables, dried ; wool Reservations re cereals and flour there­ Declaration re reservations and period from ; vessels and shares in vessels which may elapse before denun­ Discussed ...... 47, 51-2, 67 ciation ...... 100 List submitted ...... 118 Discussed...... 53-4, 56-63, 63,82 Signature of Suppl. Agreement, com­ Granted ...... 9, 11 munication re ...... 102, 103 Letter from M. Calheiros e Menezes 48 (footnote) Oats and other Agricultural Produce used List submitted ...... 118 for Food Withdrawal of certain reservations 53 Reservation of Portugal (withdrawn) 53, 118 See also Protocol to Suppl. Agreement: Section II Signature of Agreement ... 15, 17, 91-92, 93, 94, 103 Reservation of Portugal (withdrawn) 53, 118 Final Act ...... 35 See also Crude oil Protocol ...... 22

d’Oliveira, A. Posthuma, Dr. F. E. Delegate of P ortugal...... 31 Delegate of Netherlands...... 31 Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement and Protocol and Protocol Article B. Reference to hides, skins Article C. Ratification of Conv. : and bones agrts...... 83, 91, 92 conditions ...... 73, 96, 97 Protocol, Section II (b). Hides, skins Article D. Entry into force of Conv. 73 and bones ...... 93 Protocol, Section II (b). Reservations 93 Reservations of Portugal 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, Reservation of Portugal re pine resin.. . . 63 59-60, 60, 62, 63, 82, 100 Suppl. Agreement : declaration re sig­ Potatoes nature ...... 103 Reservation of Portugal (withdrawn) 53, 118

Partridges P oultry See Game, live Reservation of Portugal (withdrawn) 53, 118

Pheasants Precious Stones See Game, live See Platinum, etc. — 128 —

President of Second Int. Conference Ramirez Frias, Tomâs (continued) See Colijn, H. Declarations of Chile re interpretation of certain provisions of Conv...... 45 ^ Products used for Falsification of National Reservations Products of Chile re guano, mares, scrap iron and scrap zinc 45, 46, 67, 68, 69, 69-70 Reservation of Bulgaria (not accepted) 44-5, Considered at first as covered by 1 55, 81, 82, 119 art. 4 and subsequently found not covered by that art...... Prohibitions and Restrictions 10 Cinematograph film restrictions ...... 86-go Reinshagen, Adolf for Economic purposes ...... 42, 66 Rice : import into Japan ...... 84-6 Delegate of Germ any...... re 25 Reservation of Portugal cork. 59 Protectorates, Reservations re See under France and Great Britain Reservations For details see individual articles concerned Protocol to Int. Convention for the Abol­ Discussion 41-2, 43, 44-55, 56-70, 81-2, 83-9, ition of Import and Export Prohibitions 10, and Restrictions Arts. 4 and 6 of Conv. : application and Section IV : reference t o 57, 58, 61, 100 interpretation See Convention, etc. : Article 4 and article 6 Protocol to Supplementary Agreement Colonies, protectorates and territories for Abolition of Import and Export Pro­ under French or British suzerainty hibitions and Restrictions or mandate Preamble See under France and Great-Britain Text Conditions of acceptance ...... 7, 41, 43 Draft ...... 115 Considered first as covered by art. 4 and Final ...... 17 subsequently found not covered by Section I. Meaning of expression “ the that art...... 50 Convention”. Health ...... 65,66 Adoption ...... 99 Limitation of 59, 60-1, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, Discussion and amendment...... 92 81, 83-4 Text Lists of reservations Draft ...... 115 Agreed to ...... 9-11 Final ...... 17 Claimed ...... 118-19 Section II. (re Suppl. Agrt., Art. A) Maintenance of ...... 83-4 Adoption ...... 99 Procedure r e ...... 41-2, 43, 51, 55, 60, 83-4 Application to Portugal 91, 92, 93 Discussion and amendment .... 91, 92-4 Resin Text Draft ...... 116 See Pine resin Final ...... 17 Section III. [re Suppl. Agrt., art. B) Rice Adoption ...... 99 Import into Japan ...... 84-! Discussion ...... 92-3, 94 Reservation of Portugal (withdrawn) 53, ti Text ...... 17 Section IV. (Section III of draft : re Suppl. Rose Trees and Roots and Shoots Agrt., Art. C)

Adoption ...... 99-100 Reservation of Bulgaria (accepted) 9, 44-5,55' Discussion and amendment 70, 71, 72, 81, 82,118 73, 74-5, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 94-5, 99, 100 Text Roumania Drafts ...... 107, 107, 116, 117 Final ...... 17 Delegation ...... 31 Signature of High Contracting Parties 18-22,102 Hides, skins and bones agrts., reserv­ Text ation re ...... h i . 114 Draft ...... 115-16 Signature of Final ...... 17 Agreement ...... 15,105 Final Act ...... 35 Protocols to Hides, Skins and Bones Agree­ Protocol ...... 22 ments See under Hides, skins and bones Salicylic Acid and Derivatives Reservation of Czechoslovakia (with­ Quartzite drawn) ...... 54, 64, Annexed Declaration re See under Suppl. Agreement Salter, Sir Arthur J. (Director of Economic Reservation of Czechoslovakia (accepted) 11,23, and Financial Section of Secretariat) 54, 55, 81, 97, 118 Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement, Art. C : ratification of Conv...... ^ Ramirez Frias, Tomâs Saltpetre Delegate of Chile ...... 25 Competence of Conference 68-9, 69-70 See Nitrate of soda Schmidt» A. Serruys, Daniel (continued) Delegate of E sto n ia...... 27 Monopolies ...... 46, 48-9 50 Competence of Conference ...... 50 Reservations of Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement : Bulgaria re products for falsification Preamble ...... 90 and rose-trees ...... 81 Reservations of Estonia re butter, eggs, Chile re guano ...... 46, 48-9, 49 platinum, etc...... 46, 47, 50, 56 Considered as covered by art. 4 and subsequently found not covered Schuller, Dr. Richard by that art...... 50 Czechoslovakia...... 64,65,67 Delegate of A ustria...... 25 Cinematograph film restrictions...... 89 Difference between reservations under Competence of delegates to sign hides, paragraphs 1 and 2 of art. 6 ...... 61 skins and bones agrts...... 100, 101 Estonia re butter, eggs and platinum Discussion of text of Agreement, Annexed 49, 50-1 Declaration and Protocol Limitation ...... 59, 61, 62 Annexed Declaration ...... 100 Maintenance of ...... 83 Article B. Reference to hides, skins Norway re vessels, etc...... 52 and bones agrts...... 91 Poland : general reservation ...... 70 Article C. Ratification of Conv. : Portugal re cork, resin and wool 57, 59, conditions 72, 73, 74, 76, 77-8, 80, 96 60, 61, 62 Protocol, Section II (b). Reservations 93 Suppl. Agreement : declaration re signa­ ture ...... 102 Hides, skins and bones 91, 93, 100, 101 Reservations of Tribute to M. Colijn...... 42 Czechoslovakia Tributes to work as President of Hides, re cattle, motor-cars, seeds and Skins and Bones Conf...... 41, 102 wines ...... 64, 65 re quartzite, sugar beet and timber Shares in Vessels in the round ...... 81 See Vessels, etc. Estonia re butter, eggs and platinum 50 Shoots Scrap Iron Reservations of Czechoslovakia Reservation of Sweden (accepted) 9, 54, 63, 118 of Forest trees ...... 54, 11S Hop (accepted) ...... 9, 54, 81, 118 Scrap Iron and Scrap Zinc See also Protocol to Suppl. Agree­ Reservation of Chile (accepted) 9, 45, 46, 67, ment : Section II 68, 69, 119 Siam Seeds Delegation ...... 33 Reservations of Czechoslovakia Signature of Clover, pink ...... 54- 65, 118 Agreement ...... 15, 103 Conifer ...... 54, 118 Final Act ...... 35 Sugar beet ...... 54, 118 Protocol ...... 22 Serb-Croat- Slovene Kingdom Simson, Dr. Ernst von Delegation Delegate of Int. Chamber of Commerce 33 List ...... 33 Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement 75 Views of, see Curcin, Georges Signature of Stucki, Walter Agreement ...... 15, 103 Final Act ...... 35 Delegate of Switzerland ...... 33 Protocol ...... 22 Competence of Conference ...... 49 Competence of delegates to sign hides, Serruys, Daniel skins and bones agrts...... 100 Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement Delegate of France ...... 27 and Protocol Appointed member of Drafting Cttee. 82 Article C. Ratification of Conv. : Cinematograph film restrictions ...... 88-9 conditions 71, 73, 76, 80, 95, 96, 98, 99 Colonies, protectorates and territories Protocol, Section II. Reservations 92-3 under French suzerainty or mandate 102 Protocol, Section III. Reference to Competence of Conference 45-6, 48-9, 49 hides, skins and bones agrts 94 Competence of delegates to sign hides, Protocol, Section IV (a). Ratification skins and bones agrts...... 100, 101 of Conv...... 99 Declaration of Chile re nitrate of soda 45-6 Hides, skins and bones...... 92-3, 94, 100 Discussion of text of Agreement and Pro­ Monopolies ...... 49 tocol Reservations of Article B. Reference to hides, skins Chile and Estonia ...... 49 and bones agrts...... 83 Czechoslovakia re cattle, motor-cars Article C. Ratification of Conv. : and wine ...... 66 conditions and date 70, 71, 73, 74, Portugal ...... 58, 62 . . , 74-5. 75. 76. 77- 80, 98 Article D. Entry into force of Conv. 70 Sugar Beet Protocol, Section IV. Ratification of Conv...... 74,81,99 Reservation of Czechoslovakia (with­ “ ides, skins and bones 78, 79, 80, 83, 100, drawn) ...... 54,55, 81, 82, 118 101, 102 Seeds, see under Seeds — 130 —

Supplementary Agreement to Convention Supplementary Agreement to Convention of Nov. 8, 1927, for A bolition o f Im p o rt of Nov. 8, 1927, for Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions Annexed Declaration re quartzite (continued ) Adoption ...... 97 Protocol, see Protocol to Suppl. Agreement Discussion and amendment ...... 97, 100 Signature Text Extension of time granted to Bul­ Draft ...... 116 garia, Portugal and U. S. A. 17, qi-2 Final ...... 23 93. 94, loi Article A. Reservations agreed to under of High Contracting Parties 12-15, 10? Art. 6 of Conv. Statements of delegates 83-4 i0,, Adoption ...... 99 Text ’ j Protocol provisions re g rafî ...... « 4-15 See Protocol to Suppl. Agreement : Final ...... g.n I Section II Proposals for Text See under Drafting Committee Draft ...... 114 Final ...... 9-11 Sweden Article B. Reservations to be submitted in event of non-entry into force of hides, Delegation skins and bones agrts. List ...... Adoption ...... 99 Views of, see Modig, Einar Discussion and amendment 78-80,82-3,91-2 Reservation re scrap iron (accepted) g, 5,1 Protocol provisions re 63, nil See Protocol to Suppl. Agreement : Signature of Section III Agreement ...... 15,103! Report of 2nd Conf. on Hides, Skins Final Act ...... 351 and Bones Protocol ...... 221 Discussion ...... 78-80 Text ...... 108-9 Swine Reservation of Turkey ...... 15, 22, 91 Text See Cattle and swine Draft ...... 114-15 Final ...... 11 Switzerland Article C Delegation Adoption ...... 99 List ...... 33| Paragraph 1. Entry into force of Con­ Views of, see Stucki, Walter vention : conditions Signature of Discussion 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, Agreement ...... 15, 1031 78, 80, 94-7, 98-9 Final Act ...... 35 Paragraph 2. Date of deposit of rati­ Protocol ...... 2a I fications Discussion .. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, Tariff System and Application thereof 77» 78- 8°. 92. 94*7. 98"9 Paragraph 3. Right to make ratifi­ Declaration of Chile r e ...... 45, 68, nç| cation or accession conditional on that of certain States. List of these Timber in the Round States Discussion 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, Reservation of Czechoslovakia (with­ 77, 78, 80, 94-7, 98-9 drawn) ...... 54, 55, 81, 82, ij Protocol provisions re See Protocol to Suppl. Agreement : Treaty-making Methods and Application Section IV thereof Text Declaration of C h ile...... 45, 68, n)| Draft ...... 95, 106-7, US, 117 F in a l...... 11 Trendelenburg, Dr. Ernst Article D Adoption ...... 99 Delegate of Germany ...... Paragraph 1. Date of entry into force Cinematograph film restrictions...... of Convention if necessary conditions Competence of Conference ...... are fulfilled Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement Discussion ...... 70 Article C. Ratification of Conv. : Paragraph 2. Measures to be taken if conditions ...... l l< 7" conditions for entry into force of Reservations, maintenance of ...... 83-41 Convention are not fid filled Discussion .... 70, 71, 72, 73, 92 Turkey Text D ra ft...... 106,115 Delegation Final ...... 11 List ...... 33 Included with Convention in expression Views of, see Hassan Bey “ Convention ” Reservations See Protocol, Section I re Article B of Suppl. Agreement 15,22’ 9 ’ Preamble 93, 94, i 01’ ” Adoption ...... 99 Statement of delegate ...... 1/ Discussion ...... 90-1 Signature of . Text Agreement ...... I5> Draft ...... 114 Final Act ...... ^ Final ...... 9 Protocol ...... — 131 —

United States of America Wibaut, F. M. (continued) Delegation Reservation of Portugal re wool 56-7, 57-8, List ...... 27 58, 63 Views of, see Wilson, Hugh R. Convention Wilson, Hugh R. Ratification of See Protocol to Suppl. Agreement : Delegate of U. S. A...... 27 Section IV Cinematograph film restrictions ...... 86-8 Signature, statement re ...... 83 Competence of Conference ...... 47-8 Reservation re helium gas (accepted) 11,51, 56, Convention, 1927 : statement re signature 83 83, 118 Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement Signature of and Protocol Agreement ...... 12, 17, 94, 103 Article C. Ratification of Conv. 71, 75, 95-6 Final Act ...... 34 Protocol, Section IV. Ratification Protocol ...... 18 of Conv...... 81 Reservations of Vegetables, D ried Czechoslovakia re cattle and motor­ cars ...... 64, 66 Reservation of Portugal (withdrawn) 53, 118 Portugal re raw c o rk ...... 60, 62 U. S. A. re helium g a s ...... 56 essels and Shares in Vessels Suppl. Agreement : declaration re sig­ Reservation of Norway (withdrawn) 47, 51-2, nature ...... 103 67, 118 Wine eterinary M e a s u re s ...... 65, 66 Reservation of Czechoslovakia 54, 64, 65, 66, 67, 118 iticultural Products Annexed Declaration re Wool, Fine See under Convention Reservation of Portugal (accepted) 9, 53-4, 56-7, ibaut, F. M . 57-9, 60, 63, 82, 118

Delegate of Netherlands...... 31 Zinc, Scrap Discussion of text of Suppl. Agreement Article C. Ratification of Conv. : See Scrap iron and scrap zinc. conditions ...... 77

Printed by Desclée De Brouwer & Co, Bruges (Belgium) — 3415