Brulatour to Jules Ferry, June 17, 1884

Mr. Brulatour to Mr. Ferry.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s note of the 12th instant, transmitting a communication from Mr. Cochery, in reply to the friendly representations Mr. Morton was instructed to make in relation to the qualified authorization given to the Commercial Cable Company to land upon the shores of France.

The objections of the United States Government to the conditions affixed to the permission received by the American Cable Company are of the simplest kind.

In 1879, my Government gave to the French company the right to land in the United States, upon the distinct understanding and formal agreement that the same privilege would be extended by France to any American company which might apply for it. By its letter, as well as by its spirit, this agreement means reciprocity of treatment for the companies of both nations.

In 1884, the United States applies, in behalf of the American Commercial Company, for the privilege to land in France, and obtains it only upon terms less favorable than those made to the French company and with the conditions that the privilege thus granted can be withdrawn upon giving one year’s notice.

No such conditions haying been imposed upon the French company in the United States, my Government contends that it is in violation of the plain and unequivocal agreement of 1879, and asks that the Commercial Cable Company be treated in France upon exactly the same footing as the French company is treated in the United States.

Mr. Cochery’s note meets this request by the following arguments:

• The cable of the Commercial Company does not connect directly France with the United States, and cannot, therefore, be assimilated to the French line.
• The right to withdraw the authorization to land upon giving one year’s notice is a general police provision which exists by right in all concessions.

I have no instruction to discuss these arguments thus so unexpectedly opposed to a request which seemed so natural and so fair that the possibility of its being refused was not anticipated, and I can but refer the whole matter to Mr. Frelinghuysen. I may be permitted to say, however, that I utterly fail to see the force of the position taken by the minister of posts and telegraphs. I fail to perceive, as far as the right of landing and the privileges accruing therefrom are concerned that there exists the slightest difference between the American company and the French company. Both were created with the special object of connecting directly France with the United States, and Mr. Cochery himself thus describes the Commercial Cable Company in the specifications (cahier des charges) submitted to Messrs. Mackay and Bennett.

I trust that further examination of this subject will satisfy your excellency that the objections which Mr. Morton was requested to present against the condition imposed on the American company are just and reasonable, and that they will be removed. The Government of the United States, which cannot be charged with having held the French company too strictly to the formal pledge it has taken, has the right to expect that the American company shall also be fairly dealt with.

Your excellency will appeciate whether it is fair and equal treatment to compel this company to submit to terms by which it can be deprived of its privilege at any time, upon a short notice, when no similar condition is to be found in the specifications (cahier des charges) subscribed to by the other companies established for the exclusive transmission of dispatches between the two countries. To limit its existence” to one year is certainly a serious impediment to the safe establishment in France, of the Commercial Cable Company, which would, besides, find itself upon a most unequal and unfavorable footing compared with other companies.

The United States legation does not contest the right of the French Government to affix conditions to any concession it may grant for the establishment of cables; it is also aware that telegraphic lines in France are a Government monopoly, but this cannot assuredly furnish a legitimate motive for discrimination.

After a careful perusal of the terms accorded by the French Government in 1869 to the English company, in 1879 to the French company, and in 1884 to the Commercial Cable Company, I am obliged to say that the latter, instead of receiving in France the treatment which the French company has obtained in the United States, is subjected with respect to the right of landing, as well as to the privilege of connecting its cables with the French land system, to exceptional exigencies prejudicial to its interest.

I avail, &c.,