Office of the Historian

711.48V2/9

The British Ambassador (Howard) to the Secretary of State

Washington, January 31, 1929.
No. 52

Sir: I have the honour to inform you that His Majesty’s Government have recently been considering the question of revising, subject to the consent of the United States Government, articles 2, 3 and 9 of the Treaty of 1833 between the United States and Muscat, insofar as these articles are obsolete and no longer consonant with the proper administration of Zanzibar as a British Protectorate on modern lines. I have now received instructions from His Majesty’s Acting Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to draw your attention to the previous correspondence between His Majesty’s Government and the United States Government on the subject and to enquire whether I may assume that your Government are in principle prepared to fall in with the wishes of His Majesty’s Government in regard to the modifications of the articles in question, as set forth in the concluding paragraphs of this note.

2.
It will be remembered that under the terms of the loan made to Liberia in 191312 His Majesty’s Government, the French and German [Page 156] Governments all acquired the right of nominating a Receiver of Liberian Customs: these three officers functioned under a Receiver General selected by the United States Government. In 1918 Liberia applied to the United States Government for a further loan,13 and as a preliminary to considering this request, the United States Government enquired whether His Majesty’s Government would consent to withdraw the British Receiver, if the loan were made.14 In a note of September 13th, 1919, to the United States Ambassador in London15 Lord Curzon agreed to this, subject to certain stipulations which were considered necessary to safeguard British interests in Liberia. The note concluded:—

“In the course of discussions upon this question between the United States and British Peace Delegations at Paris, the latter intimated that this Government would be glad if possible to effect with the United States a simultaneous settlement of certain questions relating to the treaty rights of United States citizens at Zanzibar under the United States-Muscat Treaty of 1833.

“Negotiations to this end are now in progress at Washington, and I have no reason to doubt but that they will be brought to an early and satisfactory conclusion.”

3.
The history of the negotiations in question at Washington is briefly as follows:—
In a note of July 29th, 1919, His Majesty’s Chargé d’Affaires at Washington represented to the United States Government16 that United States citizens were claiming immunity from the payment of municipal taxes under article VI of the Convention of 1833, and, by so doing, were hampering the municipality of Zanzibar in the lighting and sanitation of the city. He enquired whether the United States Government would agree to cancel article VI of the treaty. To this the United States Government replied on August 12th, 1919,17 that as long ago as 1914 they had instructed the United States Consul that they did not claim exemption for United States citizens from the payment of a “regular and reasonable tax upon real estate”. They did not, therefore, regard it as necessary to cancel article VI.
4.
In a note dated September 25th, 1919,17 Mr. Lindsay on instructions from His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, informed the United States Government that His Majesty’s Government were desirious of securing the amendment of article 2 of the Treaty, so as to give the Government of Zanzibar a free hand to prohibit the importation of undesirable goods into the Protectorate, and also the abrogation of the personal immunity enjoyed by United [Page 157] States Consular Officers under article 9 of the Treaty and reaffirmed by article 2 of the Treaty of 1886 between the United States and Zanzibar.18 He made it clear at the same time that the suggestion of His Majesty’s Government was not put forward on account of any objection on their part to the past conduct of any United States Consul, but was merely designed to remove the special exemption which was superfluous under the present settled administration.
5.
In a note dated March 3, 1920,19 the State Department replied that they would carefully consider any proposals which His Majesty’s Government might desire to submit.
6.
The projected United States loan to Liberia, however, never materialised20 and no further progress was made at the time with the above mentioned proposals of His Majesty’s Government in regard to the United States-Muscat Treaty.
7.
In 1925 a United States company, the Firestone Rubber Corporation, proposed to the Liberian Government to redeem Liberia’s outstanding indebtedness and make a further loan to the Government in return for concessions for growing rubber.21 One of the conditions of this loan was that a nominee of the United States should be placed in sole control of Liberian Customs. When these proposals became known to His Majesty’s Government, Mr. Chilton was instructed to inform the United States Government that so long as His Majesty’s Government refrained from exercising their right of appointing a British Receiver of Liberian Customs, they naturally expected that the conditions placed before the United States Ambassador in Lord Curzon’s note of the 13th September, 1919, would be observed.
8.
In the note which he consequently addressed to the State Department on October 7th, 1925,22 Mr. Chilton drew attention to Lord Curzon’s note defining the terms on which His Majesty’s Government had agreed to the withdrawal of the British Receiver. While thus drawing general attention to these terms, Mr. Chilton did not at the time think fit to make any more definite reference to Zanzibar, the position being that, for the reasons above explained, no definite arrangement in regard to Zanzibar had ever been reached.
9.
The proposals made by the Firestone Company in 1925 were adopted by Liberia at the end of 1926.23
10.
In pursuance of the understanding reached between the two governments in 1919, His Majesty’s Government have refrained in the past from re-appointing the British Receiver of Liberian Customs, [Page 158] and they have no doubt, in the light of the above considerations and of the correspondence which took place in 1919 and 1920, particularly the State Department’s note of March 3, 1920,24 referred to in paragraph 4 [5] above, that the United States Government will in turn be disposed to give favourable consideration to proposals for the revision of treaty articles which, under modern conditions, conflict with the proper administration of the Protectorate of Zanzibar.
11.
It would be sufficient for the purposes of His Majesty’s Government if the United States Government could see their way to undertake:—
(a)
That they will not interpret article IX of the United States-Muscat Treaty of 1833, nor article II of the Treaty of July 3rd, 1886, between the United States and Zanzibar (so far as the latter article merely re-affirms article IX of the 1833 Treaty) as justifying United States Consular Officers in claiming immunity in the Courts of Zanzibar.
(b)
That they will not claim, in virtue of article II of the Treaty, that United States citizens are free to import into Zanzibar articles the importation of which is prohibited by the Protectorate Government, always provided that such prohibition does not discriminate against articles produced in the United States.
(c)
That, in the event of the Government of Zanzibar finding it desirable on grounds of public policy to fix prices of food or other commodities, and always provided that such price-fixing measures do not involve discrimination against articles produced in the United States, they will not regard as operative the clause in article II of the 1833 Treaty prohibiting the establishment by the Sultan or his officers of any fixed price on articles to be sold by merchants of the United States or on merchandise which the latter may wish to purchase.
12.
In putting forward the first of the above requests, I am once more to explain that this proposal on the part of His Majesty’s Government is not made on account of any objection to the conduct of any United States Consul in Zanzibar, but is merely designed to remove a special exemption which is superfluous under the present Settled administration of the Protectorate.
13.
As regards article 3 of the United States-Muscat Treaty, I am to offer the following observations on the part of my Government and to request you to be so good as to confirm to me on behalf of the United States Government that the assumptions of His Majesty’s Government are correct.
14.
His Majesty’s Government have hitherto regarded themselves as at liberty to approve the increase by the Zanzibar Government of rates of import duty into the Protectorate, in accordance with the spirit of the convention of St. Germain-en-Laye,25 the purpose of [Page 159] which was to revise the restrictive provisions of the earlier Act of Berlin26 and Declaration of Brussels27 so as to enable sufficient revenues to be raised for the proper administration of certain parts of Africa in accordance with changed conditions and upon modern lines. The United States were not parties to the Act of Berlin nor, consequently, to the Declaration of Brussels, nor were they parties to the convention of St. Germain-en-Laye.28 Nevertheless His Majesty’s Government assume that the United States Government do not, under present circumstances, insist upon the limitation to a maximum of ten per cent ad valorem, in accordance with the terms of article 1 of the Convention of the 31st May, 1902, between Great Britain and the United States29 of the import duties upon merchandise imported into the Protectorate. On similar grounds His Majesty’s Government assume that the United States Government do not insist, in virtue of article III of the Treaty of September 21st, 1833, between the United States and Muscat, on the limitation of export duties raised by the Zanzibar Government.

I have [etc.]

Esme Howard
  1. Loan agreement signed March 7, 1912, Foreign Relations, 1912, p. 671; proclaimed in force by the Liberian President on November 26, 1912, ibid., p. 693.↩
  2. See note from the Liberian Secretary of State, January 11, 1918, Foreign Relations, 1918, p. 510.↩
  3. Ibid., p. 545.↩
  4. Ibid., 1919, vol. ii, p. 484.↩
  5. Note not printed; see ibid., p. 486, footnote 31.↩
  6. Not printed.↩
  7. Not printed.↩
  8. Treaty as to duties on liquors and consular powers, signed at anzibar, July 3, 1886; William M. Malloy (ed.), Treaties, Conventions, etc., Between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1776–1909 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1910), vol. ii, p. 1899.↩
  9. Not printed.↩
  10. See Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. ii, pp. 606 ff.↩
  11. See ibid., 1925, vol. ii, pp. 367 ff.↩
  12. Ibid., p. 484.↩
  13. Ibid., 1926, vol. ii, p. 574.↩
  14. Not printed.↩
  15. Convention between the United States and other powers, signed September 10, 1919; Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 437.↩
  16. For French text of the General Act of Berlin of 1885, see British and Foreign State Papers, vol. lxxvi, p. 4.↩
  17. For text of the General Act and Declaration of Brussels of 1890, see Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. ii, p. 1964.↩
  18. Not until the President’s proclamation of November 3, 1934.↩
  19. Foreign Relations, 1902, p. 551.↩