800.01 M 31/87

The Ambassador in Great Britain (Harvey) to the Secretary of State

No. 811

Sir: With reference to previous correspondence on the question of Mandates, I have the honor herewith the [to] transmit copies of a Note just received from Lord Curzon. This is in reply to a [Page 111] Memorandum which was based upon the Department’s telegram No. 448 of August 4, 8 p.m., and which I handed to him on August 24th last.

I have [etc.]

For the Ambassador:
Post Wheeler

Counselor of Embassy
[Enclosure]

The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Curzon) to the American Ambassador (Harvey)

W 13209/1149/98

Your Excellency: The memorandum of the 24th August, 1921, containing the views of the Government of the United States concerning the mandates for certain territories which, under the terms of the Treaties of Peace, ceased to be under the sovereignty of the enemy Powers, has received the fullest consideration of the British Government in concert with the Governments of the Allied Powers to whom those views were also communicated.

The Government of the United States claims the right to take part in the disposition of these territories and raises, in this connection, various points in regard to the consequences of the non-ratification by the United States of the Treaty of Versailles and of their non-participation in the war with Turkey.

In furtherance of the general principles governing the mandates, as set out in the previous correspondence between the two Governments, the Government of the United States now submits for the consideration of His Majesty’s Government certain modifications which it considers should be made in the texts of the British mandates.

His Majesty’s Government have the honour to state that they have never desired to deprive the United States of the fruits of a victory to which it contributed so generously.

They are quite willing to meet the wishes of the United States as regards the British mandates, and it does not, therefore, seem necessary to enter into a detailed consideration of the general considerations contained in the American note.

The co-operation of the United States in the making of peace was a necessary corollary of their co-operation in the war and in the victory. The Treaty of Versailles was the outcome of the co-operation. It was entered into by the Allied Powers upon the assumption that it represented the common views of all those who had taken part in its preparation after their combined effort to achieve the [Page 112] victory. It was upon the faith of this assumption that the Allied Powers undertook obligations not only towards Germany, but also towards each other, and from which it is now impossible for them to escape.

The decision of one of the Allied and Associated Powers not to ratify the treaty does not modify the obligations which that treaty imposed upon those who have ratified it, nor release them from the pledges it contains; nor can they now enter into new engagements which would be inconsistent with its terms.

What is said above is pre-eminently true with regard to the overseas territories which formerly belonged to Germany. By the Treaty of Versailles Germany renounced all her sovereignty over them; that renunciation was intended, as pointed out in the American note, to be indivisible; no part of that sovereignty remains to Germany to-day. But Germany parted with her sovereignty upon the terms laid down in the treaty. Among the conditions so laid down was the assurance that these territories would in future be administered by mandatories on behalf of, and subject to, the general control of the League of Nations. By that engagement the Allied Powers are bound to stand; they are pledged not only to Germany but to their own peoples to recognise and to accept the special rôle and function of the League of Nations in connection with the mandates over these territories; they can consent to no arrangement with any Power which is inconsistent with the pledges they have given.

In these circumstances His Majesty’s Government put forward the following suggestions as calculated to meet the American proposals concerning the British mandates in Central Africa. As regards the mandates for territories in the Middle East, the position of such territories being still legally undefined, His Majesty’s Government will make them the subject of a later note:73a

1. The Government of the United States proposes that the words “citizens [nationals] of States mentioned in the annex to the Covenant of the League of Nations” should be substituted for the words “nationals of States members of the League of Nations” in article 6 of the mandates for Togoland and the Cameroons, and in article 7 of the British mandate for East Africa, in order that citizens of the United States may be covered by the provision.

In the first place this alteration would exclude from the provision States which, though not mentioned in the annex of the Covenant, have become members of the League since the date of the Treaty of Peace.

Secondly, it must be remembered that the aim of the mandatory system is to make the mandatory Power permanently responsible [Page 113] for the fulfilment of certain duties to those States which have adhered to the Covenant of the League of Nations. His Majesty’s Government find it difficult, therefore, to accept a proposal that the terms of the mandate should refer to any other States, whether by name or by collective definition.

It appears to His Majesty’s Government that the best way to meet the wish expressed in the American note would be for the British Government to give to the Government of the United States a guarantee that citizens of the United States shall enjoy in all respects in the mandated territory the same rights and privileges as citizens of States members of the League of Nations, it being understood that they will be subject to the same conditions. This undertaking might be embodied in an exchange of notes.

The Government of the United States further expresses the wish that paragraph 3 of the same article shall stipulate that the mandatory will not grant monopolistic concessions, and that the natural resources of the mandated territory shall not be monopolised by the mandatory itself.

His Majesty’s Government have no intention of granting concessions having the character of a general monopoly in the territories in question, nor of reserving such concessions to itself. It is necessary, however, in the interest of the mandated territory, that the mandatory should provide the territory with the fiscal resources which seem best suited to the local requirements and, for this purpose, should preserve the right to create monopolies for purely fiscal purposes. Similarly, it is necessary that the Administration should have the right to exploit, as it considers best, those of the natural resources which can be employed in the public interest, as, for example, water power, which could be utilised for the electrification of a railway or for lighting purposes.

The above considerations could be met by the insertion of the following new paragraph after paragraph 3 of article 6:74

Concessions having the character of a general monopoly shall not be granted. This provision does not affect the right of a mandatory to create monopolies of a fiscal character or, in certain cases, to carry out the development of natural resources either directly by the State or by a controlled agency, provided that no monopoly of the natural resources for the benefit of the mandatory shall result therefrom.

2. The Government of the United States asks that article 8 of the British mandate for Tanganyika should be substituted for article 7 of the other African mandates.

[Page 114]

The object of the Administration at Washington is apparently to ensure as a right to American missionaries the freedom to exercise their vocation in Togoland and the Cameroons, which the British Government have given them hitherto in practice. This object can be achieved without making any change in the text of the mandate. His Majesty’s Government are prepared to give to the Government of the United States a similar guarantee as to equality of treatment, as is suggested above, as regards article 6.

His Majesty’s Government are further prepared to declare that, in the mandated territories, missionaries shall have the right to acquire and possess property, to erect buildings for religious purposes, and to open schools, adding as a condition the words, “in conformity with the local law.”

The text of article 7 would, consequently, read as follows:—

“Subject to the provisions of any local law for the maintenance of public order and public morals, the mandatory shall ensure in the territory freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, and shall allow all missionaries, nationals of any State member of the League of Nations, to enter into, travel and reside in the territory for the purpose of prosecuting their calling, to acquire and possess property, to erect buildings for religious purposes, and to open schools, provided that they conform to the local law.”

3. The Government of the United States asks for the addition to paragraph 2 of article 9 of the mandate for Togoland and the Cameroons of the words, “provided always that the measures adopted to that end do not infringe the provisions of this mandate,” which occur in article 10 of the British mandate for Tanganyika.

His Majesty’s Government have no objection to this addition.

4. Finally, the Government of the United States expresses the wish that the consent of the United States shall be obtained before any alteration is made in the text of the mandates.

It would be difficult to insert in the mandate itself a provision of this nature as between the League of Nations and a Power which is not a member of the League. There is, however, nothing to prevent the mandatory giving a separate undertaking to this effect.

In these circumstances the best method of satisfying the desire of the United States would appear to be that His Majesty’s Government, as mandatory, should give the American Government an undertaking that they will not propose nor accept any modifications in the terms of the mandates without previous consultation with the Government of the United States.

His Majesty’s Government venture to hope that the Government of the United States will share the view that the wishes of the [Page 115] United States can be satisfied by means of an exchange of notes between the two Governments, without delaying the issue of mandates which it is undesirable further to postpone.

I have [etc.]

Curzon
of Kedleston
  1. See British note of Dec. 29, p. 115.
  2. Numbered 6 in the draft mandates for Togoland and the Cameroons, and numbered 7 in the draft mandate for East Africa.