125.655/45
The Chargé in Great Britain (Wheeler) to the Secretary of
State
London, January 2,
1923.
[Received January 13.]
No. 1930
Sir: Referring to your telegraphic Instruction
No. 348, of November 8, 5 p.m., 1922, relative to the Newcastle-on-Tyne
case, I have [Page 404] the honor to
transmit herewith, a copy, in triplicate, of a note which has just been
received from the Foreign Office in reply to this Embassy’s note of
November 9, 1922.
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure]
The British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (Curzon) to the American
Chargé (Wheeler)
[London,] 27 December,
1922.
No. A 7598/1133/45
Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge
receipt of Mr. Harvey’s note No. 446 of November 9th on the subject
of the closing of the United States Consulate at
Newcastle-on-Tyne.
- 2.
- As I had the honour to point out to His Excellency in my note
of August 28th last,47 the note addressed to the Secretary of State
of the United States by His Majesty’s Chargé d’Affaires at
Washington on July 18th,47 informing Mr. Hughes of the view taken by
His Majesty’s Government of the action of Mr. Slater and Mr.
Brooks in making difficulties over the issue of visas for the
United States to passengers not travelling by American lines,
was intended as a friendly hint to the United States Government
to transfer those officials to other posts since they were no
longer personae gratae to His Majesty’s
Government. Instead of withdrawing the recognition of Mr. Slater
and Mr. Brooks at once, as was their undoubted right, His
Majesty’s Government postponed action for one month in order to
give the United States Government an opportunity, if they so
desired, to transfer those officers to other posts. The purpose
of this action was precisely to avoid that publicity which Mr.
Harvey appears to deplore in the second and fourth paragraphs of
his note and for which His Majesty’s Government must entirely
disclaim responsibility.
- 2[sic].
- At the conclusion of the period of delay His Majesty’s
Government had no alternative but to exercise their sovereign
right, as had been done by the United States Government in 1856
in the case of the British Consuls at New York, Philadelphia and
Cincinnati,48 and
Mr. Slater’s exequatur and the recognition of Mr. Brooks were
accordingly withdrawn.
- 3.
- In furnishing the United States Government with an indication
of the reasons for their action and with copies of the
statements submitted, the object of His Majesty’s Government was
to place the United States Government in possession of
information which might show that no unfriendly motive underlay
the decision of His [Page 405]
Majesty’s Government and which might at the same time permit the
United States Government to conduct such enquiries as they might
think fit, from the point of view of the internal administration
of the United States Consular Service, into the charges brought
against the two Consular Officers. It was at the same time hoped
that a frank exchange of views would enable the two governments,
in consultation, to frame whatever new regulations might be
necessary on the one side or the other to prevent the occurrence
at other places of difficulties of a like character. It was not
thought, nor could it be admitted, that there should be any
question of reviewing the conclusions to which His Majesty’s
Government had come after a full consideration of all the
facts.
- 4.
- I have taken due note of the intelligence conveyed in Mr.
Harvey’s note that, as a result of separate investigations, the
character and scope of which are unknown to me, the United
States Government have drawn conclusions different from those
drawn by His. Majesty’s Government, but while regretting this
difference of opinion, His Majesty’s Government feel bound to
adhere to their original position.
- 5.
- You will have gathered from what I have already stated in this
note that I cannot admit the justification of the statement made
in Mr. Harvey’s note under reply, to the effect that “innocent
officers have been publicly and unwarrantably accused of serious
misconduct and the good faith of the foreign service of a
friendly nation has been openly brought into question upon
inadequate and incorrect information”. On the contrary, His
Majesty’s Government regard the information at their disposal as
being entirely accurate in substance and consequently entirely
adequate to warrant the cancellation of the officers’
recognition.
- 6.
- Mr. Harvey’s note appears, however, to have been written on
the assumption that a legal case had to be made out against the
officers in question before the recognition extended to either
of them by His Majesty’s Government could be properly withdrawn.
Such an assumption is at variance with the well-established
international practice in these matters and very distinctly at
variance with the action of the United States in the precedents
already mentioned above.
- 7.
- It may well be admitted that affidavits made by persons who,
for good reasons, prefer that their identity should not be
publicly disclosed, would not be accepted as competent evidence
in a court of justice but it must be pointed out that the
statements, with copies of which Mr. Harvey has been furnished,
were presented to the Foreign Office by individuals whose
truthfulness is not doubted by His Majesty’s Government.
- 8.
- As a result of those statements the confidence previously
reposed by His Majesty’s Government in the correct official
conduct of Mr. Slater and Mr. Brooks was shaken and, in the
circumstances, the continuation of their employment as consular
officers in British territory could obviously be of benefit to
neither country.
I have [etc.]
