800.01 M 31/186
The Chargé in Great Britain (Wheeler) to the Secretary of
State
London, November 30,
1923.
[Received December 14.]
No. 3181
Sir: Supplementing my telegram No. 533, of
November 30th, 1923,19 I have the honor to enclose copies in triplicate
of Lord Curzon’s note, dated November 26th, 1923, concerning the
proposed Anglo-American Treaties affecting the former German
territories in Central Africa now administered by His Majesty’s
Government under Mandate on behalf of the League of Nations.
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure]
The British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (Curzon) to the Chargé
in Great Britain (Wheeler)
London, November 26,
1923.
No. W8985/70/98
Sir: It was with much gratification
that His Majesty’s Government learnt from Mr. Harvey’s note of
the 24th March last20 that the United
States Government were now in agreement with them as to the
substantive portion of the proposed Anglo-American treaties
affecting the former German territories in Central Africa now
administered by His Majesty’s Government under mandate on behalf
of the League of Nations.
- 2.
- The delay which has arisen in replying to that note has
been caused by the difficulties found to exist in the text
of the preamble
[Page 231]
suggested by the United States Government for the treaties
in question; His Majesty’s Government regret that they have
not been able, after careful consideration, to overcome
their objection to certain passages in this text.
- 3.
- In the first place, reference is made to the suggested
preamble to benefits accruing to the United States under
article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles and confirmed by the
Treaty between the United States and Germany signed on
August 25th, 1921. His Majesty’s Government cannot admit
that any benefits have accrued to the United States under a
treaty which the latter have not ratified, or that, in the
case of the territories now under mandate, Germany retained
after the entry into force of the Treaty of Versailles any
rights over or in them which she could subsequently transfer
to the United States. As was stated in Mr. Harvey’s
memorandum of the 24th August, 1921,21 the
renunciation made by Germany under article 119 of the Treaty
of Versailles was indivisible and no part of the sovereignty
over the territories affected remained to Germany
thereafter.
- 4.
- Paragraph 4 of the suggested preamble states that Japan
agreed, and implies that the United States did not agree,
that His Britannic Majesty should exercise the mandates now
in question. His Majesty’s Government are unable to set
their signature to a text containing either statement or
implication. As is well known, the allocation of the
mandates was made unanimously at a meeting of the Supreme
Council at Versailles on May 7th, 1919 at which President
Wilson, but no Japanese representative, was present. Japan
had no part in the allocation; and though Mr. Wilson has
repudiated any participation in the decision relating to the
island of Yap, I am not aware that it has hitherto been
claimed that he did not agree to the distribution of the
other mandates.
- 5.
- His Majesty’s Government have no desire to enter into
controversy on these matters; it would [in] their view be of
no advantage to do so. It was with the object of avoiding
argument that they proposed the simple form of preamble set
forth at the end of my note of the 30th September,
1922.22 They entertain the
hope that after further consideration the United States
Government will be able to accept either that text or some
other which does not raise the difficulties which I have
ventured to point out.
I have [etc.]
