867.602/89b: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Herrick)26
244. [Paraphrase.] Recent telegrams from Grew indicate that it is desirable to give the British, French, and Italian Governments a [Page 1024] clear idea of our attitude with respect to the concessions clauses in the proposed protocol to the peace treaty between the Allies and Turkey. At an early opportunity, therefore, you should orally inform the Government to which you are accredited concerning this matter.
There is quoted below for your information and guidance pertinent parts of the Department’s telegram to Lausanne27 instructing. Grew to make a statement along the following lines if the Allies should insist upon the features to which we object in the protocol regarding concessions: [End paraphrase.]
“My Government’s attention has been called to the proposal to include as a part of the general peace settlement a provision apparently intended by the proposers to secure the validation of uncompleted concessionary claims and to secure the recognition and completion of preliminary negotiations for contracts and concessions. In conversations with the heads of the various delegations the American representative has already expressed the view that the procedure contemplated would constitute a dangerous precedent for the future while the vagueness of the terms of the proposed provisions would lead to uncertainty and foster complications in the future commercial relations between Turkey and other powers.
The attitude of my government in regard to a provision of the nature proposed was clearly expressed in a memorandum communicated to the British Embassy in Washington on March 31 last28 in which, in referring to the provisions of article 94 of the draft treaty,29 the following statement was made.
‘It is felt that this provision, if incorporated in a treaty between the allied powers and the Ottoman government, might possibly be invoked by interested parties as confirming or validating claims to concessions which had not in fact been granted and finally approved by the Ottoman Government prior to October 29, 1914. This government considers that it would be unfortunate for the allied powers to insist upon the insertion in the treaty of any provision designed to confer upon allied nationals, with respect to concessions which prior to October 29 1914 were the subject of conventions contracts or decisions, rights more extensive than those which were acquired under or by virtue of the conventions contracts or decisions in question’.
Turkey as any other sovereign power is qualified to give through the procedure sanctioned by its laws, subject to such rights as have already vested, such rights and concessions to foreigners as it may choose, whether through the provisions of a treaty or otherwise. This is fully recognized. However I am instructed to state that my government is not prepared to acquiesce in the view that general provisions of the nature suggested could properly be invoked to impair vested rights of American citizens.
My government would be the first to recognize that valid rights should be respected and that under certain circumstances work performed in good faith may justify a consideration due in equity if not in law, but it finds no adequate basis in precedent and no requirements of justice to support the provisions which are contemplated.”
In making your oral representations to the Foreign Office you should closely follow the text of this statement which the Department has authorized Grew to make in the case that the objectionable features of the protocol are not eliminated.
[Paraphrase.] It was the Department’s particular desire, in instructing Grew as above, to deal with the contingency that Great Britain might endeavor to validate the Turkish Petroleum Company’s alleged concession by invoking the proposed protocol. The desire to strengthen French claims under the alleged contract for a Samsoun-Sivas railroad without doubt influences the French Government in its support of the protocol. As yet the Department has not been given sufficient evidence to properly judge the strength of the French claims under this contract, but your attention is invited to the expression of our views in the above statement that work done in good faith may under certain circumstances justify a consideration which is due in equity if not in law.
It should be noted that in taking this stand the Department is not moved by a desire to give its support to any one particular American interest, e. g., the Chester project, but to preserve a principle and to place the proper protection of Americans on an adequate basis.
According to Grew’s reports the British have been unyielding in their attitude on this question. Grew reports that the French, although more conciliatory, probably will also insist upon the protocol in exchange for concessions which the Turks may force them to make with respect to the currency to be used in paying the Ottoman debt. Apparently the Italian delegate has tried in every way to help Grew to reach a satisfactory settlement.
Telegraph report on result of your representations.
Repeat this telegram to London as our 152 and to Rome as our 57 for similar representations. Refer to our 147 of June 20 to London30 and 52 of the same date to Rome.30 [End paraphrase.]