711.672/170
Minutes of the Meeting Held at Lausanne, August 6, 192322
The American and Turkish Plenipotentiaries met on August 6, 1923, at the Hotel Beau Rivage, at four o’clock in the afternoon.
There were present:
- Mr. Grew, Mr. Dolbeare, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Belin, Mr. Turlington,
- Mr. Barnes, (United States of America); Ismet Pasha, Riza Nur Bey, Hassan Bey, Mustafa Sheref Bey, Munir Bey, Tewfik Kiamil Bey, Hussein Bey (Turkey).
Ismet Pasha in opening the discussion desired to indicate that by Article 2 of the Treaty which was to be signed today between the United States of America and Turkey, which provided for the abrogation of the capitulations, the Turkish government meant the complete abolition of all the capitulations, both those written into the old treaties and those resulting from custom.
This abolition therefore included every sort of capitulation no matter what might be its nature or origin.
Ismet Pasha asked Mr. Grew if he concurred in this interpretation by the Turkish government of Article 2.
Mr. Grew replied that he concurred on this point.
With reference to Article 3, Mr. Grew desired to indicate that his Government considered that the provisions of this article were without prejudice to the rights of either of the High Contracting Parties to regulate immigration into its territory as it might choose. In order to define the particular form of application of the term “under condition of reciprocity” contained in paragraph 4 of Article 3 and paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the general Treaty, relative to the acquisition, possession and disposition of immovable property by the respective nationals and companies of the two countries, as well as the right of the aforementioned companies to engage in various sorts of commerce and industry, Mr. Grew made the following statement:
“The denial or the restriction to which foreign nationals or companies may be subject in one section of the territory of the United [Page 1145] States of America, so far as the enjoyment is concerned of rights mentioned in paragraph 4 of Article 3 and in paragraph 2 of Article 4, may not, in an attempt to apply the same treatment, be invoked by Turkey except with regard to citizens or companies of that section.”
Mr. Grew asked Ismet Pasha if he concurred in the view expressed in the declaration which he had just made.
Ismet Pasha replied that he concurred in this view.
Concerning the provision included at the end of paragraph 4 of Article 3, which permits nationals of the two countries to employ agents of their own choosing, Ismet Pasha made the observation that this provision could not be invoked by American nationals in Turkey in order to employ in their service workmen of a foreign nationality, the question of the employment of foreign workmen being reserved to the domain of Turkish internal legislation and administration. Similarly, the aforementioned provision could not be invoked in order to open to foreign nationals the practice of professions which, under the law, were forbidden to all foreigners in Turkey.
Mr. Grew replied that he accepted this interpretation.
So far as the freedom of access to the tribunals mentioned in paragraph 5 of Article 3 of the general Treaty was concerned, Ismet Pasha wished to make it clear that this right would be exercised under reserve of the provisions relative to the Caution Judicatum Solvi and to free legal assistance, which would be governed by local legislation.
Mr. Grew replied that he accepted this point of view.
With reference to Article 9, Mr. Grew made it a matter of record that the American experts had proposed to insert in this article the most favored nation clause so far as coastwise traffic was concerned. This clause was omitted at the request of the Turkish experts who declared that in virtue of the commercial Convention signed on July 24, 1923, at Lausanne between Turkey and the Allied Powers,23 coastwise traffic and port services were in Turkey exclusively reserved to the national flag and that the Turkish Government had no intention of modifying this state of affairs. The Turkish experts had added that although certain of the foreign companies in Turkey were authorized to continue their operations for a fixed period, this period was strictly limited to the time necessary for these companies to liquidate their business.
Mr. Grew observed that in the name of his Government he took note of the declaration made by the Turkish experts and that he reserved the point of view of his Government in case the state of affairs referred to in the above declarations should be modified.
[Page 1146]With reference to Article 10 of the general Treaty, which specified most favored nation treatment for the ships and aircraft both of commerce and of war of the United States of America, on condition that they conform with the rules established in the Straits Convention signed at Lausanne July 24, 1923, between Turkey and the Allied Powers,24 Ismet Pasha wished to remark that in case the aforementioned Convention should not be put into force, Turkey would not be bound with regard to the United States of America by the provisions of the aforementioned Convention. Ismet Pasha added that in this case the United States of America would enjoy only the treatment which Turkey should decide to accord the most favored nation. He therefore inquired whether Mr. Grew were in accord with him on this subject.
Mr. Grew replied that he accepted the view which the Chairman of the Turkish delegation had just expressed. He added that it went without saying that the ships and aircraft of the United States would not be obliged to conform to the rules established by the Straits Convention except when these rules were in force at any given moment and that the provisions of the article in question did not imply any obligation for the United States to adhere to the Straits Convention.
Ismet Pasha declared that he had not given up hoping that the Government of the United States would wish to adhere to the Straits Convention at the first opportune moment.
With reference to Article 23, which stated that Consular officers could in their respective districts, address themselves to National, State, Provincial and Municipal authorities, and since in Turkey, outside of State, Provincial and Municipal authorities there did not exist a category of authorities functioning as “National”, and in view also of the fact that consular officers could not address themselves, in connection with their consular duties, to the authorities of the central government in the Capital, Ismet Pasha declared that he understood by this Article that Consular Officers could address themselves only to those civil functionaries in their districts, whether State, Provincial or Municipal, with whom the consular officers of other Powers were in official relationship. Mr. Grew declared that he concurred on this point.
Concerning Article 29, which specified that there would not be imposed upon American nationals or on their property for the fiscal year prior to 1922–23, any impost, tax or surtax to which in virtue of the status which they enjoyed on August 1, 1914, American nationals [Page 1147] or their property would not be subject, Mr. Grew asked Ismet Pasha if the word “ressortissants” (nationals) which was used, included companies and associations as well as individuals.
Ismet Pasha replied that companies and associations were also included in the term “ressortissants” (nationals).
Mr. Grew wished to recall that in consenting to omit the article which appeared in the initial American draft relative to naturalization, the American Delegation had urged that careful note be taken of the hope entertained by the Government of the United States that negotiations for the conclusion of a separate Convention in this matter would be begun at an early date.
Ismet Pasha desired to state in reply that the Turkish Government had not changed its point of view with reference to regulations in force in Turkey relative to the conditions and consequences of the naturalization of Turkish nationals.
Under reserve of this observation, Ismet Pasha declared that he was ready to recommend to his Government the commencement of pourparlers based on the questions brought up by His Excellency, Mr. Grew.
Mr. Grew replied that he would have the pleasure of communicating to his Government the declaration of His Excellency, Ismet Pasha, and that he hoped that a basis would be found for an agreement between the two Governments in so far as this question was concerned.
Mr. Grew pointed out that the supplementary assurances given by the Turkish Delegation concerning the regime of religious, educational and hospital institutions in Turkey, which were included in the report dated May 18, 1923, of the Sub-Committee of the Conference at Lausanne entrusted with the study of this question,25 should be applied to American institutions.
Ismet Pasha replied that it was understood that the assurances in question applied to American institutions.
Mr. Grew observed that the French text of the two treaties drawn up at Lausanne was to be signed today. The English and Turkish texts of these treaties would be signed by the same Plenipotentiaries subsequently and would bear the same date as the French text; they would be considered as having been signed at Lausanne.
Ismet Pasha approved this procedure.
After an exchange of remarks by the respective Plenipotentiaries the meeting was closed by Ismet Pasha at 4:30 in the afternoon.
- Joseph C. Grew
- M. Ismet