Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1924, Volume II

867n.01/371: Telegram

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

Washington, April 28, 1924—5 p.m.

108. Department’s 85, April 4, 4 p.m.²⁴ Your written despatch 3180, November 30, 1923.²⁵

Department desires you to address to British Foreign Office a communication substantially as follows:

“I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the communication of His Britannic Majesty’s Government of November 29, 1923,²⁶ proposing the conclusion of the convention with respect to the British Mandate in Palestine which was the subject of a communication from the Embassy to the Foreign Office of July 14, 1922,²⁷ and of a communication addressed by Lord Curzon to my predecessor under date of October 2, 1922.²⁸ There was also received, under date of November 29, 1923,²⁹ a second communication from the Foreign Office which adverted to certain difficulties resulting from the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by the American Consular Court and suggested that the early conclusion of a convention for the recognition of the British Mandate over Palestine would provide the most satisfactory solution of the difficulties in question.

Under instructions, I take pleasure in informing you that my Government concurs in the desirability of an early conclusion of the convention with respect to Palestine and has authorized me to submit to you for your confidential information a copy of the convention recently signed with the Government of France relating to the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon³⁰ and also to communicate to you copies of certain correspondence exchanged with the French Government in connection with this convention.

In view of the fact that the subject matter to be dealt with in the case of the Palestine Convention is similar to that involved in the negotiations in the case of the Syrian Mandate, there would appear to be obvious advantages in preparing conventions in the two cases as nearly alike as possible.

My Government however has not overlooked the fact that three previous drafts of the Palestine Mandate convention have already been prepared; namely, that submitted with the communication of the British Foreign Office June 20, 1922,³¹ a second draft communicated to the Foreign Office by this Embassy under date of July 14, 1922, and a third draft of October 2, 1922, to which reference was made in Lord Curzon’s communication of November 29, 1923. The convention recently concluded with France with respect to Syria and the Lebanon follows on essential points the proposals which were considered in July 1922 and taking this convention as a basis for negotiation, would not involve any material divergence from the earlier proposals.

With respect to the preamble to the Convention, I am instructed to express the hope of my Government that objection will not be raised to the formula which has already been adopted in the case of the convention relating to Syria and the Lebanon. If this result would be facilitated by my Government’s concurrence in incorporating not only the text of the Mandate but also the Preamble to the Mandate in the Preamble to the Convention, my Government is prepared to accept this modification.

As your Excellency will note, my Government suggested to the French Government the inclusion in the Convention with respect to Syria of a provision extending to Syria and the Lebanon the provisions of the existing Extradition and Consular Treaties and Conventions between France and the United States. For reasons which appear in the annexed correspondence, the French Government, while quite willing to extend to the United States the privileges of these treaties, preferred to effect this by an exchange of notes rather than by the addition of an Article in the Convention itself. It is suggested that in the Palestine Convention express provision be made for the application to Palestine of the extradition treaties in force between the two countries along the lines proposed in the British draft of October 2, 1922. The first paragraph of Article VI of the draft convention contains an appropriate provision to this effect.

With regard to the privileges and immunities of Consuls in the mandated territory, your attention is directed to the assurances in this respect which have been given by the French Government in its correspondence with regard to Syria and the Lebanon. Under the capitulatory regime in Palestine the position of Consular Officers and the prerogatives of their offices were safeguarded. As it is contemplated that, in view of the terms of the mandate, capitulatory rights should be suspended, it will be particularly important to my Government that the British Government give assurances that American Consular Officers in the mandated territory would enjoy all the immunities and privileges accorded by international law and custom or as may be granted to the consuls of any other power by treaty or otherwise. In view of the insufficiency of the existing treaty provisions with Great Britain relating to consular rights, a stipulation to this effect as well as for the application to the mandated territory of the provisions of any treaties in force between the two countries which relate to consular rights, is contained in the proposed Article VI.

The text of Article VI which my Government proposes would read as follows:

‘The extradition treaties and conventions in force between the United States and Great Britain and the provisions of any treaties in force between the two countries which relate to extradition or consular rights shall apply to the Mandated territory.

American Consular Officers shall enjoy in the Mandated territory all the rights, privileges and immunities now accorded or hereafter to be accorded by treaty or otherwise to the consular officers of any other country.’

Your Excellency will note that the eight articles of the convention of which I enclose a draft are substantially those proposed in the British Foreign Office draft of October 2, 1922, with the exception of the article given above and article V, with regard to the establishment and maintenance of American educational and philanthropic institutions in the mandated territory. It is hoped that the British Government will not raise objection to the provisions of Article V which have already been accepted by the French Government with regard to Syria and the Lebanon.

My Government’s attention has been called to a note of the Secretary General of the League of Nations dated September 23, 1922 (C 667.M396.1922 VI)³² relating to Article 25 of the Palestine Mandate which indicated that the Council of the League of Nations had approved a memorandum submitted by the British representative outlining the provisions of the mandate for Palestine which are not to be applicable to the territory known as Trans Jordan as therein defined. In this memorandum it is stated that His Majesty’s Government accept full responsibility as mandatory for Transjordan and that such provision as may be made for the administration of that territory, in accordance with Article 25 of the mandate, shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the mandate which are not, by the resolution, declared inapplicable.

Upon the conclusion of the convention between the United States and Great Britain with respect to Palestine it is my Government’s understanding that the convention will be applicable to such territory as may be under British mandate to the east as well as to the west of the River Jordan and that in view of the provisions of Article VII as proposed no further change would be made with respect to the conditions of the British administration of the territory known as Trans Jordan without the previous assent of my Government. I am instructed to inquire whether the British Government is in accord with this view.

In a communication of August 15 [11], 1922,³³ the Foreign Office brought to the attention of the Embassy a communication of the British Government to the Italian Government outlining the privileges which the British Government indicated its willingness to extend to Italy in respect of Palestine. You will note in the enclosures hereto annexed the views which my Government has expressed to the French Government with respect to the somewhat similar assurances given to Italy by France with respect to Syria. It will also be noted that the French Government has undertaken in this correspondence to assure to my Government most-favored-nation treatment with respect to the agreement between France and Italy and any other agreements relating to Syria and the Lebanon which may be entered into by France with any other government. In concluding an agreement with respect to Palestine, my Government trusts that the British Government will be prepared likewise to give in an exchange of notes the assurance of most-favored-nation treatment with respect to the arrangement reached by Great Britain with Italy or any other agreements relating to Palestine which have been or may in the future be reached affecting the Mandated territory.” End of Note.

In addition to draft text of Convention, the Department also desires you to enclose with this note a copy of Syrian Mandate Convention and copies of four communications exchanged between Embassy Paris and French Foreign Office, as follows:

(1) Foreign Office to Embassy November 2, 1923;³⁵

(2) Embassy to Foreign Office December 18, 1923;³⁶

(3) and (4) Communications exchanged between Embassy and Foreign Office at time of signature of Treaty on April 4.³⁷

Department understands that Embassy Paris has communicated this correspondence to you and Department has already received French Foreign Office’s consent to bringing the correspondence to attention of British Government.

With reference to the statement in the concluding paragraph of the note quoted above as to the assurances desired by this Government in the case of Palestine, it is believed that reference to the note itself and to the correspondence with the French Government with respect to the Syrian Mandate will sufficiently indicate the nature of the assurances which the Department desires. The two situations are quite similar, as the undertakings which Great Britain has given to Italy with respect to Palestine are similar to those given by France to Italy with respect to Syria.

In the negotiations with the French Government it was found convenient to agree, prior to formal communication, upon the text of notes to be exchanged at the time of the signature of the convention, and in case the British Foreign Office is agreeable to this procedure, and would be willing to submit in draft form a communication embodying the assurances they are prepared to give, the Department will also communicate a draft reply. If agreement can be reached upon the text of the Mandate Convention and upon the two communications to be exchanged, it will be possible to proceed to the early signature of the Convention for which full powers will be sent you.

Draft text of Convention to be annexed to this note should follow text given in Department’s 201, July 12, 4 p.m. 1922,³⁸ and British draft October 2, 1922³⁹ in the form indicated below:

(a) Preamble as given in Department’s telegram July 12, with following changes:

(1) After fourth paragraph of Preamble, insert “(terms of Mandate)” not “(terms of Mandate without Preamble)”.

(2) Paragraph of Preamble immediately following text of Mandate should read: “Whereas the mandate in the above terms came into force on September 29, 1923.”

(b) Articles of convention, as follows: (1) Articles I to IV inclusive of convention similar to corresponding article of British draft of October 2, 1922, except that concluding word of Article I “hereto” should be replaced by “recited above”. (2) Article V identical with corresponding article in Department’s telegram July 12, 1922. (3) Article VI, as quoted above in text of note. (4) Article VII identical with Article VI of British draft October 2. (5) Article VIII identical with first paragraph Article VII of British draft October 2. No second paragraph.

This draft convention as above described is, as you will note, similar to Syrian Mandate Treaty with the exception that text of Mandate with Preamble may be quoted in Preamble to Convention, a slight change of phraseology is made in Article I and Article VI is added.

From above analysis you will be in a position to draw up and submit with your note a draft of the proposed convention. Department will mail copy to permit you to verify text.

Hughes

24. Not printed.
25. Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. ii, p. 225.
26. Ibid., p. 228.
27. Not printed; see Department’s memorandum of July 12 to the British Embassy, ibid., 1922, vol. ii, p. 287.
28. Ibid., p. 304.
29. Ibid., 1923, vol. ii, p. 225.
30. Vol. i, p. 741.
31. Apparently the draft enclosed with despatch no. 512, July 5, 1922, from the British Chargé; Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. ii, p. 281.
32. See Great Britain, Cmd. 1785, League of Nations (1922): Mandate for Palestine, etc., p. 10; also League of Nations Official Journal, 3d year, no. 11 (Part ii), pp. 1189 and 1390.
33. Not printed.
35. Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. ii, p. 4.
36. See telegram no. 466, Dec. 17, 1923, 8 p.m., to the Ambassador in France, ibid., p. 6.
37. Vol. i, pp. 738 ff.
38. Not printed.
39. Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. ii, p. 304.