467.00 R 29/27a: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Kellogg)
368. As an Associated Power the United States under article 259 of the Treaty of Versailles and article 210 of the Treaty of St. Germain is entitled to be consulted on disposition to be made of sums of Turkish gold delivered by Austria and Germany under these treaty articles; see Department’s instruction of July 16, 1923.57 By article 58 of the Allies’ treaty with Turkey,58 that country renounces in favor of the Allied Powers any right in gold in question in consideration of Allies’ waiver of their reparation claims against Turkey. At the time that the Allies’ treaty was negotiated the American representative at Lausanne made full reservation of the rights of the United States.59
It is not believed that the United States has any beneficial interest in this gold, but our consent is now asked to its delivery to the Allied assessment commission (your despatch no. 45, January 29, 192457), to be used in payment Allied claims against Turkey. Department understands that gold amounts to £5,000,000. The Government of the United States fully appreciates fact that it has been consulted by Allied Governments, an inquiry in the matter having been addressed to Mr. Whitehouse, Chargé in France, by the secretariat general of the Conference of Ambassadors on October 20. This fact may be a useful precedent in connection with other and more important matters arising under the Treaty of Versailles. The question is, however, whether the Government of the United States should at once acquiesce in the delivery of the Turkish gold to the Allies in view of Sir Eyre Crowe’s intimation that our right to participate in proceeds of the Dawes Plan may be contested on some technical ground. The question just now is not over any direct [Page 65] relation between the two matters, but whether this Government should facilitate the Allies in any of their dispositions if they are going to take so inequitable a stand in regard to our claims. The right of the United States to share in the proceeds of the Dawes Plan as provided in the plan itself is believed to be sound legally; it is certainly most equitable, as this Government has precisely the same right to be paid by Germany as has any other of the victors and we are in reality presenting claims for much less than we are entitled to present. If the Allies, as intimated by Sir Eyre Crowe, should see fit to treat us so inequitably as to attempt to contest our sharing on a proper basis in the proceeds of the Dawes Plan, then it is a question whether we should in any way facilitate the Allies in regard to consents for any purpose whatever. It may be well for the British Foreign Office to understand that, should they take such an inequitable position, they may, from now on, reckon with our determined opposition in connection with anything they may desire.
It is possible that the situation described above would afford you a favorable opportunity to ascertain the attitude of the Foreign Office in an informal and wholly personal interview, and to intimate what our position will be. I should appreciate your frank opinion on this suggestion. It seems to me that, should this Government in the course of the next few weeks meet with opposition from the Allies, and especially from the British Government, to its sharing in the proceeds of the Dawes Plan, apparently we would have been in fact assisting those who give us scant consideration in return. You will understand that this is not in any way to demand a quid pro quo for acquiescence by this Government in the disposition of the Turkish gold. No quid pro quo is desired, but merely fair treatment in regard to the matters which are coming up under the Dawes Plan and the Treaty of Versailles. You will remember that we also have unsettled questions in regard to cables and to the British C mandates. Should it become necessary to explain fully our relation to these matters it is desirable that we should not be in a position where apparently we have acquiesced in whatever was asked of us and then have received no justice in connection with our claims. Suggestion made is that you may have an opportunity to ascertain what the British propose to do. It does not appear that we have anything to lose by having it understood that no favors or consents of any kind and no facilitation of any of their proceedings in the future can be expected from us unless they deal fairly with us in regard to our claims.