List of Papers

[Unless otherwise specified, the correspondence is from or to officials in the Department of State.]

GERMANY

Insistence by the United States Upon Its Right To Participate in the Distribution of German Reparation Payments Under the Dawes Plan

[Page VIII] [Page IX] [Page X] [Page XI] [Page XII] [Page XIII] [Page XIV] [Page XV] [Page XVI] [Page XVII] [Page XVIII] [Page XIX]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Feb. 23 (58)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Possibility that the recommendations of the first committee of experts will provide for utilization of all of Germany’s available assets in compensation for claims of other Allied and Associated Powers without taking into consideration American rights to reimbursement of Army costs and payments of claims adjudicated by the Mixed Claims Commission under the agreement of August 10, 1922, with Germany. View that if a moratorium is recommended and if current army costs are exempted therefrom, an arrangement should also be made exempting a certain definite amount, say one-twelfth of the total under the agreement of May 25, 1923, as an annual payment on account of American Army costs; also that the United States is entitled to compensation of $500,000,000 or whatever amount the Mixed Claims Commission may finally determine. Instructions to inform Dawes and Owen Young, adding that the United States would view with disapproval any settlement of the reparation problem which did not take into proper account its legitimate claims while providing for claims of other powers.	1
Feb. 28 (93)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Information that the experts’ committee is to deal with the manner and amount of German payments and has neither the intention nor competence to deal with the question of distribution. Belief that broadest interests of U. S. Government are best protected by refraining at this time from interjecting U. S. claims into the discussion of the committees of experts and by encouraging the reaching of a solution of the economic and financial phases of the problem by the committees of experts. Intention not to inform Dawes and Owen Young concerning Department’s views unless instructed to do so.	3
Mar. 7 (77)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Reason why Dawes and Owen Young should be advised of Department’s Army costs plan and the provisions of the agreement of May 25, 1923.	5
Mar. 12 (114)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Report that Dawes and Owen Young are aware of the views and position of the U. S. Government and that they will endeavor to protect U. S. interests in the drafting of the experts’ report. Suggestion that if there is no success in obtaining a favorable drafting, the United States might make reservations when report is acted upon by the Reparation Commission.	7
Mar. 15 (91)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Explanation that the Department’s purpose in pressing its views was to avoid the necessity of making any protest against the report. Instructions, however, to make appropriate representations before the Reparation Commission should the nature of the report, or any understandings which accompany it, or the action of the Commission, be such as to embarrass the U. S. Government in the protection of American claims.	8
Mar. 22 (139)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Information that the draft report of the second committee protects U. S. Army costs but leaves unprotected the Mixed Claims Commission position of the United States; that Dawes and Owen Young are working on the matter but have met strong opposition to a provision for meeting the judgments of the Mixed Claims Commission, the general feeling being that the U. S. equity on that account is secured and the U. S. position protected by the German holdings of the Alien Property Custodian.	10
Apr. 12 (326)	From the British Ambassador. Information that the British Government is prepared to support the experts’ report in its entirety, provided all the other parties concerned are willing to take the same course and agree to give the experiment a real chance, waiting to make modifications until experience has been acquired and then only by common agreement. (Note sent also to Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan.)	11
Apr. 17 (147)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Efforts of British Prime Minister to obtain absolute unanimity for an unconditional acceptance of the experts’ report; his receipt of absolute assurances from Germany and Italy and noncommittal replies from Belgium and France; his suggestion that the U. S. Government support his efforts by some statement approving or praising the experts’ report.	12
Apr. 18 (102)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Information that President Coolidge will deal appropriately with subject of experts’ report in his speech at meeting of Associated Press in New York, April 22.	13
Apr. 23	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Excerpts from President Coolidge’s speech of April 22 (text printed) commending experts’ report (Dawes Plan) and recommending American participation in proposed loan to Germany. (Instructions to repeat to Berlin, Brussels, London, and Rome.)	13
May 12 (253)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Opinion that the present time is especially favorable for asserting U. S. claim for share in proposed payments under the experts’ plan. Suggestion that the claim be based on broad grounds of equity rather than legal grounds. Recommendation as to Department’s position on disposition of enemy property, crediting on claims of value of German cables transferred to United States, and priority of claims for Army costs and awards of Mixed Claims Commission.	16
June 14 (181)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Advice that the United States expects to share in payments made by Germany under the Dawes Plan, basing its claim on equities of United States as a cobelligerent rather than upon legal rights under treaty with Germany and upon reference in section 11, part I, of the Dawes Plan to “all amounts for which Germany may be liable to the Allied and Associated Powers.” Proposed position regarding Army costs, disposition of enemy property, ships, cables, and maximum current army costs. Request for views on proposals and for suggestions as to time and manner of indicating to Allied Powers the U. S. claims.	18
June 14 (182)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Information as to how the Department reached the views set forth in telegram no. 181, June 14, 1 p.m.	23
June 18 (220)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Prime Minister’s intimation that after his interview with Herriot, June 21, there will be a meeting of Prime Ministers and the United States will be invited to have a representative present.	24
June 23 (310)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Suggestion that the Department’s announcement of U. S. claim to participation under the Dawes Plan be deferred until results of Herriot-MacDonald conference and scope of inter-Allied conference set for July 16 are known. Comments on Department’s proposed position.	24
June 24 (174)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Instructions to inform Prime Minister that the United States does not see its way clear to be represented at the meeting of the Prime Ministers but will take pleasure in instructing Mr. Logan to be present in London at the time of the meeting for purposes of information.	27
June 24 (223)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Receipt of a British memorandum urging American participation in the meeting of the Prime Ministers at London, July 16.	28
June 24 (224)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) British memorandum (text printed) outlining provisions of a protocol to give effect to the recommendations of the Dawes report which will be discussed at the meeting of the Prime Ministers at London, July 16, and urging U. S. participation in the conference.	28
June 25 (225)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Opinion that refusal of invitation would have a depressing effect; also that its withdrawal seems impossible, as the Prime Minister has announced in Parliament that the invitation would be extended.	31
June 25 (176)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Decision to adopt a somewhat different course regarding invitation. Instructions to attend conference on July 16 for purpose of dealing with such matters as affect American interests and for purposes of information. Intention to instruct Logan to proceed to London to assist the Ambassador. Public statement being issued by White House (text printed).	31
June 27 (179)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Note for Foreign Office (text printed) stating that the United States is not in a position to enter into an understanding to execute the experts’ recommendations, since the United States is not a party to the economic and military sanctions to which Germany is now subject; but that the American Ambassador has been instructed to attend the conference for the purpose of dealing with matters affecting U. S. interests and for purposes of information. Authorization to convey orally U. S. views regarding sanctions and the flotation of a loan in the United States. (Instructions to repeat to Belgium, Italy, and France, requesting latter to give copy to Logan.)	32
June 28 (205)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Further specific information as to Department’s proposed position.	35
July 2 (323)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Comments and suggestions regarding Department’s proposed position.	38
July 5 (216)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Further clarification of Department’s proposed position.	40
July 5 (217)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Draft note for the Allied Powers (text printed) stating that, in view of the provision in the experts’ report that the payments contemplated comprise amounts for which Germany is liable to Allied and Associated Powers for war costs and pursuant to the treaty between the United States and Germany proclaimed in 1921, the United States desires to reach an understanding with the Allied Governments in order that its and their claims may be paid suitably; also that the United States would be glad to be informed when and how it is proposed to consider apportionment among the Allied and Associated Powers. Instructions to consult Ambassadors at London and Paris and report suggestions or whether any objection is perceived to submitting such a note at this time. (Instructions to repeat to Great Britain.)	42
July 8 (333)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Alternative draft note verbale (text printed); recommendation, however, that the United States reserve all formal communications to Allies on subject of U. S. claims until after the London Conference, taking the precaution to instruct the American Ambassador at London on the attitude to be taken if question of distribution were to come before conference.	43
July 9 (226)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Concurrence in recommendation to withhold note verbale; request for comments on desirability of obtaining from British Prime Minister, before London Conference, recognition of principle of American participation in payments under Dawes Plan, with the understanding that details of participation will be subject of negotiation at time when question of distribution will be considered.	45
July 9 (336)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) Satisfactory conference in Paris between the British and French Prime Ministers; their final agreement to leave to an American, presumably the Agent General, the decision of question of a German default.	45
July 10 (241)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Concurrence with Logan’s recommendation that note verbale should be withheld and if question of payments by Germany is raised conference should be notified of U. S. position. Opinion that conclusion of draft suggested by Logan is too indefinite.	46
Undated [Rec’d July 11]	From the British Embassy Note drawn up July 9 by the British and French Prime Ministers at their Paris meeting for submission to the Allied Governments (text printed) setting forth points agreed upon, with particular reference to necessity for presence of an American on the Reparation Commission, in case the Commission should have to declare a default on the part of Germany, or the submission of the question of default to the Agent General, who should be an American.	46
July 11 (204)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Instructions to make clear to the British and French Premiers, informally, and also, in his discretion, to the representatives of the other principal Allied Governments, before the commencement of the London Conference, that the United States expects to participate in payments under the experts’ plan; and to report at once their attitude.	50
July 12 (206)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) For Logan also: Information that the British and French representatives were informed when they presented the identic note that the United States could not appoint a representative upon the Reparation Commission without the consent of the Senate and that as Senate would not convene until December it would be wholly impracticable to have such an arrangement as an integral part of the present plans of the Allies; but that there would be no objection to the appointment of an American as Agent General. (Instructions to repeat to Paris.)	50
July 13 (249)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) From Logan: Further comment on Department’s proposals.	51
July 16 (216)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) For the Secretary of State upon his arrival at London: Information of the French Chargé’s visit to confirm his understanding of the Secretary’s views expressed to him and the British Chargé on July 11, and to convey his Government’s appreciation of the favorable way in which the identic note had been received.	52
July 16 (217)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) For Logan: Further clarification of Department’s proposed position.	52
Aug. 5 (314)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Resolution offered to conference by the French delegation, calling for a meeting of Allied Finance Ministers at Paris immediately after London Conference, to settle allocation of payments received from Germany since January 1, 1923, and also payments during the first years of the operation of the Dawes Plan. Letter to the secretary general of conference stating that under section 11, part I, of the Dawes Plan the United States should participate in the proposed conference as the only Associated Power.	54
Aug. 8 (328)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Information that the Secretary of State approves of the letter sent to the secretary general of the conference and sees no objection to an early meeting at Paris to discuss distribution; also that the Secretary approves of memorandum which the Ambassador and Logan have prepared dealing with U. S. participation in payments under the Dawes Plan and which they expect to deliver to Allied representatives at appropriate moment.	55
Aug. 12 (339)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) British Prime Minister’s inquiry whether the United States would be represented at a conference on subject of inter-Allied debts, and Ambassador’s negative reply. Conference decision to hold conference on subject of division of payments between Allied and Associated Powers, probably in October, and American Ambassador’s reiteration of statement that the United States would be represented at this conference.	55
Aug. 13 (341)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Intimation that the British Treasury objects to U. S. representation at the Finance Ministers’ Conference and that payment of U. S. general claims will meet with opposition from the British Treasury unless payments are extended over a long period. Opinion that detailed memorandum of U. S. position should be reserved for negotiation.	56
Aug. 13 (295)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Department’s desire that Allied Governments be committed to the principle of U. S. participation in payments under the Dawes Plan before the conclusion of the London Conference. Instructions to endeavor to postpone the conclusion of the final agreement until the Department has an opportunity to consult the Secretary upon his return. Authorization to make reservation, however, should it be found impossible to secure postponement or a definite recognition of the principle of U. S. participation in the payments.	57
Aug. 14 (345)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Confidence that the London Conference will undertake no commitments regarding division of payments, and that whole subject will be left open for Finance Ministers’ Conference. Opinion that to inject a new and difficult issue at this critical moment might disrupt the conference and afford an opportunity to lay blame on United States.	58
Sept. 25 (394)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Inability of British Treasury to state at present when Finance Ministers’ Conference would be held.	59
Sept. 26 (299)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Appointment as representative of American Government to financial conference at Paris to consider allocation of German payments under Dawes Plan.	59
Oct. 9 (434)	From the Chargé in France (tel.) From Logan: Urgent recommendation that Allied Powers be notified immediately of U. S. acceptance of invitation extended at London Conference to be present at the proposed financial conference and of Logan’s designation as U. S. representative, in view of the receipt of a note from Sir Eyre Crowe of the British Foreign Office suggesting that the United States be represented by an observer during preliminary conference of experts to be convened October 14 at Paris and making a definite reserve that the British Government does not accept the U. S. point of view regarding U. S. participation in all-inclusive Dawes annuity.	59
Oct. 10 (413)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Withdrawal of British note and presentation of a new note substituting the word “representative” wherever the word “observer” appeared.	61
Oct. 10 (353)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Note for Sir Eyre Crowe of the British Foreign Office (text printed) informing him that Logan has been designated U. S. representative to the Finance Ministers’ Conference and that the United States will be happy to arrange for representation in the preliminary conference of experts proposed by the British Government; also that Belgium, France, Italy, and Japan are being informed of Logan’s appointment. (Instructions to repeat to Logan.)	61
Oct. 11 (322)	To the Chargé in France (tel.) For Logan: Instructions to attend personally the opening meetings of preliminary conference of experts since in them may be raised and threshed out the major issues to be dealt with at Finance Ministers’ Conference.	62
Oct. 14 (332)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Note from French Embassy (text printed) stating that the French Government has proposed that the preliminary conference of experts be postponed to October 27. (Instructions to repeat to London.)	63
Oct. 21 (368)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Suggestion that the inquiry of the Allied Governments for U. S. consent to the delivery of Turkish gold to the assessment commission to be used in payment of Allied claims against Turkey, might afford a favorable opportunity to ascertain whether the British Foreign Office intends to take an inequitable position regarding U. S. participation in payments under Dawes Plan and to intimate that no favors or consents of any kind and no facilitation of their proceedings in the future can be expected from the United States unless they deal fairly with U. S. claims.	64
Oct. 21 (452)	From the Chargé in France (tel.) From Logan: Request for advice as to Department’s position should question of Belgian war debt be raised in conference, in view of importance of obtaining Belgium’s support for U. S. position regarding claims.	66
Oct. 28 (442)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Conversation with Sir Eyre Crowe in which the Ambassador explained in detail the U. S. claims for Army costs and reparations and reasons for U. S. participation in payments under the Dawes Plan; and Crowe contended that technically the United States could not enter into a separate treaty with Germany and make U. S. claims preferred claims over those of the Allies or pari passu with them.	68
Oct. 30 (472)	From the Chargé in France (tel.) From Logan: Report on first meetings of preliminary conference at which United States had representatives with listening briefs only, Logan not attending because questions discussed related almost exclusively to Ruhr occupation and he felt that time was not opportune for introducing U. S. claims. Information that French delegates will support U. S. position at Finance Ministers’ Conference; but that there will be British opposition which may have to be handled through diplomatic channels. Suggestion that Italian attitude be ascertained through Embassy in Italy.	69
Nov. 7 (376)	To the Chargé in France (tel.) For Logan: View that question of Belgian debt should not be raised at forthcoming conference as it is a matter of debts and therefore within the competency of the Debt Commission and is quite distinct from the Dawes Plan annuities. Authorization to suggest to Belgian representatives that they follow the French in supporting the U. S. position. Information that the Ambassador in Italy is being instructed to report any information that reaches him on Italy’s attitude, but not to make direct inquiries or to discuss the question without specific instructions.	71
Nov. 11 (386)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Information that J. P. Morgan & Co. has just consulted the Department concerning a proposed French loan of $100,000,000 and that the Department has intimated it would oppose the flotation of a French loan were there any doubt of French support for U. S. claims at the forthcoming conference. Authorization to communicate informally on this with Herriot or Clémentel and obtain definite assurance of French support. Advice that Ambassador in Great Britain is being informed and is being instructed to ascertain position of Prime Minister or Foreign Minister on payment of U. S. claims.	72
Nov. 12 (467)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Suggestion that matter of U. S. claims be presented to the Foreign Minister first and a memorandum of the U. S. position left with him emphasizing the equitable position of the United States and mentioning that the plenary conference on July 28 approved the report of the second committee providing that the Agent General should provide for payments of reparations and other treaty charges in accordance with decisions as to distribution which would be taken by the Allied and Associated Powers. Receipt of a letter from Owen Young as to purpose and intent of section 11 of the Dawes report, which Ambassador is authorized to use with British Government in support of U. S. claims.	73
Nov. 12 (493)	From the Chargé in France (tel.) From Logan: Request for views and instructions on a suggested formula for French support, to be reduced to writing and signed before U. S. position on French loan is announced definitely.	74
Nov. 13 (389)	To the Chargé in France (tel.) For Logan: Approval, with slight modification, of suggested formula for French support.	75
Nov. 13 (418)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Concurrence in plan to see Foreign Minister first and leave memorandum with him. Instructions to make use of only a portion of Owen Young’s letter.	76
Nov. 16 (174)	From the Chargé in Italy (tel.) Reported statement of the Secretary General of the Foreign Office that he sees no reason why Italian delegation should not support U. S. position for payment of claims.	76
Nov. 17 (512)	From the Chargé in France (tel.) From Logan: Suggestion that the United States press its claims not only on equitable grounds but also on the legal grounds that the London Conference in accepting the Dawes Plan to that extent altered the Treaty of Versailles and put everyone on a parity and that the London Conference accepted the text of the report without change on August 16 after the U. S. claims position had been notified to the conference.	77
Nov. 20 (483)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Concurrence in Logan’s suggestion that United States should press not only its equitable rights but also its legal rights, which the Ambassador believes are incontrovertible.	77
Nov. 20 (484)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Presentation of oral and written representations to Chamberlain and Sir Eyre Crowe setting forth legal and equitable grounds for U. S. claims. Chamberlain’s denial that there was any dispute over U. S. Army costs; his expressed surprise over U. S. claims for reparations, stating that the British members of the experts’ commission had no knowledge that U. S. claims were envisaged in insertion in Dawes report of phrase “Allied and Associated Powers;” and his intimation that if the United States was to receive reparations it should give credit for alien property seized, especially ships. Request for U. S. attitude and position on ships and alien property.	79
Nov. 21	From the Unofficial Representative on the Reparation Commission Memorandum of a conversation between the French Minister of Finance and Logan at the Finance Ministers’ Conference, October 25 (text printed) constituting a formula of French position and French assurance of support of American claim to participation in Dawes annuities. Memorandum by Belgian Assistant Delegate, November 19 (text printed) accepting French formula and giving similar assurances.	80
Nov. 24 (877)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain Memorandum left with the Foreign Minister, November 15 (text printed) setting forth the legal and equitable bases for U. S. claims; and expressing willingness to recast the Army Costs Agreement and to make an extension of the time of payments, provided a reasonable percentage of the money paid into the bank for reparations is also allowed on the U. S. general claims.	84
Nov. 24 (433)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Brief statement of the Department’s position on ships and alien property.	91
Nov. 26 (535)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Information that at the experts’ meeting that morning he had orally presented the U. S. claims and the legal and equitable bases for them; that the French and Belgian representatives had supported the U. S. position; but that the British, Italian, and Japanese representatives had stated that they were without instructions to support the U. S. position.	92
Nov. 28 (139)	To the Chargé in Italy (tel.) Instructions to make representations to Foreign Office and request support of U. S. claims at Paris.	93
Nov. 29 (424)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Opinion that it would be dangerous to base legal position upon alteration of Treaty of Versailles. Explanation that legal position of United States is based upon Armistice, Treaty of Versailles, resolution of Congress approved July 2, 1921, and treaty of August 25, 1921, with Germany. Concurrence with suggestion that legal rights should be stressed and appearance of resting case wholly on equitable grounds be avoided.	94
Dec. 1 (177)	From the Chargé in Italy (tel.) Information that Italian representative has been instructed to support the U. S. position.	95
Dec. 4 (433)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Information of the receipt of a British note proposing the postponement of the meeting of Finance Ministers to January 6, 1925, and the Department’s reply that the proposed date is acceptable. Instructions to inform the Foreign Office. (Instructions to repeat to Brussels and Rome and give copy to Logan.)	95
Dec. 4 (509)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Memorandum dated December 3 received from Chamberlain (text printed) admitting U. S. claims for Army costs, but denying legality of U. S. claims for damages to persons and property; stating willingness, however, to discuss U. S. claim for damages on condition that amount of U. S. claim should be stated, claim should be reduced to proportion to which signatories of Versailles Treaty reduced their claims, and value of German property in U. S. custody should be credited on U. S. claim. Ambassador’s comments and suggestions as to reply.	96
Dec. 9 (457)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Note for Chamberlain (text printed) presenting arguments upholding legal as well as equitable right of the United States to participate in payments by Germany under Dawes Plan; and expressing willingness to make fair arrangement as to annual extent of American participation.	102
Dec. 14 (209)	To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Information for discreet use in effort to enlist Japanese support, which has been given only tentatively and confidentially.	107
Dec. 19 (585)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Request for specific instructions as to Department’s present position on certain questions, in preparation for the Finance Ministers’ Conference,	108
Dec. 22 (590)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) Foreign Minister’s note, December 20 (text printed) fixing January 6, 1925, as the date of the Finance Ministers’ Conference.	111
Dec. 23 (342)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Conversation with the Foreign Minister in which the Foreign Minister admitted that on equitable grounds there was no reason to question the U. S. claim, but that the legal basis of the claim was still under consideration; and the Ambassador intimated that the United States is prepared to apply alien property fund against its claims and would make some reduction in its claims.	112
Dec. 24 (480)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Specific information as to Department’s position on certain questions, as requested by Logan. (Instructions to repeat to Great Britain.)	113
Dec. 24 (482)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Desirability of Ambassador’s presence at the Finance Ministers’ conference.	115
Dec. 24 (483)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Information that the U. S. Ambassador to Japan has inadvertently made incorrect statements to Japan concerning the U. S. position on application of alien property fund against U. S. claims and regarding reduction in U. S. claims; and that the Ambassador has been instructed to make the U. S. position clear to the Japanese Foreign Minister and ascertain whether his statements have been telegraphed to Japanese missions in Europe. (Instructions to repeat to Logan.)	115
Dec. 26 (485)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Report from Ambassador in Japan that American position has been made clear to Japanese Foreign Minister and that no communications have been sent out based on misunderstanding. (Instructions to repeat to Logan.)	116
Dec. 29 (606)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Letter dated December 23 from the British representative on the experts’ committee (text printed) requesting confirmation of his understanding that the U. S. delegation intends to claim that (1) U. S. Army costs arrears should be met by an annuity spread over 24 years from January 1, 1923, which would be a prior claim charge on future cash receipts and would amount to an annuity not exceeding 50 million gold marks, and (2) the other claim would be met by an annuity not exceeding 50 million gold marks, expressed at percentage of Dawes annuity, which would not be entitled to any priority and would be transferred pari passu with reparation shares of Allied Powers. Transmittal of his proposed reply.	117
Dec. 30 (492)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Note for Foreign Minister if Logan concurs (text printed) stating that the date of January 6, 1925, for the Finance Ministers’ Conference is entirely agreeable to the U. S. Government, which has taken steps to be represented at the conference; and expressing opinion that decisions regarding allocation of annuities should, cover as many years as possible, their application not being restricted to the first years of the plan.	118
Dec. 31 (546)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Chamberlain’s note, December 29 (text printed) presenting further arguments and representations against participation of the United States in payments to be made by Germany under the Dawes Plan; and suggesting arbitration of question.	119
Dec. 31 (495)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Instructions to proceed to Paris for Finance Ministers’ Conference, his presence being necessary to carry out U. S. intention to meet the British at Paris and press for a full discussion of U. S. claims and insistence on U. S. rights and to make British opposition as inconvenient for them as possible, being ready, however, at the same time to reach an amicable adjustment on a reasonable basis. (Similar instructions sent to Logan and Herrick on December 31.)	125
1925 Jan. 3 (7)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) Information that note accepting invitation to Finance Ministers’ Conference was delivered December 31.	126
Jan. 3 (11)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Cynical comment by British representative in regard to American plan for settlement of claims. Presentation of memorandum to British representative in reply to his request for confirmation of his understanding of U. S. delegation’s scheme for settlement.	126
Jan. 3 (9)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Note for Chamberlain (text printed) restating the bases for the U. S. claims and the U. S. scheme for settlement, and refusing the British suggestion that the matter be submitted to arbitration.	127
Jan. 3	From the American Representative at the Preliminary Meeting of Experts to the British Representative Confirmation of the British representative’s understanding of the U. S. delegation’s scheme for settlement, together with certain observations.	132

Appointment of an American as Agent General for Reparation Payments Under the Dawes Plan

[Page XX]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 June 25 (313)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: British desire for an American, preferably Dwight Morrow, as Agent General for reparation payments. Opinion that Wall Street banker is not best choice, considering socialist and anti-capitalist tendencies in Europe.	135
June 29 (207)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Owen Young’s cablegram to British member of committee of experts (text printed) suggesting that choice of Agent General should be unanimous.	136
July 2 (324)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Unanimous desire of delegates for the appointment of an American for Agent General; French condition that a French national, preferably Leverve, be appointed as Railway Commissioner, to which the other delegates agree to lend support.	136
July 3 (213)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Information that Morrow declines appointment and that Owen Young will accept under certain conditions and for a definite time.	137
Aug. 16	To President Coolidge (tel.) British suggestion of Gilbert, recent Under Secretary of U. S. Treasury, for Agent General; no objections by Young and Department if appointment meets with approval of interested Governments.	138
Aug. 17 (302)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) The President’s approval of Gilbert, although preferring Young. Appreciation of services of Kellogg and Logan.	138
Aug. 18 (354)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Opinion that Young should accept position of Agent General, even if temporarily, in order to start plan.	139
Aug. 18 (305)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Desirability of appointment of Young.	139
Aug. 19 (359)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Young’s intention to go to Paris to work out plan of reparations as Agent General, pending permanent appointee.	139
Sept. 3 (399)	From the Chargé in France (tel.) From Logan: Formal appointment of Gilbert as Agent General for reparation payments.	139

Payment by Belgium to the United States on Account of the Costs of the American Army of Occupation in Germany

[Page XXI] [Page XXII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 May 13 (255)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Belgian representative’s oral proposal that Belgium deposit in a special blocked account for U. S. Army costs, to await ratification of Army Costs Agreement, 25 percent of the 100,000,000 gold marks on deposit at Coblenz as net product of the Ruhr occupation, which will be turned over to Belgium directly for application to Belgian priority. Draft reply (text printed) accepting proposal and suggesting that the special account be opened in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.	140
May 28 (171)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Authorization to inform Belgian representative orally that the United States would have no objection to proposed special account in favor of Army costs, on understanding that assent of other Governments concerned has been obtained. Instructions to telegraph text of any written proposal and text of proposed reply.	142
June 16 (302)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Letter, dated June 14, from Belgian assistant representative (text printed) explaining the decision to turn over the sums on deposit at Coblenz directly to Belgium, Belgium remaining accountable to the Reparation Commission and to the United States for portion payable to it; and requesting information as to U. S. desires, as the Belgian Government is ready to deposit 25 percent of the cash in the special blocked account. Suggestion that Department waive proposed step requesting advance consent of powers, and accept offer.	143
June 24 (196)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Letter to Belgian assistant representative (text printed) accepting proposal, on understanding that interested Governments are agreeable to the proposed disposition of the funds; and suggesting that the special account be opened in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.	144
July 5 (329)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Letter from Belgian assistant representative offering to deposit in proposed special account certain sums in foreign currencies; stating, however, that exchange rate should be computed as of day currencies were received by Belgium, as Belgium should not suffer loss because of falling exchange, and that foreign treasuries wish to avoid immediate conversion because of possible effect upon exchange.	145
July 8 (225)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Advice that the United States is not directly concerned with the question of the amounts to be debited to Belgium; that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will accept blocked account to its credit in local currencies with state banks of various countries, with right to convert to dollars at its option and to invest funds abroad or in the United States, interest earned to follow final disposition of funds; that Belgium presumably could be credited with sums set aside at their value when received by Belgium and when sums ultimately received by U. S. Treasury, U. S. Army cost account will be credited with dollar value of currencies at time credited to Federal Reserve Bank.	146
July 12 (207)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) For Logan: Notice to U. S. Treasury, from Belgian National Bank, of deposit in certain foreign banks and in Federal Reserve Bank of New York of funds in local currency to credit of U. S. Treasury (text printed); instructions to inquire of Belgian authorities and report understanding pursuant to which funds are being deposited.	147
July 14 (254)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) From Logan: Report that action of Belgian National Bank is consequence of Department’s proposed method of conversion. Belgian note of July 12 (excerpt printed) accepting U. S. conditions concerning conversion and investment.	148
July 15 (213)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) For Logan: Restatement of U. S. proposition, providing for deposit in U. S. Treasury rather than Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Instructions to make position clear to Belgians and to inform them that the United States is not directly concerned with the question of the amounts to be debited to Belgium.	149
Aug. 8 (332)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) From Logan: Letter from Belgian assistant representative (text printed) concurring in Department’s method of effecting conversion and investment, remaining question being difference in exchange upon first sums from time received by Belgium and time when accepted by U. S. Treasury; hope that America will support Belgian viewpoint before Reparation Commission that any loss by exchange should be borne by common pool.	150
Aug. 15 (298)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) For Logan: Instructions to inform Belgian assistant representative that the U. S. Treasury understands that Belgium has accepted the U. S. proposition and is acting accordingly; that the United States notes that Belgium is in accord with view that United States should be debited only with what it may actually receive; that although the United States is not directly concerned with question of amounts to be debited to Belgium by the Reparation Commission, the United States sees no objection to suggestion that Belgium should not suffer any loss by exchange upon these deposits.	151

Claim by the United States of the Right To Be Reimbursed Out of Bulgarian Reparation Payments for Costs of the American Army of Occupation in Germany

[Page XXIII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
Feb. 1 (54)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Suggestion that the Department take definite position on asserting right to participation for U. S. Army costs in Bulgarian payments which are applied to reparations and at same time are credited to German reparations account; opinion that Reparation Commission is not competent to interpret Army Costs Agreement without mandate from Allied Powers and the United States.	152
Feb. 7 (48)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Opinion that payments made by Germany’s allies should be credited to reparation account of Germany, and that Reparation Commission is not competent to interpret Army Costs Agreement without mandate from signatory powers; instructions to support American right to participation in Bulgarian payments and, if necessary, to reserve rights.	153
May 14 (261)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Report of agreement, signed March 28 between Bulgaria and Allies, fixing cost of Armies of Occupation in Bulgaria. Opinion that this will leave free other payments for application to credit of Germany’s reparation account; intention to take action as instructed when subject of distribution comes before Commission.	154
June 27 (319)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: His statement before Commission (text printed) making formal record that Bulgarian payments credited on Germany’s reparation account are considered as applicable to U. S. Army costs, pursuant to ratification of the Army Costs Agreement.	155

Proposals for a Compromise Settlement of the Dispute Between the Standard Oil Company and the Reparation Commission Over the Disposal of the D. A. P. G. Tank Ships

[Page XXIV]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 12 (15)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Department’s inability to concur in intimated decision of the Tanker Tribunal that the stockholders have no equitable or beneficial interest in a corporation’s assets, citing decisions of courts and action of governments in support of position.	156
Apr. 28 (232)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Failure of the two arbitrators of the Tanker Tribunal to come to agreement. Recommendation that Standard Oil Co. suggest a compromise by division of tonnage on a half and half basis, rather than resort to calling in a third arbitrator.	159
June 19 (187)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Consent of Standard Oil to a compromise based in principle upon equal division of proceeds from sale at auction of five tank steamers and of balance remaining in operator’s fund after reimbursement of company’s expenditures made under Tanker Agreement.	160
July 3	From the Unofficial Representative on the Reparation Commission Report of the members of the Tanker Tribunal, June 28 (text printed) announcing their failure to agree upon a decision and recommending a compromise.	161
Sept. 17 (408)	From the Chargé in France (tel.) From Logan: British representative’s reluctance to accede to compromise, desiring that arbitration be proceeded with. Request for instructions whether to approve continuation of arbitration or to endeavor to force a vote on the compromise. Suggestion that the Department consider the use of pressure in London.	165
Oct. 8 (432)	From the Chargé in France (tel.) From Logan: Suggestion that U. S. Ambassador at London be requested to urge British Government to instruct its representative to vote in Reparation Commission for proposed compromise.	166
Oct. 14 (360)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) History of D. A. P. G. tanker case. Instructions to urge British reconsideration in favor of compromise, in view of undisputed preponderant financial interest of Standard Oil Co. in tankers.	167
Oct. 21 (432)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Consultation with Treasury official in absence of Prime Minister on subject of compromise in D. A. P. G. tanker case; lack of success in changing British position.	168
Nov. 8 (398)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Advisability of bringing subject to attention of Foreign Office after new government is formed; further information and instructions.	169

Delivery of the German Airship “ZR–3” to the United States

[Page XXV] [Page XXVI] [Page XXVII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1923 Sept. 18	To the Chargé in Great Britain Information that airship ZR–3, being built in Germany for the U. S. Government, is expected to fly to the United States between November 15 and December 1, 1923, probably flying over the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain before crossing the Atlantic Ocean. Instructions to advise Foreign Office and request permission for airship to pass over territory. (Sent, mutatis mutandis, to Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.)	170
Sept. 28 (393)	From the Chargé in France (tel.) Suggestion that the safer course would be to wait until route is determined and then approach the Governments concerned, presupposing consent as a matter of course.	170
Oct. 1 (113)	From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.) Authorization for flight of ZR–3 across Belgium.	171
Oct. 10 (88)	From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.) Authorization for flight of ZR–3 across Switzerland on certain conditions.	171
Oct. 16 (63)	From the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Authorization for flight of ZR–3 across Portugal and the Azores.	172
Nov. 6 (132)	From the Ambassador in Spain Spain’s request for certain information in regard to voyage, such as type of airship, nationality, cargo, etc., before desired permission to enter Spain can be given. Explanation that request was not cabled, since date of airship’s journey has been postponed.	172
Nov. 19 (62)	From the Minister in the Netherlands (tel.) Authorization for flight of ZR–3 over Dutch territory.	172
1924 Feb. 13 (56)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) British inquiry as to nationality and ownership of airship at time of flight, and whether it is as civil or military airship.	173
Feb. 18 (41)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Explanation that contract with Germany provides for airship’s delivery to U. S. Government at Lakehurst, N. J.; that it will be operated until delivery by a German crew, accompanied by several U. S. Navy and Army officers; that it is to be considered a civilian airship.	173
Mar. 10 (73)	To the Chargé in Spain Information furnished by Navy Department to be communicated to Spanish Government (text printed) in reply to inquiries regarding ZR–3.	173
Apr. 7 (119)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) British intention to grant special and temporary authorization for flight of ZR–3 over Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and inquiry as to approximate time of flight. Information that Governor of Bermuda has been instructed to issue similar authorization and that Irish Free State has been approached.	174
Apr. 8 (307)	From the Ambassador in Spain Authorization for flight of ZR–3 across Spanish territory, and offer of facilities.	175
Aug. 29 (280)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Information that ZR–3 is expected to start transatlantic flight about September 25, probable route being over France, Belgium, Netherlands, England, and occupied territory of Germany, and possibly Ireland and Canada; instructions to state that request for flight includes not only France but occupied territory of Germany.	175
Aug. 29 (36)	To the Minister in the Netherlands (tel.) Information concerning probable time of flight and route of Zeppelin. Instructions to inform Foreign Office as to date; and to telegraph confirmation of Department’s understanding that authorization for flight is unconditional. (Footnote: Information that on September 3 the Minister notified the Department that authorization for the flight was unconditional.)	176
Aug. 29 (61)	To the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.) Information concerning probable time of flight and route of Zeppelin; Department’s understanding that authorization for flight is unconditional. Instructions to inform Foreign Office as to date and make clear that authority shall include flight over occupied territory of Germany.	176
Aug. 29 (100)	To the Chargé in Germany (tel.) Information concerning probable time of flight and route of Zeppelin; instructions to notify Foreign Office as to date.	176
Aug. 29 (313)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Information concerning probable date of flight and route of Zeppelin. Instructions to request definite authority for flight over territory of Great Britain and Ireland, and also occupied territory of Germany, flight over Canada to be taken up with British Embassy in Washington.	177
Sept. 10 (90)	From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.) Belgian permission for flight over Belgian territory and German zone occupied by Belgian troops on condition that no photographs be taken of military establishments.	178
Sept. 13 (377)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Receipt of permit for flight of ZR–3 over Great Britain and Northern Ireland to be transmitted to and carried in airship; granting of necessary authorization also for flight over British-occupied territory in Germany.	178
Sept. 17 (407)	From the Chargé in France (tel.) Grant of permission for flight over France, with request that certain fortified seaports be avoided; assumption that Zeppelin will carry American officers and fly American flag.	178
Sept. 18 (379)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Receipt of permit for flight of ZR–3 over Irish Free State; published order by Bermuda authorizing flight over its territory.	179
Sept. 19 (293)	To the Chargé in France (tel.) Instructions to state that, as presence of American officers on ZR–3 is that of passengers, American flag will not be flown; assurance that areas mentioned will be avoided.	179
Sept. 25 (416)	From the Chargé in France (tel.) French objection to Zeppelin flying German flag; preference that no flag be flown while crossing French territory; desire that seaports Dunkirk, Cherbourg, Brest, and Rochefort be avoided.	179
Sept. 26	To the British Ambassador Notice that the dirigible is ready to fly to America, authorization having been received for voyage across countries in contemplated route; expression of hope that Canada and Newfoundland, while not included in route, will extend kind reception in any contingency which may arise.	180
Sept. 26 (300)	To the Chargé in France (tel.) Instructions to risk no delay by insistence upon flying of German flag on Zeppelin, and to secure unequivocal authorization for flight from Government.	180
Sept. 29 (421)	From the Chargé in France (tel.) French permission for flight on condition that airship will not fly any flag in its course over French territory.	181
Oct. 2 (200)	From the Chargé in Germany (tel.) Foreign Office statement that, since Zeppelin will fly to the United States under German flag, German authorities should procure necessary permissions for flight over foreign territory; Embassy’s concurrence.	181
Oct. 2 (115)	To the Chargé in Germany (tel.) Instructions to inform Foreign Office that necessary authorizations have been obtained and that no action by German Government is necessary; understanding that German flag will not be flown over French territory. (Footnote: Chargé’s reply, October 3, that Zeppelin would fly no flag except upon leaving Friedrichshafen and on arrival at destination.)	181
Oct. 3 (314)	To the Chargé” in France (tel.) Instructions to inform Foreign Office that airship will not fly any flag over French territory and that it will avoid seaports designated; request for French confirmation that Zeppelin is free to cross French territory. (Footnote: Chargé’s reply, October 4, that airship is now free to cross French territory.)	182
Oct. 7 (913)	From the British Ambassador Assurance that, in case ZR–3 is compelled through accident or stress of weather to fly over or alight in Canada or Newfoundland, those countries will extend every courtesy and assistance possible.	182
Nov. 13 (147)	To the Chargé in Germany (tel.) Instructions to inform Foreign Office that the Navy Department on behalf of the United States officially accepted ZR–3 on November 10 pursuant to terms of agreement of June 26, 1922, between this country and Germany.	183

Letter From the Secretary of State to Senator Lodge Urging Ratification of the Treaty Between the United States and Germany Signed on December 8, 1923

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Mar. 13	To the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Explanation of Department’s adoption of policy of reciprocal national treatment and unconditional most-favored-nation treatment in the negotiation of commercial treaties.	183

GREAT BRITAIN

Negotiations To Ensure by Treaty the Rights of the United States in Central African Territories Under British Mandate

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Feb. 16 (39)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Note to British Government (text printed) reiterating U. S. position with regard to its rights in former German territories of Central Africa, now under British mandate, and submitting for approval an alternative form of preamble to proposed treaties with Great Britain, in view of British objections to previous draft of preamble. Instructions to proceed to signature of treaties as soon as possible.	193
July 31 (623)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain Note from Foreign Minister, July 29 (text printed) postponing final decision regarding proposed treaties until a more advanced stage has been reached in negotiating the treaty relating to the British mandate in Palestine.	195
Dec. 30 (541)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Note from Foreign Office stating that British Government is now prepared to conclude the treaties and accepts the suggested preamble with a slight modification. Request for instructions.	196

[Page XXVIII]

Efforts To Maintain American Capitulatory Rights in Palestine Pending Agreement by Treaty Regarding the British Mandate

[Page XXIX]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Apr. 15 (99)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Instructions to bring to attention of Foreign Office substance of telegram from U. S. consul at Jerusalem, April 11 (text printed) reporting sentence in Jaffa court of I. Hanovich, American citizen; and to state the Department’s hope that measures will be taken to avoid raising an issue by insistence of local courts upon jurisdiction over American citizens, pending conclusion of convention between United States and Great Britain to ensure U. S. rights in Palestine.	197
Apr. 18 (104)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Further instructions to make representations to Foreign Office, in view of receipt of telegram from U. S. consul at Jerusalem, April 14 (text printed), which states that the Attorney General declares Palestine Government can no longer admit consular jurisdiction over American citizens.	198
May 13 (180)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Note from Foreign Office (excerpt printed) summarizing circumstances in case of I. Hanovich, and stating that he was released upon representations by American consul; also expressing pleasure at U. S. intention to resume negotiations for Palestine mandate convention.	198
May 21	From the Consul at Jerusalem (tel.) Information concerning release of Hanovich on bail, court pressing him to pay fine, which he refuses to do. Request for instructions whether protest should be made to Government of Palestine in such cases.	199
May 24	To the Consul at Jerusalem (tel.) Instructions to protest, pending recognition of British mandate over Palestine, in Hanovich case and any other case where local courts assume jurisdiction over American citizens. (Footnote: Report from consul at Jerusalem, July 15, that Hanovich had not been required to pay fine.)	199
Aug. 19	From the Consul at Jerusalem (tel.) Report as to new customs duties amendment ordinance published August 15, effective August 18, increasing considerably the rate on imported articles; enumeration of certain articles affected.	199
Sept. 2 (315)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Instructions to bring to attention of British Government reported attempt to collect increased customs duties from U. S. citizens in Palestine without U. S. consent, which is in contravention of U. S. capitulatory rights, and to inquire as to British views. Instructions also to state U. S. expectation to sign proposed Palestine mandate convention at early date. (Instructions to repeat to American Consul at Jerusalem for information.)	200
Oct. 18 (365)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Instructions to make representations to Foreign Office in connection with reported attachment of bank account of Philip Skora, American citizen, by judgment of local court at Tel-Aviv in disregard of rights of American consular court.	201
Dec. 6	To the Consul at Jerusalem (tel.) Information that the Palestine mandate convention was signed at London, December 3. Instructions to maintain same position as heretofore with respect to rights and duties of consulate until exchange of ratifications.	201
Dec. 11 (516)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Foreign Office inquiry whether, in view of signature of Palestine mandate convention, the United States desires to pursue questions raised regarding increased customs duty in Palestine and attachment of bank account of Skora.	202
Dec. 17 (473)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) U. S. maintenance of position as to necessity of its assent to any duties imposed on U. S. citizens in Palestine prior to coming into effect of convention; willingness, however, to consider request for assent to increased taxes as from date of communication of its assent to British Government. Inability to recede from position taken in Skora case and other similar cases.	202

Convention Between the United States and Great Britain Relating to Rights in Palestine, Signed December 3, 1924

[Page XXX]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Apr. 28 (108)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Note for Foreign Office (text printed) inclosing copy of convention recently concluded with France with respect to the mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and suggesting that the convention be taken as a basis for negotiation of the convention with respect to the mandate for Palestine; proposing that by article 6 (text printed) extradition treaties, etc., in force shall extend to the mandated territory and U. S. consular officers shall enjoy same rights, privileges, and immunities as accorded to consular officers of other countries; inquiring British view of U. S. interpretation of article 7 of draft as regards changes in administration of Transjordania; and proposing exchange of notes assuring most-favored-nation treatment in Palestine. Instructions concerning draft of convention.	203
July 24 (606)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain Note from Foreign Minister, July 17 (text printed) accepting U. S. draft of convention subject to minor textual changes and the omission of second half of article 6 dealing with privileges to be accorded U. S. consular officers; giving assurances, however, as to treatment which would be accorded U. S. consular officers; explaining inability to concur in U. S. interpretation of article 7 concerning Transjordania; giving assurances of most-favored-nation treatment to U. S. nationals in Palestine.	207
Aug. 22 (325)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain Note for Foreign Office (text printed) expressing U.S. willingness to accept British modifications with one slight change, and to proceed to signature of convention in view of assurances given. Instructions to inquire whether U. S. interpretation of British assurances is correct.	209
Nov. 12 (850)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain Note from Foreign Minister, November 10 (text printed) confirming U. S. interpretation of assurances given in note of July 17 and giving further assurance of intention to consult the United States, as well as powers represented on League Council, regarding any alteration in administration of Transjordania for which Great Britain may decide to seek approval of Council. Transmittal of printed proof of proposed convention. (Footnote: Information that the Ambassador was instructed, November 25, to accept the draft convention, subject to minor changes, and was given full powers to sign.)	211
Dec. 3	Convention between the United States of America and Great Britain Defining U. S. rights in Palestine.	212

Continued Negotiations To Ensure Recognition of the Principle of the Open Door in the Turkish Petroleum Company’s Concession in Iraq

[Page XXXI] [Page XXXII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 16	From the Associate General Counsel of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey Cablegram, January 15, from managing director of Turkish Petroleum Co. (text printed) giving company’s assurances of carrying out open-door policy in connection with its concession in Iraq; stating that the Iraq Government insists upon its right to approve companies which, under article 34 of draft convention between Iraq Government and Turkish Petroleum Co., might desire to become sublessees of company; suggesting, however, that Iraq might accept instead right to disapprove any particular sublessee; and requesting views of American group. Disposition of American group to accept company’s assurances, and to make proposal for meeting Iraq Government’s contentions regarding sublessees.	222
Jan. 22	Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Department of State Interview with Standard Oil Co. counsel regarding Iraq Government’s attitude and interest of American group in Turkish Petroleum Company’s subleasing plan, which is practical application of open-door policy; decision of American group to acquaint Turkish Petroleum Co. with their views against undue restriction of company’s right to make subleases, and to suggest desirability of retaining article 34 of draft convention, which makes possible the operation of subleasing plan, and desirability of explaining details of subleasing plan to Iraq Government in order to bring question to immediate issue with that Government.	224
Jan. 29	From the Associate General Counsel of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey Telegram, January 28, from managing director of Turkish Petroleum Co. (text printed) reporting the Iraq Government committee’s rejection of article 34 and negotiations at temporary impasse; and requesting suggestions. American group’s proposed suggestion that they would approve article 34 with reservation. Request for Department’s views.	226
Feb. 5	From the Associate General Counsel of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey Telegram to Turkish Petroleum Co., February 5 (text printed) stressing importance of article 34 and expressing opinion that impasse in negotiations will be overcome if Foreign Office will support company’s representative in his contention that article 34 is essential.	227
Mar. 10	From the Associate General Counsel of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey Opinion of managing director of Turkish Petroleum Co. that the Iraq Government will ultimately accept article 34 and that the British Government will support the open-door formula of American group; his statement that the French have practically accepted general scheme for American participation.	228
Sept. 18	Memorandum prepared by Mr. Teagle and Mr. Thompson of the Standard Oil Company and Mr. Wadsworth of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Department of State Unsuccessful efforts of British partners in Turkish Petroleum Co. and of American group to reach settlement with G. S. Gulbenkian, owner of 5 percent nonvoting share interest in company, who has blocked plan, proposed by American group and accepted in principle by other three partners, that company’s activities be limited to production and transportation of crude oil. Desire of American group that the United States make representations to British Foreign Office in an attempt to secure acceptance by Gulbenkian, a naturalized British citizen, of principle of dividing among partner groups the oil produced in Iraq rather than the profits of a joint enterprise, since American group’s sole object is to obtain crude oil.	229
Sept. 20 (331)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Information as to alleged unreasonable position taken by Gulbenkian, preventing American group from concluding agreement as to terms of participation in Turkish Petroleum Co.’s concession; and instructions to make informal representations to Foreign Office based on recapitulation of U. S. position regarding fair participation of American interests.	232
Sept. 24 (393)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Foreign Office assurance of desire for fair participation of American interests and for expediting conclusion of the arrangement agreed to by the four groups; intimation of Foreign Office official that he would try to find out if Gulbenkian’s obstructive attitude might be altered.	235
Oct. 14 (424)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Opinion of Foreign Office, following conferences with Gulbenkian, that Gulbenkian’s contentions are founded on practical and legal grounds, also that Turkish Petroleum Company’s offers are reasonable; report that there is hope of early settlement between company and Gulbenkian.	236
Nov. 28	From the President of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey Two cablegrams from Standard Oil Co. counsel (texts printed): (1) Outlining procedure now agreed upon by all groups; (2) reporting that other groups are urging American group to take shares in Turkish Petroleum Co. as soon as available, even though Iraq concession is not yet granted. Reply to second cablegram (text printed) stating undesirability of taking shares prior to granting of concession. Request for Department’s comments.	236
Dec. 1	From the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Department of State Department’s opinion, expressed in telephone conversation with president of Standard Oil Co., that if American group should take shares in Turkish Petroleum Co. prior to granting of concession, they would be participating in company which had acquired no valid concessionary rights.	238
Dec. 17	From the Associate General Counsel of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey Information as to phraseology of article 34 of proposed convention, with particular reference to subleasing plan—changes necessitated by insistence of Iraq Government on certain degree of supervision over transfers of territory under plan. Company’s assurance that if changes in article 34 are adopted, it must be with concurrent adoption of articles 5 and 6, which embody, as condition of the concession, the provisions for carrying out the company’s subleasing plan.	239

Representations by the United States Against Trade Discrimination by New Zealand in Samoa, and Countercomplaint by New Zealand

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Apr. 8 (89)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Instructions to make representations regarding discrimination by New Zealand against American products in Western Samoa in contravention of article 3 of the Tripartite Convention of 1899 between Great Britain, Germany, and the United States.	241
Apr. 10 (123)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Promise of Foreign Minister to insist upon early settlement of matter; also his understanding that New Zealand claimed discrimination by United States in imposition of port duties against British ships in American Samoa.	242
July 2 (537)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain Foreign Office note, June 30 (text printed) summarizing history of alleged U. S. discrimination against British shipping in American Samoa; stating New Zealand’s willingness to accord U. S. commerce national treatment in Western Samoa provided reciprocal treatment is accorded British commerce in American Samoa by virtue of article 3 of convention of 1899; enclosing note of New Zealand to Great Britain stating its position (text printed).	243

[Page XXXIII]

Announcement by the British Government of the Decision To Accredit a Minister To Represent in the United States the Interests of the Irish Free State

Date and number	Subject	Page
1924 June 24 (564)	From the British Ambassador British proposal to appoint a Minister at Washington to handle matters exclusively relating to the Irish Free State; desire for U. S. concurrence.	246
June 28	To the British Ambassador Information that the President will be pleased to receive a duly accredited Minister Plenipotentiary of the Irish Free State. (Footnote: Information that Timothy A. Smiddy presented his credentials as Minister on October 7.)	247

Application to the Irish Free State of the Property Convention of March 2, 1899, Between the United States and Great Britain

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1925 Jan. 26 (1019)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain Note to Foreign Minister, November 17 (text printed), inquiring as to application to Irish Free State of provisions of the property convention of March 2, 1899, between United States and Great Britain; British reply, December 12 (text printed), stating that provisions of convention are still binding on Ireland.	248

Settlement of the Dispute With the British Government Regarding Withdrawal of Recognition of American Consular Officers at Newcastle-on-Tyne

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Mar. 26 (102)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Information that the Foreign Secretary has agreed to the settlement of the Newcastle case on lines suggested by the Department; that Brooks would be acceptable as vice consul at Belfast: and that the British Embassy at Washington will inquire Department’s wishes as to whether exchange of notes should take place in Washington or London.	249
Mar. 27 (74)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Department’s gratification that there is a good prospect of settling the Newcastle case along lines previously agreed upon. Instructions, in discussing the case, to reiterate the understanding already reached.	249
Mar. 31 (112)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Undated notes exchanged subject to the Department’s approval (texts printed) providing for the recall of the charges against the American consul and vice consul at Newcastle-on-Tyne and the appointment of a new consul at that port. Notes exchanged March 31 (texts printed) providing for the assignment of Slater to Fort William and Port Arthur and of Brooks to Belfast.	250
Apr. 1 (81)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Approval of texts of notes to be exchanged. Suggestion that notes be dated April 2 and be released for publication April 3. Draft of a statement (text printed) to be published preceding the notes.	251

[Page XXXIV]

Representations by the British Government on Behalf of British Indians Ineligible to Citizenship in the United States

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1923 Sept. 19 (812)	From the British Chargé Submission of certain considerations regarding the hardship which will be inflicted upon British Indian subjects resident in the United States and especially in California, if the Supreme Court decision of February 19, 1923, is to be enforced immediately or made retroactive; and inquiry whether it would not be possible to postpone the date of enforcement to January 1, 1925, in order to minimize the hardship upon Indian property owners and students.	252
Dec. 28 (1110)	From the British Chargé Inquiry whether report of cancelation of naturalization certificate of T. R. Mamdal is correct and request that operation of Supreme Court decision in the matter of cancelation of naturalizations be deferred.	256
1924 Apr. 2	To the British Ambassador Information concerning the case of T. R. Mamdal and other cancelation cases. Request for detailed list of the British Indians involved and the extent of their holdings of land.	257
June 2 (495)	From the British Ambassador Partial list of British Indians and their real property holdings. Suggestion that the effective date of Supreme Court ruling be postponed to January 1, 1926. Inquiry whether the United States concurs in the view that real property acquired by British Indians prior to the passage of the California land law of 1913 will not be liable to confiscation.	258
Sept. 16	To the British Ambassador Letter from Attorney General of California to the Governor (excerpt printed) stating that there can be no postponement of the date when the Supreme Court decision becomes effective, but that reasonable time for disposal of property should be extended to aliens erroneously naturalized; opinion that lands lawfully acquired prior to passage of California land law of 1913 will not be liable to confiscation.	260

GREECE

Recognition of the Greek Government by the United States

[Page XXXV] [Page XXXVI]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 23 (17)	To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Excerpt from the Secretary’s speech before the Council on Foreign Relations of New York, January 23 (text printed) dealing with the political situation in Greece and the reasons why the United States has hesitated to resume formal relations, and expressing the hope that the changed conditions resulting from the conclusion of the Lausanne Treaty and recent elections in Greece will enable the United States to extend formal recognition.	262
Jan. 25	To President Coolidge Desirability of resuming diplomatic relations with Greece; suggestion of accrediting a Chargé d’Affaires ad interim to the Greek Government and receiving a Greek Chargé d’Affaires at Washington.	264
Jan. 25	From President Coolidge Approval of recommendations regarding relations with Greece.	265
Jan. 26 (13)	To the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Note from the Secretary of State to the Greek Foreign Minister, to be dated January 29 (text printed) accrediting Atherton as Chargé d’Affaires ad interim. Information that this action will constitute a formal recognition of the Greek Government by the United States, that Secretary of State will be pleased to receive letters of credence of Greek representative at Washington, and that recognition will be made public January 30.	265
Jan. 29 (29)	From the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Delivery of letter of credence to Foreign Minister; Foreign Minister’s gratification and intention to send similar instructions to the Greek Chargé at Washington. (Footnote: Information that the Greek Chargé presented his letter of credence on February 4.)	266
Feb. 5 (33)	From the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Changes in Greek Cabinet, Venizelos being forced to retire.	267
Feb. 6 (35)	From the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Formation of a new Cabinet under the Presidency of Cafandaris.	267
Mar. 8 (43)	From the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Information that the Cabinet is about to resign; that republicans are demanding of Assembly a declaration abolishing Glücksburg dynasty and a pronouncement in favor of a republic to be approved by a plebiscite.	267
Mar. 9 (44)	From the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Resignation of the Cafandaris Cabinet; Regent’s request that republican leader, Papanastasiou, form a new government.	268
Mar. 10 (32)	To the Chargé in Greece (tel.) President’s desire to appoint Irwin B. Laughlin as Minister to Greece, time for his departure undetermined. Instructions to make usual inquiry at Foreign Office as to whether appointment is acceptable and to state that move is not to be interpreted as relating to present political developments.	268
Mar. 12 (49)	From the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Formation of new Cabinet with Papanastasiou as Prime Minister, new government representing military democrats, whose policy is to declare a republic to be approved by a plebiscite.	269
Mar. 12 (50)	From the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Recommendation, in view of local political tension, that inquiry as to acceptability of Laughlin be postponed, since it might be used for political purposes.	269
Mar. 17 (37)	To the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Approval of suggestion for short delay in requesting agrément for Laughlin; desire, however, that former instructions now be carried out.	270
Mar. 20 (53)	From the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Foreign Minister’s oral acceptance of Laughlin as Minister to Greece, with promise of written confirmation.	270
Mar. 25 (57)	From the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Dethronement of Glücksburg dynasty by vote of Deputies and establishment of republic, latter to be confirmed by plebiscite on or about April 13.	270
Apr. 14 (62)	From the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Plebiscite returns indicating 65 to 70 percent of voters favoring republic.	271
Apr. 16 (63)	From the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Greek notification to all foreign Legations of change of regime to republic, having a Provisional President pending the formal election of a President, which will be carried out according to constitutional method to be elaborated by constitutional assembly.	271
Apr. 17 (46)	To the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Note for Foreign Minister (text printed) expressing America’s intention to continue official relations as authorized in Chargé’s communication of January 29.	272
Apr. 19 (65)	From the Chargé in Greece (tel.) Report that note has been forwarded to Foreign Minister as instructed.	273

Exchange of Notes Between the United States and Greece According Mutual Unconditional Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Customs Matters

[Page XXXVII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Sept. 10 (934)	From the Greek Chargé Information that benefit accorded to U. S. products on condition of reciprocity will come to an end December 10 through the imposition of the new Greek tariff providing for a maximum and a minimum tariff; and that Greece is ready to enter upon negotiations for a commercial treaty with the United States on the basis of the new tariff.	273
Nov. 6	To the Greek Chargé Desire in near future to conclude with Greece a comprehensive treaty of friendship, commerce, and consular rights. Proposal, pending conclusion of such a treaty, for the immediate conclusion of a modus vivendi, to be effected through an exchange of notes, by means of which each country may assure to the commerce of the other unconditional most-favored-nation treatment. Transmission of draft text of note to be exchanged.	274
Nov. 8 (80)	To the Minister in Greece (tel.) Transmittal of text of draft note for exchange, with instructions to deliver draft note to Foreign Office and explain orally that the Department desires at an early date to enter into a treaty of friendship, commerce, and consular rights with Greece but is awaiting the Senate approval of the treaty with Germany, signed December 8, 1923, before negotiating similar treaties with other countries. Information that modi vivendi similar to that proposed with Greece have been concluded with Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nicaragua and negotiations are under way with several other countries.	275
Nov. 19 (104)	From the Minister in Greece (tel.) Foreign Minister’s statement that Greece had decided to apply minimum tariff rates for 3 months after December 10, pending conclusion of new treaty, and that time might be extended if negotiations were not then concluded; his comment that draft note seemed to follow lines acceptable to his Government.	276
Dec. 3 (87)	To the Minister in Greece (tel.) Instructions to press Greek Government for immediate instructions to its Chargé at Washington to conclude proposed exchange of notes, in view of fact that it will be impossible to conclude a treaty in the near future.	276
Dec. 9 (197)	From the Minister in Greece Failure of Foreign Minister to carry out promise to instruct the Greek Legation at Washington to effect exchange of notes; his exchange of notes with U. S. Minister at Athens, December 9 (texts printed), subject to Department’s approval. Passage of bill by National Assembly giving Government power to negotiate provisional conventions of a duration of 6 months; and Government’s decision to postpone application of new tariff until March 1, 1925.	277
Dec. 16 (95)	To the Minister in Greece (tel.) Greek Minister’s confirmation of his Government’s plan to extend status quo regarding commercial matters until March 1, and in interval to negotiate provisional convention. Department’s understanding that exchange of notes will take the place of such provisional convention.	281
1925 Jan. 16 (2)	To the Minister in Greece (tel.) Instructions to make formal confirmation of exchange of notes; and to add further statement (text printed) that provisional convention is thus rendered unnecessary.	281
Jan. 20 (5)	From the Minister in Greece (tel.) Note dated January 19 to Foreign Office, confirming exchange of notes.	282

[Page XXXVIII]

Consent by the United States to the Pledge of Further Securities by Greece for the Greek Refugee Loan of 1924

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 4	From the French Ambassador Inquiry made by Greece whether France is disposed to waive right of veto conferred by Tripartite Financial Agreement of 1918 relative to granting of any new pledge for Greek foreign loan; French disposition to act favorably on request if United States will also waive right, Great Britain having taken similar attitude.	282
Feb. 26	To the French Ambassador Assertion that the attitude of the U. S. Government has undergone no change in the matter and that it is still disposed not to offer any objections to the pledging of security by Greece for refugee loan, if France and Great Britain likewise agree to raise no objection.	284
Oct. 9	From the Greek Chargé Renewed request for U. S. consent to the pledging by Greece of security for refugee loan.	285
Nov. 14	To the Greek Chargé U. S. consent to the pledging of further securities by Greece for refugee loan.	286
Dec. 12	From Speyer & Co. Detailed information concerning proposed loan to the Greek Government.	288
Dec. 18	To Speyer & Co. Advice that the Department offers no objection to the flotation of loan in question.	289

GUATEMALA

Exchange of Notes Between the United States and Guatemala According Mutual Unconditional Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Customs Matters

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Aug. 14	To the Guatemalan Minister Understanding of agreement reached through conversations for mutual unconditional most-favored-nation treatment in customs matters.	290
Aug. 14	From the Guatemalan Minister Confirmation of U. S. understanding concerning agreement reached through conversations for mutual unconditional most-favored-nation treatment in customs matters.	291

HAITI

Request by the Bank of the Union Parisienne for Arbitration of the Question of Gold Payments on Haitian Bonds

[Page XXXIX]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 4	From the Secretary of the French Embassy Information that the Bank of the Parisian Union has requested that the question of the redemption of the Haitian loan of 1910 in gold coin should be submitted to arbitration and that the French Government approves of the request.	293
Jan. 8	To the Secretary of the French Embassy Department’s opinion that holders of bonds of the 1910 loan, since they are presumably not parties to the contract, would not be in a position to request arbitration of question whether outstanding bonds should be redeemed in gold or paper francs; that fiscal agent under the 1910 contract could not properly advance a claim for arbitration on behalf of the bondholders.	294
June 12	From the French Ambassador Inability of France to accept Haiti’s rejection of the request for arbitration. Opinion that intervention of Bank of Union Parisienne is fully warranted, since the bank in requesting arbitration under article 30 of the contract was acting in its capacity as bank which issued the 1910 loan and not on behalf of the bondholders.	294
Sept. 5	From the French Chargé Further exposition of the French position. Request that the United States intervene so as to induce Haiti to desist in its refusal to let Bank of Union Parisienne avail itself of the right to request arbitration under article 30 of the 1910 contract.	296
Sept. 25	To the French Chargé Information that the bank’s demand for arbitration as party to contract has changed aspect of question; and that the American Legation at Port au Prince has been instructed to discuss matter with Financial Adviser and other Haitian officials and to report	298

HONDURAS

Efforts by the United States and the Central American Republics To Reestablish Constitutional Government in Honduras

[Page XL] [Page XLI] [Page XLII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Apr. 8 (14)	To the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.) Instructions to proceed at once to Tegucigalpa to report what steps should be taken to bring about a solution of the three-cornered revolution in Honduras. Failure of Guatemala, Salvador, and Nicaragua to agree on plan of joint mediation. Department’s desire for Commissioner’s presence in Tegucigalpa or Amapala to assist at conference, if held, or to offer direct mediation by United States.	300
Apr. 9 (1)	To the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.) Résumé of political situation in Honduras and efforts of Guatemala, Salvador, and Nicaragua to agree on plan for joint mediation. Arrangements for mission.	301
Apr. 10 (2)	To the Commissioner in the Dominican Republic (tel.) Instructions to proceed at once, using friendly good offices on behalf of United States alone, if advisable to save time and avoid other difficulties. Telegram, April 9, from Guatemala (text printed) reporting President Orellana’s offer to act in conjunction with United States alone; and Department’s reply (text printed). Authorization to offer use of U. S. warship for conference. Suggestion that appropriate solution of situation might be either election of a constitutional President by existing Congress or establishment of a provisional government assuring new elections under conditions of freedom and fairness.	302
Apr. 11	From the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Decision reached, en route, that action should be taken jointly with other Central American States; suggestion that they be requested to send representatives to Amapala for conference.	304
Apr. 14 (3)	From the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Arrival in outskirts of Tegucigalpa. Discussion with revolutionary leaders, Carias and Tosta, of bases of settlement providing for immediate cessation of hostilities and for government of country until new elections can be held.	305
Apr. 15 (4)	To the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Instructions to consider the possible delay in terminating hostilities which might result from waiting to convene Central American conference, and possible injection of partisan influences into deliberations; request for views after discussion of situation with American Minister and leaders of all factions.	306
Apr. 16 (5)	From the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Arrival at Tegucigalpa. Discussion of basis of settlement with Council of Ministers of the dictatorship; and their agreement upon a compromise calling for the signing of a preliminary agreement containing approximately the same bases presented to the revolutionary leaders and the subsequent sending of delegates to a conference at Amapala where definite agreement would be reached based upon preliminary pact. Revolutionary leaders’ consent to all proposals save proposal to postpone selection of Provisional President until after conference at Amapala.	306
Apr. 19 (7)	From the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Acceptance by Council of Ministers of solution providing for an initial conference on board U. S. S. Milwaukee at Amapala, with assistance of U. S. special representative, to select a Provisional President and sign a preliminary pact, to be followed by an immediate suspension of hostilities and the negotiation at Amapala of a final agreement, with the mediation of the United States and all the Central American states. Approval of solution by three of the four revolutionary leaders.	308
Apr. 21 (9)	From the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Acceptance of solution by all four of the revolutionary leaders. Arrangements for the initial conference. Suggestion that all Central American Republics be invited to send delegates to conference with utmost expedition.	310
Apr. 23	To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.) Instructions to invite Guatemala to participate in conference to be held at Amapala for negotiation of a final agreement between Honduran factions. (Sent, mutatis mutandis, to Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Salvador.)	311
Apr. 23 (10)	From the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Report on initial conference; agreement on all articles of the preliminary pact; presentation by each faction of two candidates for Provisional Presidency and postponement of selection for another day.	311
Apr. 26 (25)	From the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.) President Acosta’s favorable attitude toward participation of Costa Rica in the Amapala conference.	312
Apr. 26 (9)	To the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Telegrams from Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Salvador (texts printed) reporting acceptances of Department’s invitation to the Amapala conference. Telegrams to Guatemala and Salvador (texts printed) urging immediate attendance of representatives; telegram to Costa Rica (text printed) urging acceptance of invitation and appointment of representative.	312
Apr. 28 (14)	From the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Signature of preliminary agreement and election of Tosta as Provisional President. Complete control of capital by revolutionary troops. Opinion that victory of revolution does not affect validity of agreement reached, as it was signed by both factions. Request for authorization to state that Provisional Government headed by Tosta will receive moral support of United States.	314
Apr. 30 (15)	From the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Tosta’s installation as Provisional President, his election and the provisions of the preliminary agreement having been definitely accepted by all elements.	315
May 1 (12)	To the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Approval of steps taken; authorization to state that the United States will lend moral support to Provisional Government; commendation for bringing about a satisfactory solution of Honduran difficulties.	315
May 1 (19)	From the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Report that in first session of the conference the Central American delegates expressed entire accord with provisions of the preliminary agreement. Suggestion made informally to Central American delegates that the conference make formal declarations regarding neutrality toward factions in Honduras and urging speedy ratification by signatory powers of treaties and conventions signed at last Central American Conference.	315
May 2 (20)	From the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Formal approval by all delegates of final form of definitive agreement between the two factions in Honduras.	316
May 3	The Pact of Amapala For the purpose of reestablishing and permanently consolidating peace in the Republic of Honduras.	317
May 3 (22)	From the President’s Personal Representative in Honduras (tel.) Report on final session of conference, with the signature of the definitive agreement and a formal declaration of delegates of Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica (text printed) expressing appreciation of services of the Personal Representative of the President of the United States and recommending the immediate ratification by all signatories of treaties and conventions which might aid in similar future situations; telegram addressed to Provisional President by Central American delegates containing assurances of their moral support.	319
May 5 (98)	From the Minister in Honduras (tel.) Presidential decree, issued May 2, convoking national constituent assembly to promulgate fundamental and organic law of the Republic.	321
May 9 (103)	From the Minister in Honduras (tel.) Promulgation of decree declaring general amnesty.	321

Proclamation by President Coolidge Prohibiting the Exportation of Arms and Munitions of War From the United States to Honduras

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Mar. 22	To President Coolidge Inquiry by New Orleans firm whether order of revolutionary forces in Honduras for rifles and ammunition can be filled; opinion that, in order to stop such shipments, a proclamation should be issued as authorized by Joint Resolution of Congress of 1922.	321
Mar. 22 (1689)	Proclamation Prohibiting exportation of arms and munitions of war to Honduras.	322
May 14	To President Coolidge Suggestion of a supplementary proclamation making exception to proclamation no. 1689 in case of exports of arms and ammunition to Honduras for commercial purposes or for use of Provisional Government.	323
May 15 (1697)	Proclamation Prescribing as an exception to the provisions of proclamation of March 22, 1924, arms and munitions exported with consent of the Secretary of State.	324

[Page XLIII]

HUNGARY

Consent by the United States That the Priority of Relief Bonds Be Subordinated to a New International Loan to Hungary for Reconstruction

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 2	From the Hungarian Minister Request that the United States consent to subordinate relief bond priority in favor of new reconstruction loan for Hungary. Assurance that the United States will not be asked to yield privileged position of relief bondholders with respect to priority over reparation payments.	325
Feb. 16	To the Hungarian Chargé Desire to give sympathetic consideration to any appropriate plan for financial rehabilitation of Hungary; necessity, however, to receive certain additional information and assurances before proceeding in matter; refusal to consider waiver unless all other creditor nations of Hungary take similar action.	325
Mar. 27	From the Hungarian Minister Authorization to negotiate debt-funding agreement with the United States, which would be valuable only if America is willing to waive legal priority of relief bonds, their priority over reparations having been assured by Reparation Commission.	327
Apr. 29 (138)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Signature, April 25, by Hungarian Minister, of refunding agreement; its approval by President and submission to Congress. Authorization to cooperate with Hungarian representatives in endeavor to obtain appropriate action by Reparation Commission to assure to the refunding bonds the same priority now enjoyed by the relief bond. (Instructions to repeat to Budapest.)	328
May 14 (263)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Hungarian request for information concerning action of Congress on refunding agreement, as actual contracts for loan which Hungarians are negotiating in London cannot be consummated until status of U. S. relief bond is ascertained. Information that all countries have expressed willingness to subordinate their relief bond priority in favor of reconstruction loan and that Reparation Commission will at next meeting take action to accord to the new bonds the same priority over reparations which old relief bond enjoys. (Footnote: Information that Logan was notified, May 21, of the passage of the refunding bill by House and Senate.)	330
May 26 (280)	From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Logan: Receipt of copies of letters from nations consenting to subordination of prior liens enjoyed by their relief bonds to Hungarian reconstruction loan; recommendation that United States follow formula adopted by other powers.	331
May 29 (173)	To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Logan: Letter from Secretary of Treasury, May 29 (excerpts printed) advising that lien of obligations of Hungary providing for refunding of indebtedness of Hungary to the United States is subordinated to that of loan for reconstruction, bonds having been received in exchange for relief obligation according to agreement. (Instructions to repeat to Budapest.)	331

[Page XLIV]

JAPAN

Restriction of Japanese Immigration by Act of Congress, and the Abrogation of the Gentlemen’s Agreement

[Page XLV] [Page XLVI] [Page XLVII] [Page XLVIII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 11 (211–E)	From the Chargé in Japan Japanese Government’s statement (text printed), in answer to an interpellation in the Diet, explaining position regarding decision of Supreme Court of California in the Alien Land Law cases and revision of Japanese-American commercial treaty; and suggesting revision of Japan’s laws on dual nationality and alien land ownership.	333
Jan. 15	From the Japanese Embassy Representations regarding provision in immigration bill before Congress which will exclude from admissible classes aliens not eligible to American citizenship, thus unjustly discriminating against the Japanese and reflecting upon their character, notwithstanding Japan’s faithful execution of the Gentlemen’s Agreement.	334
Undated	Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Japanese Ambassador, March 27, 1924 Secretary’s suggestion that the Ambassador, as a rejoinder to statements made in the report of the House Committee on Immigration, present a note summarizing the purpose and substance of the Gentlemen’s Agreement as understood and performed by the Japanese Government.	337
Undated	Memorandum by the Division of Far Eastern Affairs, Department of State Résumé of administrative measures proposed by the United States for adoption by Japan, and acceptance thereof or counterproposals by Japan; and the correspondence between the two countries, 1907–1908, which constitutes the Gentlemen’s Agreement (texts printed).	339
Apr. 10	From the Japanese Ambassador Statement of Japan’s understanding of the purport of the Gentlemen’s Agreement and Japan’s practice and purpose with respect to emigration from Japan to the United States; and the grave consequences which the enactment of the exclusion clause of the immigration bill would bring upon the relations of the two countries.	369
Apr. 10	To the Japanese Ambassador Acknowledgment of note of April 10 and concurrence in its statement as to the essential points constituting the Gentlemen’s Agreement. Information that the note and present reply are being communicated to the appropriate committees of the two Houses of Congress.	374
Apr. 15 (69)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Report that a resentful tone has crept into newspaper articles over passage by House of Johnson immigration bill.	374
Apr. 15 (54)	To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Information that the phrase “grave consequences” in the Japanese note of April 10 has been construed as implying a veiled threat, although it is manifest that that was not the intention; and that, as a consequence, the Senate on April 14 defeated a measure to continue the present practice in regard to the Gentlemen’s Agreement and will undoubtedly adopt the Johnson bill as passed by the House.	375
Apr. 15 (55)	To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Excerpts from the Congressional Record of April 14 (texts printed) indicating the changed viewpoint of several senators who had formerly supported the Department’s view as to continuing the Gentlemen’s Agreement.	376
Apr. 16	Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs, Department of State, of a Conversation with the Japanese Ambassador, April 15, 1924 Ambassador’s distress over adverse action taken by Senate on April 14 and disappointment and chagrin at construction which had been placed upon his note of April 10; his suggestion that a statement be issued to correct the impression that he had addressed Congress directly and in a minatory tone.	379
Apr. 17	From the Japanese Ambassador Explanation of his use of the expression “grave consequences” in his note of April 10 and denial that it was intended as a veiled threat.	381
Undated	Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Japanese Ambassador, April 17, 1924, at 6 p.m. Ambassador’s presentation of his note explaining the expression “grave consequences” and suggestion that the note and any reply which the Department might make be made public at the same time. Secretary’s assertion that he felt quite sure the Ambassador did not intend any threat and was sorry such a construction had been placed upon the expression.	382
Apr. 18	To the Japanese Ambassador Assurance that expression “grave consequences” was taken in the sense intended by the Japanese Ambassador and that it was far from the Ambassador’s thought to express or imply any threat.	383
Apr. 22 (79)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Japanese attitude of hopeful waiting, as expressed in press comment and resolutions passed separately, April 21, by leading Japanese political parties.	383
Apr. 23 (80)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Foreign Minister’s denial of truth of news dispatch that the Japanese Ambassador at Washington has been instructed to use every proper means to induce President Coolidge to veto the immigration bill carrying the exclusion clause.	384
Undated [Rec’d Apr. 25]	From the President of the America-Japan Society (tel.) Appeal to President Coolidge, members of Congress, and the American people to postpone the passage of the exclusion clause and find some method to solve the problem reasonably and satisfactorily for the two countries.	384
May 1 (88)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Receipt by Embassy of numerous protests against the exclusion clause from groups and organizations all over Japan.	385
Undated	Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Japanese Ambassador, May 1, 1924 Ambassador’s view that the immigration bill violates the first clause of article 1 of the 1911 treaty, which his Government believes should be construed as giving the right to enter, travel, and reside irrespective of the carrying on of trade. Secretary’s refusal to agree to the construction; and statement that, if question of treaty violation were raised, it would be impossible for the United States to admit its obligations were not fully met.	385
May 8 (69)	To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Information that conferees on immigration bill have reported measure with exclusion clause retained but with a proviso setting March 1, 1925, as effective date, to enable President to negotiate with Japan for abrogation of Gentlemen’s Agreement.	388
May 10 (70)	To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Information that the House has recommitted the immigration bill with instructions to conferees not to agree to the proviso reported in the bill.	389
May 10 (97)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Articles in Japanese press indicating that the Foreign Office regards the Morris-Shidehara draft as the most acceptable basis for future negotiations; and that Japan will vigorously oppose surrender of immigration rights without assurance that the Japanese now resident in United States would not be subjected to discriminatory treatment.	389
May 14 (72)	To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Report of conferees, May 12, recommending the adoption of the exclusion clause substantially as embodied in the Johnson bill and without the proviso. Probability that report will be adopted before end of week. Disposition of Congress to assert complete legislative control over immigration matters. Authorization to intimate to Japanese Government that recent political developments have made a solution on basis of Morris-Shidehara draft more than ever out of the question.	390
May 16 (73)	To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Adoption of conferees’ report in House and Senate. (Instructions to repeat to Peking.)	390
May 23	To President Coolidge Return of immigration bill without recommendation, although disapproving of the exclusion provision of section 13 (c).	391
Undated	Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Japanese Ambassador, May 23, 1924, 4 p.m. Secretary’s explanation of the President’s decision to approve the immigration bill. Ambassador’s inquiry whether the President would issue a public statement in connection with the approval of the bill.	393
May 26 (81)	To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Signing of immigration bill by the President; and the issuing of a public statement in regard to it.	395
May 26 (82)	To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Public statement issued by the President (text printed) giving his reasons for signing immigration bill.	396
May 26 (122)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Foreign Minister’s request that the President issue an explanatory statement covering exclusion clause if he signs immigration bill, to allay Japanese bitter disappointment.	397
May 28 (125)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Report of deepest resentment and bitterness over news that the President has signed immigration bill, allayed somewhat by the President’s published statement; official precautions to prevent popular outbreaks.	397
May 28 (126)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Cabinet approval of instruction to Japanese Ambassador at Washington to lodge solemn protest against passage of bill.	397
May 31 (50)	From the Japanese Ambassador Memorandum of Japanese Government (text printed), protesting against discriminatory clause in section 13 (c) of immigration act of 1924 as being inconsistent with terms of treaty of 1911; claiming efficacy of Gentlemen’s Agreement, thus making unnecessary statutory exclusion; and requesting American Government to take suitable measures to remove such discrimination.	398
Undated	Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Japanese Ambassador, May 81, 1924, 11:80 a.m. Secretary’s suggestion that, since exclusion provision was not to go into effect until June 30, there would be opportunity for Department to give notice that the Japanese Government was released from further application under the Gentlemen’s Agreement.	401
May 31 (130)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Report that the Japanese nation is in sympathy with Government’s protest, harboring deep-seated resentment and bitterness although no anti-American outbreaks have occurred.	402
June 4 (132)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Belief, confirmed by tone of press, that there is general realization in Japan that no immediate action favorable to Japan can be expected and that the best course is an attitude of restraint in discussion of situation. Suicides and boycott of American goods, indicative of extent of bitterness.	403
June 16	To the Japanese Ambassador Notice that Japanese Government is to be considered as released, as from the date upon which section 13 (c) of the immigration act comes into force, from further obligation under the Gentlemen’s Agreement.	403
July 8 (571–E)	From the Chargé in Japan Extract from the Foreign Minister’s speech, July 1, at the opening of the Diet (text printed) explaining the Circumstances attending the insertion of the exclusion clause in the immigration act of the United States and the Japanese position.	408
Sept. 11 (152)	To the Chargé in Japan (tel.) Denial of truth of Associated Press dispatch from Tokyo (text printed) attributing the strong, frank tone of the Japanese Ambassador’s note of April 10 to the insistence of the Secretary of State, who wanted a note “with teeth.”	410
1925 Jan. 22(10)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Foreign Minister’s statement before the Diet (text printed) that a continuance of discussions between Japan and the United States at this time will serve no useful purpose and that the matter must await a correct understanding on the part of the American people of the Japanese people and their point of view.	411

Japanese Legislation To Provide for the Expatriation of Children Born to Japanese Parents in the United States and in Certain Other Countries

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 July 17 (581–E)	From the Chargé in Japan Transmission of a bill passed by both Houses of the Diet, amending the law of nationality, so that persons of Japanese stock born in certain foreign countries will be presumed to have acquired the nationality of the country in which they were born and to have divested themselves of their Japanese nationality at the time of birth, unless a desire to preserve Japanese nationality has been formally expressed.	411
1925 Mar. 24 (175)	From the Ambassador in Japan Information that Japanese parents in Hawaii are being urged to refrain from registering their children at the Japanese consulate and thus clearly define their status as American citizens, pursuant to the new expatriation law put into effect by the Japanese Government on December 1, 1924.	413

Opposition by the United States and Great Britain to the Japanese Proposal To Assimilate the South Manchuria Railway Zone With Japanese Territory for Tariff Purposes

[Page XLIX]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 July 11 (203)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Telegram, July 8, from Peking (text printed) reporting that a new commercial treaty is being negotiated at London between Great Britain and Japan and that a clause has been proposed, presumably by Japan, providing that Chosen, Kwantung Leased Territory, and the South Manchuria Railway Zone are to be placed on same status as Japan for tariff purposes. Instructions to make discreet inquiries. Information that the United States is opposed to such assimilation of the South Manchuria Railway Zone.	414
July 14 (250)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Foreign Office admission that a new commercial treaty with Japan is being discussed, but that the proposals regarding the Kwantung Leased Territory and the South Manchuria Railway Zone come entirely from side of Japanese Government; agreement with U. S. views and request that they be presented in an informal memorandum.	414
July 17 (221)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Authorization to give Foreign Office an informal memorandum of U. S. views.	415
July 18 (265)	From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Information that Japan is asking for amendments or interpretations of the existing 1911 treaty, rather than a new treaty; and that the British Foreign Office is entirely in accord with U. S. views regarding the South Manchuria Railway Zone.	415
July 26 (238)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Department’s opinion that there is no legal basis for a suggestion or arrangement which would constitute the South Manchuria Railway Zone a separate customs area. Telegram, July 23, from Tokyo (text printed) reporting the Foreign Minister’s denial that Japan contemplated any change in the status of the South Manchuria Railway Zone.	416

Financial Settlement by Japan for the Fatal Shooting of Lieutenant Warren H. Langdon, U. S. Navy, at Vladivostok by a Japanese Sentry, January 8, 1921

[Page L]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1923 Mar. 19 (170)	To the Chargé in Japan Instructions to present to Foreign Office the matter of pecuniary reparation for the unlawful killing of Lieutenant Langdon and to endeavor to obtain indemnification in the amount of $40,000.	417
Aug. 11	To Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Status of case of Lieutenant Langdon, presentation of claim having been deferred pending settlement by this Government of claims presented by Japan for death of two Japanese subjects, Uratake and Saito.	419
1924 Apr. 1 (60)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Foreign Office note (excerpt printed) offering $15,000 to surviving relatives of Lieutenant Langdon as an expression of condolence and consolation, with a view to speedy settlement of case; and asserting that if a considerable amount is demanded by way of indemnification, it would compel Japan to go back into and discuss the causes and circumstances leading to the unfortunate affair. Opinion that it would be expeditious to accept this offer.	420
Apr. 8 (49)	To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Inquiry as to reasons for believing it expedient to accept offer.	420
Apr. 28 (86)	From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Opinion that refusal of present offer would only result in delay without prospect of increase in amount, because of feeling regarding immigration situation.	421
June 21 (105)	To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Authorization to accept $15,000 in settlement of Langdon claim and to explain to Foreign Office that offer is accepted because of willingness of Langdon’s parents that matter be settled in that manner. (Footnote: Information that a draft for $15,000 was received by the Chargé in Japan on July 5.)	421

LITHUANIA

Extradition Treaty Between the United States and Lithuania, Signed April 9, 1924

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Apr. 9	Treaty between the United States of America and Lithuania For the extradition of fugitives from justice.	422

MEXICO

Support Given by the United States to the Constitutional Government in Mexico in Suppressing Armed Insurrection

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 7 (16)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to advise Foreign Office that the President has placed an embargo on shipment of arms or munitions of war to Mexico, except such as are approved for shipment to the recognized Government of Mexico and for industrial and commercial uses.	428
Jan. 7 (1683)	Proclamation Prohibiting the exportation of arms or munitions of war to Mexico, except such as are approved for shipment to the recognized Government of Mexico and for industrial or commercial uses.	428
Jan. 11 (8208)	From the Chargé in Mexico Note from Acting Foreign Minister, January 9 (text printed) expressing satisfaction with embargo measure.	430
Jan. 16	To the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Information that the Mexican Government has appealed for aid and that the United States is furnishing that Government with a limited quantity of war material in the interest of stability and orderly procedure.	430
Jan. 19	To the Mexican Chargé Information that at his request permission has been granted for 2,000 Mexican troops to proceed over American soil from Naco to El Paso with understanding that they shall travel unarmed while in the United States, their arms and ammunition being sent as baggage. (Footnote: Information that two similar requests were later granted by the Department.)	431

[Page LI]

Efforts by the United States To Protect American Lives and Commerce Against the Operations of Insurgents in Mexican Ports

[Page LII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 17	From the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Circular letter from naval command of de facto Government that it has been decided to mine the ports of Frontera, Puerto Mexico, and Vera Cruz.	432
Jan. 19	To the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Instructions to advise Huerta that the U. S. cruiser Richmond has been ordered to proceed to Tampico to protect U. S. commerce, in view of Huerta’s failure to comply with Department’s request that authority responsible for proposed blockade of Tampico take steps to remove this threat to world commerce.	432
Jan. 19	To the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Instructions to protest against the mining of the ports of Frontera, Puerto Mexico, and Vera Cruz as being an unwarranted threat against world commerce, and to administer a solemn warning that the United States will be constrained to adopt measures to protect its nationals and commerce if mines and other obstructions are not immediately removed from the ports in reference.	433
Jan. 19	To the Vice Consul at Salina Cruz (tel.) Inquiry whether rebels or Federal Government officials are placing mines.	433
Jan. 19	From the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Representations to Huerta, in accordance with instructions; information from Department of Marine that blockade will not go into effect until end of month.	433
Jan. 20	From the Vice Consul at Salina Cruz (tel.) Information that Federal Government officials have mined the port.	434
Jan. 21	To the Vice Consul at Salina Cruz (tel.) Telegram sent to consul at Vera Cruz (text printed) instructing him to make an informal protest to Huerta against the threat or execution of a bombardment of any Mexican port, in view of report that Salina Cruz is to be bombarded by rebel gunboat. Instructions to make the same informal protest to authorities at Salina Cruz.	434
Jan. 21	From the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Information that all instructions have been carried out and protests made to Huerta in person.	434
Jan. 22 (46)	From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Note from Acting Foreign Minister, January 21 (text printed) stating that necessary measures have been taken to prevent blockade of Tampico and protect commerce of friendly countries, and that operations of the Richmond will cease to be necessary in a very short time.	435
Jan. 23	From the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Information that orders have been issued by de facto authorities for removal of mines and obstructions from ports of Frontera, Puerto Mexico, and Vera Cruz.	435
Jan. 23	To the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Instructions to report whether mines have been removed from all ports.	435
Jan. 24 (60)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to inform Acting Foreign Minister that the Richmond is being withdrawn from Mexican waters since effort to blockade Tampico has been abandoned by Huerta; and that the Omaha, the destroyers, etc., at Vera Cruz will be withdrawn as soon as their services are no longer needed in connection with the Tacoma disaster.	436
Jan. 25	From the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Huerta’s statement that only the position of Obregón’s forces was bombarded, inhabitants being in no danger; that Salina Cruz was mined by Federal authorities.	436
Jan. 31	From the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Information that all mines have been removed and that Huerta, in view of the removal of this protection, hopes that Mexican gunboat Bravo will not be allowed to leave New Orleans during this conflict.	437
Feb. 2 (71)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Information that the Omaha and destroyer squadron have been relieved from duty in Mexican waters; but that the Richmond has been ordered to proceed to Vera Cruz as a precautionary measure.	437
Feb. 5	From the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Evacuation of Vera Cruz by Huerta forces. Expectation that Federal troops will assume control shortly.	437
Feb. 6 (81)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Department’s hope that occupation of Vera Cruz by Government forces will be speedily followed by restoration of public order and adoption of ample provisions for protection of American lives and property, as the Department desires to withdraw the Richmond at earliest possible moment. Authorization to communicate this information to the Foreign Office.	438
Feb. 9	From the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Evacuation of Puerto Mexico by Huerta’s forces; imminence of departure from Vera Cruz and occupation by Federal troops. (Footnote: Information that on February 11 the consul reported that the Federal forces had arrived, and on February 17 that the Richmond had departed.)	438

Protests by the United States Against Demands Upon American Citizens in Mexico for Payment of Duties and Taxes Already Paid to Revolutionary Authorities

[Page LIII] [Page LIV] [Page LV]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 4	From the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) Desire of American interests to know Department’s position as to whether they can export and import without being fined and treated as smugglers by Obregón Government in event of its return to Vera Cruz.	438
Jan. 5	To the Consul at Vera Cruz (tel.) View that American citizens are entitled, under generally recognized rules and principles of international law, to transact business with de facto authority in Vera Cruz, it remaining for them to decide whether they shall engage in this business.	439
Feb. 1	To the Mexican Chargé Representations against Mexican decree of December 10, 1923, declaring ports of Vera Cruz and Manzanillo to be closed, as being contrary to requirements of international law that a port outside the control of a government cannot be closed by such government save by an effective blockade maintained by it.	439
Feb. 5 (77)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to request remission of further payment of duties by shippers on the Esperanza, pointing out that under applicable rules and principles of international law these American citizens are entitled to pay charges to de facto authorities in Vera Cruz, and, having made such payment, are free from further obligation.	440
Feb. 12	From the Mexican Chargé Notification that port of Vera Cruz has been occupied by Government forces and reopened to international traffic. (Footnote: Information concerning the reopening of ports of Acapulco, Frontera, and Progreso.)	441
Feb. 16 (82)	From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Telegram, February 14, from consul at Guadalajara (text printed) requesting advice for American citizens who are required by State authorities to make repayment of taxes already exacted by revolutionary government.	441
Feb. 19 (100)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Instructions for consul at Guadalajara to advise American citizens not to repay taxes already paid to persons in de facto authority; and for Chargé to inform Foreign Office of situation and suggest that attention of State of Jalisco be called to applicable rules and principles of international law.	441
Feb. 20 (106)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to bring to attention of Foreign Office the report that authorities at Vera Cruz are requiring the repayment of taxes already exacted by de facto authorities and that the Department has advised interested Americans not to make such repayments; and to state that no doubt the Mexican Government will instruct authorities in Vera Cruz to be governed by the applicable rules and principles of international law.	442
Feb. 21 (108)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to bring to attention of Foreign Office the report that Cuyamel Fruit Co., Arbuckle Brothers, and Westfeldt Brothers, American firms, are being penalized by Vera Cruz authorities for having transacted business with de facto authorities; and to express the hope that the Mexican Government will act to remove these obstructions to international trade.	442
Feb. 27 (8341)	From the Chargé in Mexico Foreign Office note, February 25, stating that authorities of State of Jalisco have been informed of U. S. representations and have been instructed to report on the subject and issue suitable orders.	443
Mar. 6 (129)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to request Foreign Office to dispatch prompt orders to Vera Cruz authorities to desist from penalizing Singer Sewing Machine Co., Sanborn Brothers, and Mississippi Valley Trading Co., American firms, for having transacted business with de facto authorities.	443
Mar. 15 (147)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Mexican Chargé’s assurance that instructions have been given customs authorities throughout Mexico not to require second payment of taxes where first payment has been made in good faith under compulsion to de facto authorities.	444
Mar. 18 (152)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to bring to attention of proper authorities the report of the consul at Vera Cruz (text printed) that customs authorities have failed to grant permission for shipment to interior of goods cleared from customs under pressure from de facto authorities and stored in private warehouses and railway terminals; to urge the immediate release of such shipments; and also to point out the extent of the moral and material assistance which the United States has rendered to Mexican Government during recent months.	444
Mar. 22 (159)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to bring urgently to the attention of the Foreign Office the reports that at Vera Cruz and Guadalajara certain American firms are being threatened with embargo of their property unless taxes already paid to de facto authorities be repaid immediately; and to request that the Mexican Government issue definite instructions to all local authorities that they must not indulge in such proceedings against American citizens.	445
Mar. 26 (106)	From the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Circular of March 21 issued by General Director of Customs (excerpts printed) stating that no form of customs duties or penalties paid to the rebels will be demanded again by customs offices; also that period of rebel control will not be taken into account in calculation of legal periods.	445
Mar. 27 (170)	To the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Report from consul at Vera Cruz that, through influence of the Governor, repayment of taxes is still being threatened; instructions to request that orders be given the Governor to cease such threats.	446
Mar. 29 (113)	From the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Foreign Minister’s statement that the Mexican Government would not insist upon repayment of customs duties already paid to de facto authorities in control of ports; that the Government will maintain policy not to insist upon repayment of state taxes already paid to de facto authorities and will request state authorities not to collect taxes already paid to de facto authorities.	446
May 31 (89)	To the Ambassador in Mexico Expression of gratification that question of double taxation apparently has been satisfactorily settled by method of direct appeal to governors of states.	446

Expulsion of the British Chargé From Mexico, and the Exercise of Good Offices by the United States for the Protection of British Interests

[Page LVI]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 June 4 (198)	From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Receipt by Cummins, British Chargé, of a note from the Mexican Secretary of the Interior stating that, by virtue of orders from the President through the Foreign Minister, Cummins is required to leave Mexico within 10 days and that requisite measures will be taken if he does not leave.	447
June 9 (8570)	From the Chargé in Mexico Information received from Cummins during conversation at British Legation at Cummins’ request, that expulsion notice contemplates his departure on June 10; that Mexico’s action was based upon alleged offensive tone of Cummins’ note to Mexico in the case of a British subject whose property had been expropriated, and the British Government’s assumption of responsibility for the note; that British Government is offering, as a solution, to grant Cummins leave upon arrival of Hohler on mission to prepare a special report, but that any action looking to Cummins’ expulsion would result in immediate cancelation of Hohler’s mission.	447
June 13 (212)	From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Information that Cummins is virtually a prisoner in the British Legation, which is under open surveillance by Mexican authorities; and that Cummins is in touch with the Chilean Minister, who is dean of diplomatic corps in absence of U. S. Ambassador, and purposes to enter a vigorous protest with that body in case of a violation of the British Legation. Request for instructions in such an eventuality.	448
June 14 (304)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Authorization to join with diplomatic body in a protest, if Mexican Government violates the British Legation.	449
June 14 (219)	From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Chilean Minister’s unsuccessful effort to obtain revocation of expulsion decree against Cummins; his belief Mexican Government will resort to drastic measures. Desirability of suggesting to British Government expediency of instructing Cummins to leave on receipt of passports, if Mexican Government can be induced to change its present attitude.	449
June 18 (312)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) British Foreign Office note of June 17 (excerpt printed) stating that the Mexican rejection of the British offer leaves no alternative except to withdraw Cummins; and requesting good offices of State Department, through U. S. representative in Mexico, to communicate that decision to Cummins and assist him in his departure, especially by taking over from him the archives and effects of the British Legation. Instructions to take over the British Legation’s archives and effects and to assist Cummins in every proper way; also, as an act of courtesy, to inform Mexican Government of Department’s instructions.	450
June 18 (224)	From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Preparations for turning over of British archives and for departure of Cummins, usual facilities being allowed by Foreign Office and extension of time granted by request.	451
June 18 (225)	From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Cummins’ desire to further postpone departure until detailed instructions are received regarding transfer of archives; Chargé’s request for instructions as to proper attitude in event Mexicans attempt to seize Cummins after expiration of time limit.	451
June 19 (226)	From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Grant of further extension of time limit for Cummins’ departure, upon Chargé’s request, it being found impossible to close up British Legation affairs in given time.	452
June 19 (227)	From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Signing of inventory of effects, oaths, and receipt for strong room containing archives, to which British consul general has access.	453
June 19 (319)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to suggest to Cummins the importance of departing as soon as possible; to inform Foreign Minister of expectation that Cummins will not be restricted in any way while making reasonable efforts to depart; also to state, if occasion requires, that this Government must protest if British Legation is violated.	453
June 20 (228)	From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Report that Cummins is departing for the United States via Laredo, and that necessary work of transferring archives, etc., has been completed, three British employees remaining in the Legation.	454
June 21 (229)	From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Cummins’ departure, evening of June 20, without any hostile demonstration; British intention to ask American Embassy to take over British interests.	454
June 21 (326)	To the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Assumption that Cummins is now en route to Laredo and that representations directed in Department’s telegram 319 of June 19 are not necessary.	455
June 27	To the British Ambassador Information that the American Ambassador in Mexico has been instructed to extend appropriate good offices in relation to British interests in that country according to request, and that the Mexican Government has been so advised.	455

[Page LVII]

MOROCCO

Invitations From Great Britain, France, and Spain to the United States To Adhere to the Convention of December 18, 1923, Regarding the Organization of the Statute of Tangier

[Page LVIII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 May 29 (481)	From the British Ambassador Information that the convention of December 18, 1923, regarding statute of Tangier has been ratified by Great Britain, France, and Spain and ratifications were deposited at Paris on May 14. Invitation, in concert with France and Spain, to United States to adhere to the convention.	456
June 4 (72)	To the Ambassador in Italy (tel.) Instructions to ascertain informally the attitude of Italy toward the convention and toward the Tangier port concession. (Sent, mutatis mutandis, to the representatives in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Portugal.)	456
June 6 (64)	From the Minister in Belgium (tel.) Information that Belgium has objected to the new convention because it does not give sufficient guarantees in regard to equality of economic opportunity and because Belgium is given no representation on the proposed Mixed Tribunals; that Belgium feels it will eventually be forced to adhere to the convention but will make reservations if possible; that Belgium has taken no action in regard to the Tangier port concession and is not yet in a position to comment.	457
June 6 (31)	From the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Information that Portugal has found the convention unsatisfactory, but has decided to adhere without conditions or reservations, and has same attitude toward port concession.	458
June 7 (110)	From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.) Information that Italy is not disposed to adhere to the convention without reservations and desires to act in complete accord in matter with United States.	458
June 16 (29)	From the Chargé in the Netherlands (tel.) Note from Netherland Foreign Minister stating Netherlands is disposed to adhere to Tangier convention but that certain questions affecting protégés outside of Tangier Zone are causing delay, and that only reservation likely is nonadhesion to article 9, as Netherlands is not a party to treaties of Versailles, St. Germain, and Trianon; and requesting U. S. views concerning Tangier convention.	459
July 11	To the British Chargé Reasons why United States does not find it practicable to participate in proposed administrative machinery of Tangier Zone. Willingness, however, to consider possibility of suspending extraterritorial rights in the Zone on condition: (1) that the meaning of the term “economic equality” as used in convention be explained with greater particularity; (2) that signatories to convention acknowledge to United States and assume full responsibility for acts and omissions of administrative authorities of the Zone; (3) that the United States shall be free to designate judge or judges from consulate personnel in all cases in which an American is a party; (4) that provisions with respect to semsars are in no way intended to affect existing rights of semsars in other parts of Morocco; and (5) that the extension to the Tangier Zone of any future international agreements shall not be considered as abridging rights of American citizens in Tangier without consent of U. S. Government. (Similar communication sent to French and Spanish Ambassadors,)	459
July 14	Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation with the French Chargé Chargé’s inquiry as to meaning of U. S. note, it not being clear to him what United States intended to do. The Under Secretary’s explanation that, if guarantees and safeguards as raised in U. S. note were given in a satisfactory manner, it was Department’s intention to recommend to the Senate the suspension of U. S. extraterritorial rights and U. S. adhesion to the convention with reservation that United States should not participate in the administration of the Zone.	462
Oct. 10 (935)	From the British Ambassador Acceptance of U. S. conditions with respect to (1) meaning of term “economic equality,” (2) semsars, and (3) extension to Tangier Zone of any future agreements. Assurance that France, as the only intermediary of the Moroccan Government, will assume full responsibility in Zone insofar as diplomatic questions are concerned; and that an associate judge or judges might be designated from the U. S. consulate general, exclusive of officers de carrière, since dahir creating the Mixed Tribunals prohibits persons holding official positions from sitting on tribunals as associate judges.	463
Oct. 31	From the French Ambassador Acceptance of certain of the U. S. conditions, and assurances on the other conditions similar to those given by Great Britain.	466
Nov. 8 (55–08)	From the Spanish Ambassador Acceptance of certain of the U. S. conditions, and assurances on the other conditions similar to those given by Great Britain and France.	468
Dec. 20	To the British Ambassador Request for further assurances concerning responsibility of French Government in diplomatic matters and freedom of U. S. Government to designate as associate judge any qualified U. S. citizen regardless of fact that he may be a consular officer de carrière. Inquiry whether United States will have an opportunity to examine the codes and regulations to be drawn up and by what method it is contemplated that diplomatic relations with Shereefian Empire shall be maintained. (Sent, mutatis mutandis, to the French Ambassador; and a similar note sent to the Spanish Ambassador.)	470

NETHERLANDS

Agreement Between the United States and the Netherlands Further Extending the Duration of the Arbitration Convention of May 2, 1908

[Page LIX]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 3	To the Netherland Minister Consent of the United States to renew the arbitration convention of May 2, 1908, with the understanding that Netherlands will not be averse to considering a modification of the convention, or the making of a separate agreement, providing for the reference of disputes mentioned in the convention to the Permanent Court of International Justice, in the event that the Senate gives its consent to adherence to the protocol of December 16, 1920.	473
Jan. 5 (37)	From the Netherland Minister Assurance that Netherlands is disposed to renew the arbitration convention with understanding with respect to the Permanent Court of International Justice as desired by the United States.	474
Feb. 13	Agreement between the United States of America and the Netherlands Providing for the extension of the arbitration convention of May 2, 1908, for a further period of 5 years from March 25, 1924.	474
Feb. 13	To the Netherland Minister Understanding that, in the event that the Senate gives its assent to adhesion to the protocol of December 16, 1920, the Netherlands Government will not be averse to considering a modification of the arbitration convention, or the making of a separate agreement providing for reference of disputes mentioned in the convention to the Permanent Court of International Justice.	475
Feb. 13 (475)	From the Netherland Minister Confirmation of understanding regarding modification of the convention in the event of the adhesion by the United States to the protocol of December 16, 1920.	476

Failure To Conclude a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Consular Rights Between the United States and the Netherlands

[Page LX]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1923 Oct. 18 (123)	From the Minister in the Netherlands Willingness of Foreign Office to negotiate unconditional most-favored-nation clause with the United States.	476
Nov. 21 (56)	To the Minister in the Netherlands (tel.) Department’s readiness to negotiate general treaty of amity, commerce, and consular rights with the Netherlands on basis of unconditional most-favored-nation treatment; instructions to inquire whether Foreign Office is willing to negotiate a treaty on this basis.	477
Dec. 5 (65)	From the Minister in the Netherlands (tel.) Foreign Minister’s note stating that Netherlands is disposed in principle to conclude a new general treaty of amity, commerce, and consular rights with the United States on the basis of unconditional most-favored-nation treatment; his suggested announcement of negotiations, for release December 8 (text printed).	477
Dec. 7 (60)	To the Minister in the Netherlands (tel.) Instructions to inform Foreign Minister that United States is disposed to begin negotiations at once and will forward a copy of proposed draft to Netherland Minister at Washington, trusting that Netherlands will not object to having negotiations conducted at Washington. Information that the announcement suggested by Netherland Foreign Minister will be released December 8.	478
Dec. 12 (68)	From the Minister in the Netherlands (tel.) Foreign Minister’s note (text printed) conveying information that there is no objection to new treaty being negotiated at Washington.	478
1924 Jan. 9	To the Netherland Minister Submission of draft treaty of friendship, commerce, and consular rights, with comments and explanations.	478
May 8 (1346)	From the Netherland Minister Objections to detailed character of draft treaty and to several of the treaty’s special clauses. Counterproposal that for the time being the two countries enter into a simple agreement limited to a reciprocal warrant of unconditional most-favored-nation treatment and safeguarding mutual rights agreed upon in convention of 1852.	480
July 11	To the Netherland Minister Inability to agree to counterproposal; request for further information as to Netherlands’ objections to draft treaty.	481
Oct. 9 (2649)	From the Netherland Minister Suggested modification of paragraph 5, article 7, of the draft treaty on the ground that it places Netherlands at a serious disadvantage in comparison with its position under the convention of 1852; also suggested modification of the last sentence of paragraph 1, article 7, where is stipulated the right to impose prohibitions or restrictions of a sanitary character designed to protect human, plant, and animal life. (Footnote: Information that with the Secretary’s acknowledgment of this note on October 24 negotiations were discontinued.)	482
Nov. 22	From the Acting Secretary of Agriculture Statement that the change in wording of draft treaty, as proposed by the Netherlands, regarding plant quarantine is unsatisfactory, and that the Department’s provision covers subject fully; reference to authorities on subject proving that prohibitions and restrictions are necessary to exclude insect and plant diseases.	486

NICARAGUA

Rejection by the Nicaraguan Government of Proposals by the United States for the Supervision of Elections in Nicaragua

[Page LXI] [Page LXII] [Page LXIII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 5 (1)	To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to inform Hill, American member of the High Commission of Nicaragua, that Dodds has agreed to go to Nicaragua in February at Department’s request and that he will be accompanied by three assistants, his contract as electoral adviser to be similar to his former contract; and that the Department must insist upon Hill’s full cooperation in order to assure full payment of all sums due both to Dodds and his assistants.	487
Jan. 9 (5)	From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Information that the salary and expenses of Dodds and his assistants are accepted as an obligation of the High Commission.	487
Feb. 15 (127)	To the Minister in Nicaragua Instructions to assign Thurston, Secretary of the Legation, to make a careful study of the new electoral law and the problems which may arise in its application, as the Department desires frequent and full reports on the election and campaign. Note for Foreign Minister (text printed) informing him of Thurston’s assignment.	488
Mar. 18 (30)	To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to inquire whether the Nicaraguan Government would object to the detail of four marines in civilian clothing to assist Dodds at Chinandega, and to arrange with Commander of Legation guard for their detail if Nicaraguan Government has no objection to this arrangement.	489
Mar. 22 (44)	From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Note from Nicaraguan Government consenting to use of marines at Chinandega and in any other analogous case.	490
Mar. 28 (34)	To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to call upon President Martinez, accompanied by Thurston and Dodds, and to present a memorandum explaining the advisability of retaining one of Dodd’s assistants as technical adviser to the electoral authorities from the present until next October, and urging that this action be taken in order that all parties may have adequate assurance that electoral law will be satisfactorily complied with.	490
Apr. 1 (57)	From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) President’s consent to retain one of Dodds’ assistants throughout electoral period.	491
July 16 (82)	To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Note for Foreign Minister (text printed) suggesting the advisability of requesting Dodds to come to Nicaragua the middle of September with sufficient assistants to permit him to be of utmost help to Nicaraguan Government in carrying out its pledges of a free and fair election.	491
Aug. 6 (157)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Foreign Minister’s note stating that the Nicaraguan Government declines to accept the suggestion that Dodds and certain assistants be requested to come to Nicaragua to assist in the elections.	493
Aug. 6 (158)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Foreign Minister’s assurance that a definite rejection of the proposed supervision is not intended; that intention is only provisionally to withhold acceptance of the Department’s suggestion.	493
Aug. 7 (159)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) President’s positive statement that the note expressed Nicaragua’s definite and final refusal to accept suggestion to engage Dodds and his assistants to assist in the elections; his intention to consult his Cabinet regarding Chargé’s suggestion that it might be desirable to have a more elaborate supervision made at the expense of the U. S. Government, since the Nicaraguan note laid special stress upon futility of supervising elections with only 14 people.	494
Aug. 7 (93)	To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to urge Foreign Minister and President to conclude arrangements with Dodds without delay in order that he may have time to make arrangements with collaborators before sailing on August 28. Intimation that it would be more desirable to have Dodds go at invitation of Nicaragua than on behalf of U. S. Government.	494
Aug. 9 (160)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Memorandum from the President (text printed) conveying Cabinet’s resolution maintaining refusal to accept supervision of elections.	495
Aug. 13	From the Nicaraguan Collector General of Customs (tel.) Cable from deputy collector general of customs at Managua (text printed) reporting that a serious political situation will result unless State Department acts forcibly.	496
Aug. 14	To Dr. Harold W. Dodds (tel.) Instructions to give up plan for trip to Nicaragua.	496
Sept. 25 (111)	To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Authorization, if advisable, to have a few marines at important centers during elections simply to observe and report manner in which elections are carried on, without undertaking any functions whatsoever in connection with conduct of elections. Inquiry as to advisability of issuing a public statement.	496
Sept. 27 (197)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) President’s unexpected request for marines from Legation to observe elections and examine election returns before they are counted by election boards; further proposals and counterproposals; opinion that it would be unwise to allow marines to attempt to examine election returns as proposed or to attempt any other participation in the election now without adequate instructions.	497
Sept. 29 (113)	To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Department’s desire that marines avoid any participation which would seem to make them at all responsible for the conduct of the elections; belief, however, that their presence would be helpful in supplying accurate information about elections.	498
Sept. 29 (198)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Intention to station 14 marines at different places to observe and report conduct of elections; advisability of giving out public statement to this effect.	498
Oct. 1 (201)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Note to Foreign Minister giving names of marines to be employed as election observers and requesting the necessary protection for their mission. Foreign Minister’s note expressing President’s desire that marine observers wear civilian clothes.	499
Oct. 2 (116)	To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to express to the President the concern of the United States regarding creation of large armed force to be used in connection with elections; and the hope that it will be placed under control of Cantonal Directories and that strict orders will be given to abide by provisions of electoral law, to avoid any semblance of police interference.	500
Oct. 2 (117)	To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Note for Foreign Minister (text printed) conveying U. S. refusal to accede to Nicaraguan request that marine observers wear civilian clothes.	500
Oct. 15 (219)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Foreign Minister’s note containing a detailed and voluminous description of the Government’s attitude during the electoral period which is qualified as having been eminently impartial and commendable; and the assertion that the Executive considers the legality of the elections to be indisputable.	502
Nov. 7 (236)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Evidence of questionable legality of elections.	502
Dec. 10 (151)	To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Disposition of Department to raise no question regarding validity of elections and to continue normal diplomatic relations; advisability of receiving certain assurances from Solorzano.	503
Dec. 13 (264)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Document signed December 12 by Solorzano (text printed) giving definite assurances regarding 1928 elections, formation of constabulary, measures for solution of economic problems, and efforts to obtain cooperation of other political elements in Nicaragua.	505

Intimation by the United States to President Martinez That His Election to the Presidency Would Be Considered Unconstitutional

[Page LXIV]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 May 29 (62)	To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to inform President Martinez privately that the Department views with concern the persistent reports that he intends to run for office to succeed himself, as the Department would regard his election as unconstitutional and would not be disposed to extend its recognition to the new administration.	506
June 1 (102)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) President’s intention to accept nomination offered to him May 25 if Liberal Party ratifies it, as he believes from reports of eminent American attorneys, acting in his behalf in Washington, that in that case the U. S. Government would approve of his candidacy; his intimation, however, that he would withdraw if U. S. Government continues to view his candidacy in an unfavorable light.	507
June 5 (66)	To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to intimate to the President that the United States would be compelled to make public its opposition, should it become clear that he is an active candidate for reelection. Authorization to inform him that the Department is in possession of information that wholly false reports have been sent him by a number of his advisers who have come to Washington.	508
June 7 (108)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) President’s decision to withdraw his candidacy.	508
July 16 (83)	To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Telegram from Nicaraguan Foreign Minister (text printed) inquiring whether the Department would favor ticket agreed upon in alliance of Conservative and Liberal Parties naming Solorzano for President and Sacasa for Vice President. Instructions to reply (text printed) that the Department has no preferences and that any candidate not prohibited by Constitution but elected by free will of people will be accorded recognition.	509

Exchange of Notes Between the United States and Nicaragua According Mutual Unconditional Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Customs Matters

[Page LXV]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1923 Sept. 22 (281)	From the Chargé in Nicaragua Opinion that Nicaragua would be favorably inclined to concluding a treaty with the United States according unconditional most-favored-nation treatment as regards customs. Report of the existence of a treaty between Nicaragua and France according special import rates; also of peculiar situation which exists by reason of several financial arrangements with certain bankers.	510
1924 Jan. 15 (3)	To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Report from consul at Corinto that American products are not accorded the reductions of the French treaty. Instructions to report.	511
Feb. 6 (16)	From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Information that American products have not been accorded reductions of French treaty since its renewal in 1921. Foreign Minister’s suggestion that simple statement of adherence to treaty will obtain for the United States equal rights,	511
Feb. 16 (16)	To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to point out to Foreign Minister that it is not the U. S. policy to enter into such arrangements as the preferential tariff arrangement between Nicaragua and France; and that the Tariff Act of 1922 authorizes the President to impose new or additional duties on imports from any country discriminating against the United States; also to inform him that the United States is prepared to enter into a modus vivendi through an exchange of notes mutually according unconditional most-favored-nation treatment.	511
Mar. 15 (38)	From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Nicaragua’s willingness to enter into a modus vivendi through exchange of notes.	512
June 5	To President Coolidge Suggestion that it would be preferable for the United States to negotiate an arrangement with a view to eliminating discriminations by mutual consent, rather than to consider the imposition of additional duties on merchandise from Nicaragua. Request for approval.	512
June 6	From President Coolidge Approval of proposed arrangement.	513
June 9 (69)	To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Transmittal of note to be exchanged with Nicaragua for effecting modus vivendi; instructions.	513
June 11 (354)	The American Chargé to the Nicaraguan Minister for Foreign Affairs Understanding with reference to mutual unconditional most-favored-nation treatment to be accorded in customs matters.	514
July 11 (460)	The Nicaraguan Minister for Foreign Affairs to the American Chargé Confirmation of understanding with reference to mutual unconditional most-favored-nation treatment in customs matters.	516

NORWAY

Refusal by the Secretary of State To Admit That Rights of Sovereignty Over Polar Areas May Be Based Upon the Formality of Taking Possession After Discovery

[Page LXVI]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Feb. 25	From the Norwegian Minister Transmittal of an article from the Rochester Herald of January 7, stating that Roald Amundsen, the Norwegian polar explorer, had agreed that the United States might claim all the land he might find on his airplane expedition to the north polar regions; and Amundsen’s denial that he had made any such agreement. Statement that possession of all land Amundsen may discover will be taken in the name of His Majesty the King of Norway.	518
Apr. 2	To the Norwegian Minister Explanation of the basis for the rumor contained in the article from the Rochester Herald. Refusal to admit that rights of sovereignty over polar areas may be based upon the formality of taking possession after discovery.	519
Apr. 4	From the Norwegian Minister Acknowledgment of U. S. note of April 2 and information that it has been communicated to the Norwegian Government.	520

PANAMA

Inconclusive Negotiations for a Treaty To Replace the Taft Agreement

[Page LXVII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 29 (11)	From the Minister in Panama (tel.) Foreign Minister’s request that the Department answer the request of the Panaman Minister at Washington for the naming of a commission to negotiate a new treaty, in view of approaching date of proposed abrogation of the Taft Agreement.	521
Jan. 30 (11)	To the Minister in Panama (tel.) Authorization to inform the Panaman Government that the United States is willing to appoint a commission to negotiate a treaty with Panama and is willing to commence negotiations in Washington at convenience of Panama.	521
Feb. 20	To the Panaman Minister Acknowledgment of receipt of Panaman Minister’s note of February 5 containing information of the appointment of the Panaman commission. Information of the appointment of the American commission.	522
May 28 (39)	To the Minister in Panama (tel.) Instructions to inform the Panaman Government that the President has issued a proclamation abrogating the Taft Agreement; and that, in order to provide ample time for treaty negotiation, the War Department is instructing the Canal authorities to continue as heretofore, for a period of 1 month, the rules and practices of the Canal administration in the matter of commercial operations in the Zone.	522
July 9	President Porras to President Coolidge (tel.) Appeal for the President’s personal intervention to prevent failure of negotiations; explanation that present difficulties are due to American Commissioners’ insistence that article of treaty granting commercial privileges to Panama be made for a period of 15 years and not in perpetuity as Panama desires.	524
July 12 (49)	To the Minister in Panama (tel.) Note for President Porras (text printed) conveying the assurance that while the United States did not intend as a matter of policy to set up a commercial colony in the Canal Zone, it could not give up its rights under the treaty of 1903 and at most would agree to nonexercise of certain of those rights for so long a period as it can safely foresee what its requirements may be.	525
Aug. 22 (217)	To the Minister in Panama Brief résumé of the negotiations which extended from March 17 to August 6, ending in a deadlock over the draft treaty provisions for control of a portion of Colon by Canal authorities and for the conceding of certain commercial rights in the Zone to Panama for a limited period.	527
Sept. 8 (82)	From the Minister in Panama (tel.) Desire of President Porras to conclude treaty before his term of office expires October 1; his informal proposals for settling questions of difference.	531
Sept. 15 (86)	From the Minister in Panama (tel.) Slight modification of informal proposals made by President Porras.	532
Sept. 18 (64)	To the Minister in Panama (tel.) Department’s informal counterproposals for submission to President Porras on the understanding that if the treaty is not concluded and ratified before October 1, these concessions will be withdrawn and the United States will stand upon the proposals made in the treaty negotiations in Washington.	533
Sept. 20 (91)	From the Minister in Panama (tel.) Agreement of President Porras to Department’s informal proposals.	535
Sept. 21 (92)	From the Minister in Panama (tel.) Favorable attitude of President-elect toward signing and ratifying treaty.	536
Sept. 26 (100)	From the Minister in Panama (tel.) Notification to President Porras and his Commissioners that the Department’s informal proposals are definitely withdrawn and that negotiations will have to be continued between the two commissions in Washington after agreement has been reached upon the two principal points of contention, since there is no prospect of reaching an agreement under the present administration.	536

PERSIA

Delay in the Confirmation of an Oil Concession in Northern Persia to the Sinclair Exploration Company

[Page LXVIII] [Page LXIX]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 24	Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Department of State Interview with representative of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey regarding letter which the company proposes to make public explaining its cooperation with British interests on the ground of a preexisting concession acquired from Khoshtaria by the Anglo-Persian Co. and indicating that the Standard Oil Co. proposed to defend their share of the Khoshtaria claim acquired from the Anglo-Persian Co.	539
Feb. 21	From the Persian Minister Transmission of copy of his letter published in New York Times, February 8, in answer to the public announcement made January 18 by the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey of its determination, in association with the Anglo-Persian Oil Co., to enforce its rights under the Khoshtaria concession. Brief review of the oil negotiations. Statement that Standard Oil’s announced determination to enforce its rights under concessions Persia holds as invalid cannot be carried out within Persian territory with Persia’s approval.	541
Apr. 1 (28)	From the Minister in Persia (tel.) Arrival in Teheran of representative of Blair & Co. to study Persia’s securities for loan provided in Sinclair contract.	545
May 3 (36)	From the Minister in Persia (tel.) Introduction in Mejliss of bill to ratify Sinclair contract; British protest to Persian Government renewing Khoshtaria claims.	545
May 15 (40)	From the Minister in Persia (tel.) British refusal to consent to hypothecation of Anglo-Persian royalties and southern customs for loan in the United States before settlement has been reached concerning Persian debts to Great Britain.	546
May 21 (510)	From the Minister in Persia Departure of representative of Blair & Co. for America to confer with company regarding loan which Persia seeks to obtain in America and for which Persia is willing to pledge all of her revenues as security.	546
June 30 (46)	From the Minister in Persia (tel.) Persian Government’s request that Sinclair representative give a written engagement to defend rights under concession as against any claim based upon Sepahsalar concession, which was later transferred to Khoshtaria, and to waive claim of any sort on Persian Government should an adverse judgment disallow Sinclair’s title.	546
July 3 (47)	From the Minister in Persia (tel.) Sinclair representative’s refusal to give engagement requested by the Persian Government; and the oil commissioners’ substitution of article 29 of the oil bill passed in June 1924 for article 25 in the Sinclair contract.	547
July 16 (593)	From the Minister in Persia Oil commission’s decision to reconsider its action regarding article 25 of the Sinclair contract and to make it read “the Persian Government declares that no other concession is valid,” inasmuch as the representative of the Anglo-Persian Co. had interpreted the commission’s action as additional evidence of Persia’s inability to defend her position with regard to the Sepahsalar concession.	547
July 29 (9)	From the Secretary of Legation and Acting Consul at Teheran (tel.) Departure of Sinclair representative for Russia after informing Prime Minister that resumption of negotiations would be determined by U. S. action with regard to the Imbrie killing; and Prime Minister’s offer to see that the oil bill passed without loan provision if he would remain.	547
Sept. 18 (123)	From the Chargé in Persia (tel.) Prime Minister’s statement that the Mejliss had approved all the principal clauses of the oil concession except that providing for loan; and his assurance that, if Sinclair interests would indicate readiness to take over the concession, the stipulation for the loan could and would be dropped. Government’s lack of contact with Sinclair interests since departure of their representative.	548
Sept. 19 (647)	From the Chargé in Persia Conversation with Prime Minister on September 17 in which the Chargé remarked that the departure of the Sinclair representative and of the representative of Ulen & Co., closely subsequent to the killing of Imbrie, would appear to have dealt a severe blow to the American economic program in Persia; and the Prime Minister expressed his personal disappointment that the Sinclair interests appeared to have lost interest in the concession and were willing to let it lapse. Chargé’s observations on opportunities for oil concessions in Persia.	548
Oct. 14 (99)	To the Chargé in Persia (tel.) Instructions to report on the status of the oil concession and on the correctness of press reports from. Persia that the Sinclair interests have accepted the North Persian oil concession and that the stipulation for a loan is omitted from the contract.	551
Oct. 17 (153)	From the Chargé in Persia (tel.) Information that the Sinclair interests have in fact accepted the concession as reported in the press, but that final confirmation by the Mejliss must be obtained. (Footnote: Information that in June 1925 the Sinclair interests informed the Persian Government that because of the failure of their negotiations with the Soviet Government, they would not be able to pursue further the question of exploitation of the Persian oil fields.)	551

Negotiations by Ulen & Company for a Contract To Build Railways or Motor Roads in Persia

[Page LXX] [Page LXXI]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 22	From the Consul at Teheran Arrival in Teheran of representative of Ulen & Co. for the purpose of negotiating a contract to build railways or motor roads in Persia; his efforts to secure cooperation of Sinclair interests by offering to arrange for the flotation of 5 million dollars of the proposed Sinclair loan provided the proceeds are earmarked for construction purposes.	552
Jan. 26	From the Consul at Teheran Interview between Prime Minister and representative of Ulen & Co. in which the Prime Minister indicated his willingness to sign a preliminary contract of 6 months’ duration for the construction of a railway to a Persian Gulf port and expressed the opinion that the existing railway options of the British-controlled Persian Railways Syndicate had lapsed.	556
Feb. 15 (15)	From the Minister in Persia (tel.) British Minister’s request that Ulen & Co. representative be advised that the British will uphold the validity of the option granted the Persian Railways Syndicate; his indication that U. S. interests would be welcome to participation, making it plain, however, that if this were rejected Persia’s chief securities could not be pledged to U. S. loans until British claims had been taken care of; and his intimation that the British might consider it necessary to revert to the economic arrangements of 1907 to safeguard their interests.	557
Feb. 21 (382)	From the Minister in Persia Information that the Persian Government has decided not to undertake to build railroads until Persia’s coal and iron resources have been thoroughly investigated; and that, in the meantime, the Ulen & Co. representative is to prepare a project for building metalled roads and enter into communication with competent engineers for study of Persia’s coal and iron resources.	557
Feb. 26 (16)	To the Minister in Persia (tel.) Information that the Ulen & Co. representative at Teheran has indicated a desire that the Department support an American loan independent of British claim and insist upon priority for loan. Instructions to inform the representative that the Department desires its Minister to give appropriate diplomatic support to American interests; but that, while the Department will uphold the principle of equal opportunity, it does not approve of the practice of intervening abroad to facilitate the floating of foreign loans in the United States.	558
Mar. 12 (226)	From the British Ambassador Transmittal of two memoranda explaining the history and scope of the British railway rights in Persia, with a request that the facts be communicated to interested American firms.	558
Apr. 11	To the British Ambassador Acknowledgment of British Ambassador’s note no. 226 of March 12.	559
Apr. 25 (468)	From the Minister in Persia Discussion of the desirability of combining the Ulen loan and the Sinclair loan, as suggested by the Ulen representative in a memorandum dated March 27.	559
Apr. 29 (476)	From the Minister in Persia Memorandum of agreement between Persian Government and Ulen & Co. of New York, signed at Teheran, April 27 (text printed) for submission and consideration of a proposal for investigation, planning, and construction of railroads or motor roads or both in Persia.	561
Apr. 30 (477)	From the Minister in Persia Opinion of Ulen & Co.’s counsel (text printed) that the position taken by the Persian Government is sound and that the British have no legal option or preferential right on railway construction in Southern Persia.	564
Sept. 1 (113)	From the Chargé in Persia (tel.) Recall and projected departure of representative of Ulen & Co., in view of late occurrences in Persia.	565

Retention by the United States and Other Powers of Their Extraterritorial Rights in Persia

[Page LXXII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1923 July 31 (17)	To the Minister in Persia (tel.) Request for text of joint note on taxation of foreigners in Persia reported to have been sent to the Persian Government by the Minister and other diplomatic representatives at Teheran.	565
Aug. 5 (231)	From the Minister in Persia Joint note of diplomatic representatives in Persia to the Persian Foreign Minister, June 14, 1922 (text printed) protesting against the imposition of municipal taxes on subjects enjoying capitulations and suggesting conditions under which modifications in existing system might be effected.	565
Sept. 27 (836)	From the British Chargé View that it would be wrong to base any claim against Persian Government on the supposed continuance of the Russo-Persian treaty of 1828 and that the British case for capitulatory rights must rest upon rights conceded by treaty to various other powers such as France (treaty of 1855) and Germany (treaty of 1873). Possibility that action based on this position might prejudice attitude of other powers still disposed to hold by treaty of 1828. Inquiry as to U. S. views in matter, in view of desirability of the five Powers’ offering a united front in case of a challenge by the Persian Government.	567
Oct. 25 (914)	From the British Chargé Memorandum by British Minister in Persia (text printed) on liability of subjects of powers enjoying capitulations in Persia to pay Persian taxation, whether imperial or municipal.	570
1924 Jan. 21	To the British Ambassador View that acquiescence of British Government in present attitude of Persian and Soviet authorities with respect to the treaties of 1828 and 1921 would not afford any ground for objection on part of U. S. Government nor would this action by British Government prejudice the position of the U. S. Government or its nationals in Persia in view of the firm bases upon which such rights rest. Desire, until there is a definite challenge on part of Persian Government, to avoid a course of action which would obstruct Persian efforts to establish finances on a sound basis.	572
Jan. 30 (293)	To the Minister in Persia Transmittal of correspondence exchanged with British Embassy. Inquiry whether Minister has joined in any further protests. Information that the Department inclines toward a liberal policy in dealing with Persian requests for right to tax U. S. citizens, provided such taxes are accepted by nationals of other powers, but that the United States is not at present prepared to renounce its capitulatory rights in Persia. Instructions to request Department’s instructions in each new case.	573
Mar. 3 (934)	From the Chargé in Italy Information that Italy, in reply to British inquiry, deems the question whether the treaty of 1828 has been abrogated is, from the juridical point of view, debatable; but feels that for practical purposes it would not be wise at present time to acknowledge that the treaty has been abrogated, in view of the fact that rights in penal matters granted in that treaty are not conferred in the subsequent treaties.	575
Mar. 7 (4002)	From the Ambassador in France Information that the French Government is entirely in accord with the attitude of the British Government.	576
Mar. 15 (234)	From the British Ambassador Synopsis of instructions sent to the British Minister at Teheran for his guidance should the question of extraterritorial rights be raised by the Persian Government. Hope that the United States concurs in views outlined and will instruct the U. S. representative to adopt an attitude similar to that of his British colleague should the question of extraterritoriality be raised.	576
Apr. 1 (441)	From the Minister in Persia Foreign Minister’s note, March 11 (text printed) refusing to agree that foreign subjects residing in Persia are exempt from taxes, except as exempt under the treaty of 1903 with Great Britain; and refusing suggested guarantees as constituting a foreign interference with domestic affairs of the country.	579
Apr. 3	To the British Ambassador Information that the British note of March 15 is being forwarded to the U. S. Minister in Persia and that he has been instructed to advise the Department of any effort to raise question of extraterritoriality in order that appropriate instructions to meet the situation might be sent him.	580
June 30 (316)	To the Minister in Persia Inquiry whether the U. S. Government, under most-favored-nation provisions of the treaty of friendship and commerce of 1856 with Persia, is receiving the benefits of the treatment accorded to Great Britain under the treaty of 1903.	581
Aug. 25 (621)	From the Minister in Persia Presumption that Americans are receiving same treatment accorded to Great Britain under treaty of 1903, since no complaints regarding taxes have been received.	581

[Page LXXIII]

Cooperation of the United States With Great Britain in Efforts To Restrict the Export of Opium From Ports in the Persian Gulf

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 July 10 (624)	From the British Ambassador Decision to issue to British consular officers the King’s regulations relating to the control of the traffic in opium between the Persian Gulf and the Far East (text printed); intention, however, before issuing the regulations, to invite the Persian Government to cooperate in the control of opium traffic in the Persian Gulf, in view of the very considerable financial and economic interests of the Persian Government; inquiry whether the United States would be inclined to instruct its Minister at Teheran to support the representations which the British Chargé has been instructed to make.	582
Aug. 21	To the British Ambassador Information that the Minister at Teheran is being instructed to make representations regarding the control of opium traffic, provided a satisfactory settlement by the Persian Government of the questions arising from the killing of Vice Consul Imbrie has been reached.	584
Aug. 22 (330)	To the Minister in Persia Authorization to make representations to the Persian Government regarding illicit trade in opium in Persian Gulf ports, provided a satisfactory settlement has been reached with Persia regarding killing of Imbrie.	585
Sept. 15 (83)	To the Chargé in Persia (tel.) Note for Persian Government (text printed) expressing hope that the Persian Government will find it possible to participate in the work of the opium conference to be held at Geneva in November. Authorization to make certain oral representations also.	586
Sept. 23 (652)	From the Chargé in Persia Information that the Persian Government will be represented at Geneva by Mirza Eissa Khan; and that the British representative had presented his representations and the King’s regulations on August 15.	588
Oct. 8 (671)	From the Chargé in Persia Foreign Minister’s note, September 30 (text printed) stating that definite instructions have been given Persian representatives to opium conference at Geneva and expressing the hope that the views of the Persian Government in the matter of the method of placing restrictions on production and trade of opium will be accepted. Chargé’s intention to abstain from further discussion of question, in view of critical situation with respect to Imbrie case.	589

PERU

Special Diplomatic Mission From the United States To Participate in the Centennial Celebration of the Battle of Ayacucho

[Page LXXIV]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Feb. 14	President Leguía to President Coolidge Invitation to take part in festivities to celebrate on December 9 the first centennial of the battle of Ayacucho.	592
May 3 (78)	To the Ambassador in Peru Letter from President Coolidge to President Leguía (text printed) expressing cordial thanks for the invitation to take part in the festivities to celebrate the centennial of the battle of Ayacucho; and regret that he will be unable to visit Peru at that time because of the convening of the Congress of the United States.	592
Sept. 8 (275)	From the Ambassador in Peru Memorandum received from the Foreign Office (text printed) giving details of the plans for the celebration of the centenary of the battle of Ayacucho and the character of the representation from other countries.	594
Nov. 17 (60)	To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) Choice of General Pershing, Admiral Dayton, and Frederick C. Hicks of New York to represent the United States in celebration, Pershing to have rank of Ambassador and the other two that of Minister. Detailed information concerning the Mission.	595
Dec. 1 (63)	From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) Request for instructions regarding precedence between ambassadors en poste and ambassadors accredited especially for centenary. (Footnote: Information that on December 3 Ambassador Poindexter was named a member of the Mission with rank off Ambassador.)	595

RUMANIA

Protests by the United States Against the Unsatisfactory Attitude of the Rumanian Government Toward American Petroleum and Other Interests

[Page LXXV] [Page LXXVI] [Page LXXVII] [Page LXXVIII] [Page LXXIX] [Page LXXX] [Page LXXXI]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1923 Nov. 13 (60)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) British note, November 10, to Foreign Office protesting against anticipated provisions of the new mining law, information having been based on semiofficial statements and intimations in the press. Likelihood that France, Belgium, and the Netherlands will also protest. Specific provisions of law which are objectionable to foreign oil interests. Request for instructions.	597
Nov. 22 (44)	To the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Authorization to make appropriate protest if new mining law contains the provisions which refuse to recognize bona fide leases of oil lands and which confiscate rights in undeveloped concessions.	597
Dec. 10 (495)	From the Minister in Rumania Decision, after consultation with British colleague, to withhold protest until more information could be obtained concerning the new mining law.	598
1924 Mar. 29 (582)	From the Minister in Rumania Transmittal of a draft of the new mining law received from the acting head of Romano-Americana Co., together with a summary of certain of the most objectionable provisions of the new law. Note of protest presented to Foreign Minister, March 29, after consultation with British, French, and Netherland colleagues (text printed).	599
Apr. 8 (586)	From the Minister in Rumania Information that note of protest was presented although it had just been learned that the new law would not be presented to Parliament until the autumn session; also that for the present his colleagues had abandoned the idea of entering formal protests. Transmittal of Foreign Minister’s note acknowledging the note of protest and stating that the draft referred to by the U. S. Minister was a simple departmental study of the matter.	602
May 21	From the Associate General Counsel of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey Specific articles of the proposed mining law which prejudice the interests of the Standard Oil Co. in Rumania. Likelihood that the law will pass Parliament during latter part of month. Request that U. S. Minister at Bucharest be instructed to oppose strongly the enactment of the objectionable features of the law and to cooperate in this respect with the local management of the Romano-Americana.	602
May 24 (15)	To the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Instructions to report the latest information regarding time when law will be presented to Parliament; also to report as to representations made or contemplated by colleagues; and to give opinion regarding effect of proposed legislation on U. S. interests and suggest measures likely to protect such interests. Information as to articles of the law to which Standard Oil has called Department’s particular attention.	604
May 27 (18)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Information that the Rumanian Government’s decision to present mining bill at once and thus forestall concerted foreign action caught interested colleagues completely by surprise and for this reason the only protest made was U. S. note of March 29; that the Foreign Minister in interview asserted that objectionable features of bill had been removed and that bill would not be rushed through without debate. Recommendation that other powers be approached in an effort to secure identic action immediately.	605
May 30 (19)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Opinion of oil interests and also of Legation that the mining bill now before Parliament is as unsatisfactory as the previous draft.	605
June 3 (21)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Information that the only fundamental changes in the new draft of the mining bill are that the time of nationalization is extended and the pipe lines expropriated will be paid for; that British colleague has protested and Belgian, French, and Netherland representatives will protest the following day; that Minister plans to make an additional detailed protest.	606
June 5 (22)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Message from Romano-Americana for information of Department, to be transmitted also to Standard Oil Co. (text printed) concerning alterations in mining law.	606
June 9 (618)	From the Minister in Rumania Note to Foreign Minister, June 6 (text printed) pointing out a second time certain of the objectionable clauses of the proposed mining law.	607
June 29 (27)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Information that the mining bill has been passed and is awaiting signature by the King.	609
July 1 (625)	From the Minister in Rumania Fruitless efforts of American, British, and French Legations to obtain certain changes in the mining law; individual verbal representations made by American, British, and French representatives, June 21; Foreign Minister’s identic note, June 24, replying to their several representations (text printed); British protest, June 25; American Minister’s third note of protest, June 26 (text printed). Final approval of the law by the Senate, June 28.	609
July 3 (19)	To the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Information that the Department is considering asking the Minister to return to the United States for consultation and that, if so instructed, the Minister would be authorized to inform his colleagues and the Rumanian Government that he is returning for consultation regarding Rumania’s unsatisfactory attitude toward U. S. nationals and their interests. Request for views regarding proposed action.	613
July 6 (29)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Belief that the Department’s contemplated action would be a severe shock to the Liberal Government and would come at a particularly embarrassing time. Suggestion that he be authorized to tell the Foreign Minister that he had been instructed to return for consultation and to make public the reasons, and that if the Foreign Minister offered any serious propositions, he tell the Foreign Minister he would transmit them to U. S. Government and delay departure pending further instructions. Recommendation that the Rumanian Minister at Washington be informed if this course is approved.	614
July 8 (22)	To the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Approval of course recommended. Suggestion that representations be made to both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. Instructions to telegraph in advance the time fixed for interviews, so that the Rumanian Minister at Washington may be informed simultaneously. Intention to withhold final instructions with respect to Minister’s return, pending report on interviews.	615
July 13 (38)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Note, July 11, to Foreign Office expressing a desire to make a highly important communication personally to Foreign Minister and Prime Minister and requesting an interview with them immediately after the return of the Foreign Minister. Press comments on Minister’s reported recall; Legation’s refusal to discuss matter; Foreign Office’s semiofficial denial of report that the recall was due to the severe tone of the Minister’s recent protests.	616
July 15 (27)	To the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Conversation with Rumanian Minister in which the Minister was informed that the American Minister at Bucharest had been directed to return for consultation, in view of Rumania’s unsatisfactory treatment of U. S. interests in Rumania.	616
July 17 (43)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Signature of mining law by the King, July 3; its promulgation, July 4. Advice of Minister of Industry and Commerce to delegation of foreign oil interests not to pay attention to letter of the law but to rely on good will of Government. General impression that law can be evaded only by employing the right intermediaries, i. e., the Liberal banks and lawyers.	617
July 21 (634)	From the Minister in Rumania Report on conference with the King, July 17, and interview with the Foreign Minister, July 18, during which the U. S. Minister presented a note dated July 10 (text printed) stating that the Minister had been instructed to proceed to Washington for consultation on the unsatisfactory attitude of the Rumanian Government with respect to American interests and setting forth all the points covered by Department’s telegrams nos. 19 and 22.	618
July 25 (52)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Evidence of Rumanian Government’s conciliatory attitude, as shown in their memorandum received July 21, the signature of the long-delayed extradition treaty, and the progress in the settlement of the Baldwin Locomotive Works’ claim and the Aladar Nagy case. Desirability of a visit to Washington for a personal and confidential conference. Probability that Rumania’s suggestion that American Minister’s departure be postponed 6 weeks was made to avoid possible reaction in financial circles, since the Finance Minister was en route to London to obtain a loan.	619
July 26 (635)	From the Minister in Rumania Foreign Office memorandum received July 21 (text printed) attributing to incomplete or erroneous information the U. S. decision to request its Minister to return to the United States for consultation regarding the attitude of the Rumanian Government toward American interests, and expressing the hope that the United States will not adopt an attitude detrimental to Rumania.	621
July 30 (34)	To the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Approval of recommendation that publicity originally intended regarding Minister’s departure should not be given. Authorization to postpone departure temporarily if there is any possibility of making further progress in solution of difficulties. Instructions to telegraph date of departure so that appropriate information may be given the press; to return via Paris and London to secure information as to attitude of British and French Governments and concerning visit of the Rumanian Finance Minister to London; also to notify the Rumanian Government orally or in writing of instructions to return, making additional representations concerning matters pending.	626
Aug. 5 (54)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Information that the Foreign Minister has been informed orally of the American Minister’s proposed departure on the following Sunday and of the Department’s intentions regarding publicity; that the local press quotes the London Financial Times as stating that the Finance Minister refused an offer from an oil group because of unfavorable terms; that the commercial attaché will carry on negotiations for settlement of private debts. Opinion that the present Government will not continue in power beyond fall.	628
Aug. 7 (38)	To the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Approval of arrangements for return; and desire to have departure confirmed by telegram.	629
Sept. 16 (40)	To the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Statement given to press (text printed) announcing that the American Minister to Rumania was received by the President and had later reported to the Secretary of State, with whom he consulted concerning American interests in Rumania.	629
Sept. 24 (62):	From the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Decision of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, in the application of the Romano-Americana Co. for permission to drill two wells on certain narrow parcels of land under concessions acquired in 1900, that this drilling shall be governed by the new mining regulations which provide that no wells can be drilled at a distance of less than 30 meters from the boundary of the neighboring property. Protest of the Romano-Americana on the ground that this ruling constitutes an insidious violation of acquired rights.	630
Sept. 26 (41)	To the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Instructions to inform the Rumanian Government that the Department is greatly surprised at the decision of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce with respect to the drilling applications of the Romano-Americana and to add that, in view of the repeated assurances that acquired rights would not be disturbed, it is hoped that the Rumanian Government will not persist in the attitude apparently adopted by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce.	631
Sept. 30 (64)	From the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Promise of the Minister of Industry and Commerce to render a favorable decision in the two applications of the Romano-Americana Co. and decisions in other similar cases on the basis of political expediency, while refusing to admit the company’s claim in principle. Chargé’s decision not to present protest pending further instructions, in view of company’s willingness to let matter rest. Intention of the Association of Petroleum Industries of Rumania to make a collective protest to the Minister of Industry and Commerce against this interpretation of the mining law.	631
Oct. 6 (66)	From the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Failure of Government as yet to act upon applications of Romano-Americana; British Chargé’s request for authority to make a protest.	632
Oct. 7 (42)	To the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Instructions to inform Foreign Minister that prior to the reconsideration of the matter by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce the Chargé had been instructed to protest against the reported decision of that Ministry and that the Chargé would file a statement of U. S. views should a similar situation arise in the future; and to express the hope that no such situation will arise.	633
Oct. 9 (67)	From the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Communication to Foreign Minister of substance of Department’s telegram no. 42, October 7; the Foreign Minister’s statement that he would take matter up with the Minister of Industry and Commerce and that he believed a satisfactory solution would be reached.	633
Oct. 15 (43)	To the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Information that the Minister to Rumania will sail from New New York on October 25 and arrive at Bucharest about November 8; that he has full information as to Department’s views concerning matters at issue between American and Rumanian Governments.	633
Oct. 15 (44)	To the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Note for Foreign Minister (text printed) conveying the information that the American Minister is returning to his post with a full knowledge of his Government’s views, and briefly restating the principles for which the U. S. Government has consistently stood with respect to outstanding questions between the two Governments and between the nationals of the two countries.	634
Oct. 21 (71)	From the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Information that note contained in Department’s telegram no. 44, October 15, was presented in person; that the Foreign Minister expressed pleasure at the American Minister’s return and stated he would take up various points of the note with him; also that the Foreign Minister, after reading the note, denied that Rumania had made substantial payments to other Governments on account of relief or reconstruction loans.	636
Oct. 21 (72)	From the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Information that the British Minister is making a formal protest against mining law provisions in articles 113 and 192 as applied to narrow concessions obtained before the present law was proclaimed; that the Romano-Americana has not obtained any satisfaction regarding its applications and urges that a protest be made at the same time as the British protest. Suggestion that it might be better to delay protest for a time.	637
Oct. 28 (47)	To the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Approval of suggestion that protest be delayed. Authorization, however, to protest in accordance with Department’s telegram no. 41, September 26, should a satisfactory solution not be reached within a reasonable time.	637
Nov. 7 (319)	To the Minister in Rumania Amplification in certain particulars of the views expressed in the note for the Foreign Minister communicated to the Chargé in telegram no. 44, October 15; intimation as to action which might be considered appropriate should Rumania fail to show requisite good will in working for settlement of questions pending.	637
Nov. 8 (678)	From the Chargé in Rumania Note to Foreign Minister, November 8 (text printed) making representations regarding the refusal of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce to grant permission to the Romano-Americana Co. for the installation of wells on concessions held by them previous to the promulgation of the present mining law.	642
Nov. 16 (76)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Arrival at Bucharest, November 9. Audience with the King, November 15. Intention to seek interview with Foreign Minister on Baldwin Locomotive Works matter and 15–30-meter distance mining-law regulation, although Department’s instructions have not been received.	643
Nov. 20 (684)	From the Minister in Rumania Foreign Minister’s note, November 18 (text printed) explaining the aim of the “pooling” regulations; giving assurance that the Ministry of Industry and Commerce will examine with the greatest benevolence all claims that American companies may present; and suggesting that the companies may obtain satisfaction more easily by addressing the mining authorities of the country directly.	644
Nov. 20 (79)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Opinion, concurred in by British. colleague and oil interests, that the Rumanian reply of November 18 is evasive and unsatisfactory and that its suggestion concerning addressing mining authorities is ridiculous, as oil interests have done so repeatedly without obtaining satisfaction and often without even reply. Suggestion to British colleague that, to gain force, authority be obtained to reply simultaneously.	646
Dec. 1 (51)	To the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Instructions to limit reply to Rumanian note to the statement that the first action taken under the mining law has only tended to confirm the U. S. view of the law’s serious effect upon U. S. interests and that the U. S. Government cannot reconcile Rumania’s course of action with the repeated statements that acquired rights would not be disturbed. Authorization to submit reply simultaneously with British colleague, but not a joint reply.	646
Dec. 3 (80)	From the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Impression that Foreign Minister is anxious for a settlement but is opposed by Ministry of Industry and the intractable Finance Minister; that Minister’s oral protests may have been effective as Standard Oil’s representative has been informed that their 10 applications on file would be granted and all future applications of same nature would also be granted. (Footnote: Information concerning the settlement of the issue between the Romano-Americana and the Rumanian Government.)	647

Protests by the United States Against Rumanian Legislation Restraining American Creditors From Collecting Debts Owed in American Currency

[Page LXXXII] [Page LXXXIII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1923 June 21 (420)	From the Minister in Rumania Transmittal of copy of Commercial Indebtedness Law adopted May 30, 1923, and promulgated June 3, 1923, which will apply to creditors of countries having a high currency and who have not within the 3 months provided by the Term of Grace Law promulgated May 14, 1923, concluded separate conventions or agreements with their Rumanian debtors, all creditors in the meantime being debarred from taking any action in the Rumanian courts for collection of debts. Information concerning the Manchester agreement concluded with British merchants, of which the present law is legal confirmation. Precautionary protest lodged with Foreign Minister, June 19, 1923.	648
Aug. 22 (215)	To the Minister in Rumania Approval of precautionary protest. Instructions to bring matter again to attention of Foreign Office, pointing out that the law is not only discriminatory but that it seriously impairs the obligations of private contracts by substituting an arbitrary and in many cases a lower rate of interest than that provided in the contracts and by extending for a long period of years the time in which payments can be made; also to state that the U. S. Government will regard any attempt to impose the law upon American creditors without their consent as an improper interference with existing private contracts and that it cannot agree to the infringement of the rights of its nationals in the manner proposed by the law.	650
Sept. 20 (453)	From the Minister in Rumania Note of protest addressed to Foreign Minister, September 20 (text printed). Foreign Minister’s comment on note’s severe tone; and his intimation that the Government was seriously considering modification or abrogation of the law. Minister’s opinion that this will be done in view of the vehement protests of all the great powers and the desire of the Rumanian Government to obtain the long-promised French loan.	651
Nov. 23 (481)	From the Minister in Rumania Aide-mémoire left with Foreign Minister, November 21 (text printed) protesting against the rumored project of a law providing for a 6-months’ moratorium against all foreign creditors who had not made special arrangements with Rumanian debtors similar to the one made by the British. Similar communications left with Foreign Minister by representatives of other countries. Draft law published November 23 extending term of grace for another 3 months. Evident intention of Rumanian Government to extend so-called terms of grace until all foreign creditors shall have been coerced into accepting arrangements similar to Manchester agreement.	653
1924 Jan. 21(525)	From the Chargé in Rumania Principal points of an agreement concluded December 20, 1923, by French creditors. Opinion that American creditors have the choice of concluding an arrangement along lines of British and French agreements or of submitting to an indefinite moratorium.	656
Mar. 4 (570)	From the Chargé in Rumania Reiteration of opinion that American creditors will not find any solution for their claims except in the manner followed by the British and the French, as the Rumanian Government is continuing its policy of extending the 3–month moratorium periods, already having prolonged them four times.	658
Oct. 4 (65)	From the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Information that the Term of Grace Law has been extended for 3 months from September 15. Request that Department of Commerce be informed.	658
Oct. 10 (68)	From the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) Visit received from delegate appointed by Rumania to negotiate settlement of private debts to American creditors and delegate’s proposal that representatives of the creditors be appointed to negotiate direct with him, or that the American Legation be empowered to negotiate with him, an agreement for American creditors, using British or Swiss agreement as basis of discussion.	659
Oct. 24 (46)	To the Chargé in Rumania (tel.) View that private debts owed between Rumanian and American nationals should be adjusted by interested parties directly and not subjected to governmental interference; authorization, however, to render proper informal assistance where requested by creditors.	659
Dec. 5 (689)	From the Minister in Rumania Note to Foreign Minister, December 4 (text printed) reiterating U. S. views regarding the Term of Grace Law and protesting its further extension. Information concerning a projected loi d’imprévision which gives courts discretionary power to grant a term of grace to debtors and would thus permanently replace the Term of Grace Law.	660
Dec. 20 (700)	From the Minister in Rumania Information that the Foreign Minister intends shortly to submit a carefully prepared exposé of the situation for transmission to Washington consisting of a brief drafted by leading Rumanian financial and economic authorities explaining the impossibility of granting preferential treatment to American creditors in view of the agreements concluded with all the more important foreign creditors; that the law has been extended for another 3 months; that a draft of the loi d’imprévision has been prepared.	662

Extradition Treaty Between The United States and Rumania, Signed July 23, 1924, and a Note Regarding the Death Penalty

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 July 23	Treaty between the United States of America and Rumania For the extradition of fugitives from justice between the two countries, together with a note regarding the death penalty.	664
July 24 (636)	From the Minister in Rumania Circumstances leading up to signing of treaty by Rumanian authorities and American Minister; its transmittal to Department together with protocol in form of a note.	670
Dec. 5	To President Coolidge Presentation of extradition treaty with a view to its transmission to the Senate. Precedents for suggestion that the Senate, in giving its advice and consent to the treaty, confirm the assurances contained in the note attached to the treaty.	671
Dec. 8	President Coolidge to the Senate of the United States Transmittal of extradition treaty for advice and consent of the Senate and for confirmation by the Senate of the note attached to the treaty.	672
1925 Jan. 17	To the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Reply to two inquiries concerning note on death penalty appended to extradition treaty; assurance of practical application of treaty in its present form.	673

[Page LXXXIV]

RUSSIA

Instructions for the Guidance of American Diplomatic Representatives in Their Relations With Soviet Representatives in Countries to Which They Are Accredited

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 May 26 (25)	From the Minister in Austria (tel.) Receipt of an identic note by American and other Legations from the newly appointed Soviet Minister, expressing desire to establish official and personal relations. Request for instructions.	675
May 27 (24)	To the Minister in Austria (tel.) Instructions to acknowledge the Soviet representative’s note personally and unofficially and to receive him should he call, but not to return his call or otherwise assume any official relation.	675
Aug. 24 (20)	From the Chargé in Finland (tel.) Information that the French, Belgian, and Dutch Ministers have declined the Foreign Minister’s invitation to a farewell dinner for the Norwegian Minister because the Russian Minister has been invited and has accepted; that the Chargé intends to decline also.	675
Aug. 26 (18)	To the Chargé in Finland (tel.) Instructions to accept the invitation of the Foreign Minister. View that U. S. nonrecognition of the Moscow regime should cause the Chargé no embarrassment in accepting official invitations and that unpleasant incidents can be avoided by assuming a dignified attitude in accepting official hospitality. (Substance quoted for information and gufdance to representatives in Austria, China, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Mexico, Norway, Persia, Poland, Sweden, and Turkey.)	676
Aug. 28 (19)	To the Chargé in Finland (tel.) Department’s pleasure over developments reported concerning the Foreign Minister’s dinner, with the exception of the Chargé’s statement to the Foreign Minister that he could not under any circumstances meet the Soviet representative; view that there should be no difficulty in informal and courteous relations, as between two gentlemen, with respect to the representative at the capital to which Chargé is accredited of a regime not recognized by the United States.	676
Oct. 30 (396)	From the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Request for instructions as to what action the Ambassador, in his capacity as dean of the diplomatic corps, should take in regard to the presentation of the new Soviet Minister to the new President on December 1; and also what action he should take respecting the Soviet Minister should it be necessary for him to call a meeting of the diplomatic corps.	677
Nov. 3 (506)	To the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to present the new Soviet Minister to the President at the official reception on December 1, if called upon to do so; and to notify the Soviet Minister if, as dean, the Ambassador is obliged to call a meeting of the diplomatic corps. Instructions to receive the Soviet representative if he calls, but not to return his call.	677

[Page LXXXV]

Refusal by the Department of State To Support the Sinclair Exploration Company Against Interference by Japanese Authorities in Northern Sakhalin

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Oct. 15	From the Sinclair Exploration Company Charge that the Japanese authorities, while preventing the company’s engineers from conducting explorations in Northern Sakhalin, have permitted their own nationals to carry on operations which have resulted in a commercial production of oil. Request that this discriminatory action be brought to the attention of the Japanese Government with the request that instructions be issued to the Japanese authorities to refrain from any further interference with the company’s employees in their explorations in Northern Sakhalin.	678
Nov. 7	To the Sinclair Exploration Company Department’s maintenance of the position taken in its letter to the company on March 17, 1923, when it refused to make representations to Japan on behalf of the company.	679
Dec. 10	From the Vice President of the Sinclair Exploration Company Repetition of request that the matter be brought to the attention of the Japanese Government, pointing out that the assurances heretofore given to the U. S. Government by the Japanese Government require that the Japanese officials be instructed not to interfere with American nationals in Northern Sakhalin.	679
Dec. 20	To the Vice President of the Sinclair Exploration Company Reiteration of refusal to make representations to Japan on behalf of the company.	681

Protests by the Soviet Authorities Against Unauthorized Entry of American Government Vessels Into Soviet Waters

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 31 (132)	From the Soviet Deputy Commissar for Foreign Affairs (tel.) Protest against entrance of U. S. warship Bear into Kolyu-chin Bay and of American destroyer into port of Batum without permission of Soviet authorities.	681
Feb. 6	To the Secretary of the Navy Transmittal of the Soviet note of January 31; information that no reply will be made; desirability of discontinuing call of destroyers at Batum.	682
Dec. 11 (320)	From the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs (tel.) Protest against violation of sovereignty of Soviet Republic by U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey in setting up magnetic station on peninsula in Emma Bay, Cape Puzino, and repeated entrance into Soviet waters by U. S. cruiser Bear.	682

[Page LXXXVI]

SPAIN

Continuation of the Commercial “Modus Vivendi” Between the United States and Spain

[Page LXXXVII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Mar. 15 (50–14)	From the Spanish Ambassador Transmittal of article 20 of the consular convention of January 7, 1862, between Spain and France and the convention of November 27, 1919, between Spain and Argentina, with the suggestion that they might serve as a basis for the negotiation of a convention between Spain and the United States in regard to intervention of consuls in the settlement of estates and indemnities for labor accidents.	684
Apr. 3 (15)	From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Spain’s refusal to consider new treaty or the proroguing of old one so long as importation of Spanish grapes is peremptorily prohibited by the United States.	685
Apr. 4 (12)	To the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Information that the Department of Agriculture is investigating the danger from importation of grapes and will reach a decision before harvest time; that the Department desires to arrange for a further modus vivendi, as it will not be possible to conclude a treaty before the existing modus vivendi expires May 5. Instructions to take up this matter with Spanish Government and to inquire whether that Government is willing to give benefit of minimum tariff rates for U. S. products in return for like treatment of Spanish products.	685
Apr. 7 (16)	From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Opinion that prorogation of present modus vivendi without modification for 6 months or a year is utmost that can be accomplished under existing circumstances. Inquiry whether to accept such a solution if offered.	686
Apr. 23 (15)	To the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Instructions to obtain extension of modus vivendi in its present form for a period of 1 year, if the Ambassador finds it impossible to effect a favorable modification of the existing arrangement.	687
Apr. 27	From the Ambassador in Spain Exchange of notes between Spanish Foreign Office and American Embassy, April 26 and 27, respectively (texts printed) postponing for 1 year, or until May 5, 1925, date of expiration of commercial agreement of August 1, 1906.	687
June 13	To the Spanish Ambassador Willingness to negotiate on subject of intervention of consuls in the settlement of estates and indemnities for labor accidents, preferring, however, to have them considered in connection with treaty of friendship and commerce as drafted and presented to Spain in June 1923 by American Ambassador.	688
Sept. 10 (46)	From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Request for copy of commercial treaty which Department desires to have presented to Spanish Government.	689
Sept. 18 (54–14)	From the Spanish Ambassador Spanish Government’s desire to negotiate two separate conventions, one concerning labor accidents and the other about the intervention of consuls in the settlement of estates.	689
Oct. 7	To the Spanish Ambassador Intimation that, before giving further consideration to the proposal to negotiate separate conventions regarding labor accidents and intervention of consuls in the settlement of estates, the Secretary would be pleased to be informed concerning Spain’s intentions with respect to the negotiation of a commercial treaty along the lines proposed at Madrid in 1923.	690
Oct. 7 (44)	To the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Information that the United States has already submitted two different drafts of the treaty to the Spanish Government, either one of which might serve as a basis for negotiations and has several times indicated its readiness to proceed with negotiations. Instructions to inform the Spanish Government that United States is ready to renew the negotiations and would be pleased to receive comments and countersuggestions regarding the draft presented at Madrid in June 1923.	690
Nov. 7 (54)	From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Information that the Foreign Office considers that the prorogation of the treaty on November 5, 1923, was reply of Spanish Government to the first proposal and that prorogation on May 5, 1924, was reply to second proposal, neither draft of the treaty being considered satisfactory. Request for a draft of a purely commercial treaty containing irreducible minimum.	691
Dec. 5	To the Spanish Ambassador Suggestion that, pending conclusion of new treaty of commerce, the commercial relations between the two countries be maintained on basis of unconditional most-favored-nation treatment, to become operative on May 5, 1925, and continue in force until 30 days after notice of termination by either country.	691

Unauthorized Assistance by the American Embassy in Spain in Securing for American Interests Exclusive Telephone Rights in Spain

[Page LXXXVIII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Aug. 26 (39)	From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Information that exclusive telephone rights in Spain have been given to American telephone interests which were assisted by the American Embassy in winning the concession.	692
Aug. 29 (38)	To the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Department’s desire that appropriate support be given American interests; its disapproval, however, of monopolies. Instructions to send report on aid given American telephone interests and complete information concerning concession granted.	693
Sept. 3 (41)	From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Information that only one American firm sought the concession, and that the American telephone system was naturally recommended as superior to the Swedish.	693
Sept. 4 (41)	To the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Explanation that the Department desires complete information so that the nature and extent of the monopolistic privileges may be understood.	694
Sept. 5 (42)	From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Salient points of royal decree granting telephone concession to Spanish company which has adopted American telephone system and is backed by American capital.	694

SWEDEN

Arbitration Convention Between the United States and Sweden, Signed June 24, 1924

[Page LXXXIX]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1922 Nov. 6	From the Swedish Minister Inquiry whether the United States would be willing to enter into negotiations for a new treaty of arbitration with Sweden, the treaty of May 2, 1908, having expired on August 18, 1918.	695
1923 Jan. 19	To the Swedish Minister Willingness to conclude an arbitration convention similar to the one concluded on May 2, 1908, or to consider any provisions differing from those of the 1908 convention which Sweden may propose. Suggestion that in the new treaty provision be made for its duration for an initial period of 5 years and for continuance in force indefinitely thereafter until expiration of 1 year after notice of termination has been given by either party.	696
Feb. 9	From the Swedish Minister Transmittal of draft of a new arbitration treaty, similar to the 1908 convention in its essential parts but with modifications in articles 1 and 2 providing for reference of disputes to the Permanent Court of International Justice instead of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and in article 4 providing for the duration of the new convention for initial period of 5 years and for continuance in force indefinitely thereafter until expiration of 6 months after notice of termination by either party.	697
Aug. 23	To the Swedish Minister Legal difficulties in way of accepting Sweden’s proposal concerning Permanent Court of International Justice; willingness, however, to conclude convention similar to convention of 1908 with understanding that, should Congress adhere to protocol of December 16, 1920, under which Permanent Court of International Justice has been created, Sweden would agree to modification of convention or making of separate agreement referring difficulties to Permanent Court of International Justice; acceptance of proposal to terminate convention after 6 months’ notice.	698
1924 Jan. 15	From the Swedish Minister Readiness of Sweden to conclude convention similar to convention of May 2, 1908, and separate agreement for reference of difficulties to Permanent Court of International Justice should U. S. Senate adhere to protocol of December 1920.	700
Feb. 13	To the Swedish Minister Transmittal of English text of draft arbitration convention similar to convention of 1908 and draft note of understanding regarding the Permanent Court of International Justice.	700
June 17	From the Swedish Minister Authorization to sign arbitration treaty as drafted by Department and to present note confirming Department’s note of understanding regarding tribunal of reference.	701
June 24	Convention between the United States of America and Sweden For settlement of differences by arbitration.	702
June 24	To the Swedish Minister Understanding that Sweden will not be averse to considering modification of convention of arbitration, or making of separate agreement, under which disputes could be referred to Permanent Court of International Justice, in event that the Senate gives its consent to U. S. adherence to the protocol of December 16, 1920.	703
June 24	From the Swedish Minister Confirmation of U. S. understanding that Sweden will not be averse to considering a modification of the arbitration convention, or the making of a separate agreement, under which disputes could be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, in the event that the Senate assents to U. S. adherence to the protocol of December 16, 1920.	704

SWITZERLAND

Continuation of American Consular Protection to Swiss Interests in Egypt

[Page XC]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 June 6 (12)	To the Minister in Switzerland Instructions to inform the Swiss Government of the Department’s desire that American consular officers in Egypt be relieved as soon as practicable of representation of Swiss interests there.	705
June 30 (62)	From the Minister in Switzerland Memorandum from the Swiss Federal Political Department, June 25, stating that the Swiss Government is negotiating for the establishment of Swiss representation in Egypt and expressing the hope that the United States will continue its protection of Swiss interests until such representation is established.	705
Sept. 10 (176)	To the Chargé in Egypt Information that consuls at Alexandria, Cairo, and Port Said are being authorized to continue representation of Swiss interests in Egypt but are being instructed to restrict notarial and passport services and to charge fees in accordance with Swiss Tariff of Fees or, if not available, U. S. Tariff of Consular Fees.	706
Sept. 10 (60)	To the Minister in Switzerland Instructions to inform the Swiss Government that American consular officers in Egypt will continue representation of Swiss interests pending establishment of Swiss representation; enumeration of difficulties occurring because of dual representation and absence of American consular jurisdiction over nationals of other governments.	707

TURKEY

Efforts by the Department of State To Obtain Ratification of the Treaties Concluded Between the United States and Turkey on August 6, 1923

[Page XCI]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Jan. 23 (17)	To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Excerpt from the Secretary’s speech before the Council on Foreign Relations of New York, January 23 (text printed) dealing with affairs in the Near East, particularly with regard to the negotiation of the treaties concluded August 6, 1923, with Turkey, their provisions, and their relation to the Allied settlement.	709
May 5	To Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Description of the negotiations which led up to the conclusion of the treaties of August 6, 1923, with Turkey; and outline of the considerations which led to the belief that American interests could best be served by the prompt ratification of the treaties.	715
June 7	To Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Refutation of certain allegations contained in the statement accompanying the resolution introduced into the Senate by Senator King, and printed in the Congressional Record of June 3, with regard to the Lausanne treaty and the Chester concession.	721
June 12 (106)	To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Adjournment of Congress without taking action on Lausanne treaty.	724
Dec. 8	To Senator William E. Borah Urgency of early ratification of treaties with Turkey, in view of recent developments which will put the U. S. Government at a serious disadvantage in safeguarding legitimate American interests in Turkey.	724
Dec. 8	From Senator William E. Borah Information that considerable opposition to the treaties is found among members of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; intention to bring subject up for consideration at next meeting.	725
Dec. 12 (232)	From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Turkish intimation that treaties with United States would not be presented to the Assembly for ratification until it was found they would be ratified by the United States.	725
Dec. 18	To President Coolidge Importance of securing a proper basis upon which to protect American interests in Turkey through the early ratification of the treaties.	726
Dec. 29	From the Secretary of Commerce Attention called to importance from viewpoint of American commerce of prompt ratification of treaties with Turkey, to existence already of tariff discrimination in Turkey in favor of Allies, and to complaints of tariff difficulties by merchants in Turkey and by American exporters.	727
1925 Jan. 10	To Senator William E. Borah Report of American High Commissioner in Turkey that the chief representatives of American business and philanthropic organizations in Turkey unanimously favor immediate ratification of the treaties with Turkey.	729

Efforts To Protect American Interests in Turkey Pending Ratification of the Treaty of August 6, 1923

[Page XCII]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 Apr. 15 (71)	From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Conferences with Turkish officials during visit at Angora, April 7 to 13, in which Commissioner discussed American and Turkish interests with respect to business and benevolent institutions and the great necessity of having all future issues settled by investigation and without such arbitrary action as the closing of institutions; Commissioner’s belief that relations he has established will in the future facilitate protection of American interests.	730
Apr. 21 (69)	To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Instructions to telegraph observations and conclusions regarding Turkish attitude toward American interests and toward treaties with United States and their ratification, and regarding the stability of the Turkish Government and its willingness to fulfill its international obligations.	730
Apr. 27 (81)	From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Enumeration of new incidents and difficulties which have arisen in respect of American interests, although Turkish representatives in conferences at Angora expressed a friendly attitude toward American interests. Opinion that the Turkish Government is stable and can fulfill its international obligations, and that it will ratify the treaties as soon as the United States has done so.	731
May 6 (92)	From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Opinion that the added weight which might be given his representations by early ratification of the treaties by the Senate is not of sufficient importance to lead to their submission to the Senate before the Department considers such action opportune. Assertion that, pending ratification of the treaties, he can suggest no plan for protecting American interests save the opportunist and defensive policy being pursued.	732
July 9 (148)	From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Brief summaries of cases pending. Request for authorization to go to Angora and confer with Ismet Pasha, and for instructions as to the extent to which the American Government would be prepared to go in addition to remonstrating and placing diplomatic protests on record. Opinion that the situation is graver than at any time during his service as High Commissioner.	733
July 17 (130)	To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Authorization to visit Angora to confer with Ismet Pasha, intimating to him that the U. S. Government may find it expedient to replace the High Commissioner with a subordinate official as its representative in Turkey and that it is a matter of personal regret for the Secretary to see the unsatisfactory turn events have taken in Turkey.	734
Aug. 9 (166)	From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Conference, August 7, with Ismet Pasha regarding serious situation, presenting memoranda of most important cases pending and aide-mémoire (text printed) appealing to his sense of justice to secure favorable action.	735
Oct. 2 (194)	From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Foreign Office note, September 28 (text pointed) stating that, pending the ratification of the treaties, authority will not be given American citizens to purchase (acquérir) real property. Request for authorization to answer the note by referring to the protocol of 1874 and reserving rights of American citizens under that protocol to hold property.	736
Oct. 7 (196)	From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Estimation of the situation regarding questions pending, representations to Ismet nearly 2 months ago having been only partially successful. Recommendation that, for the present, the policy of patience and plain speaking be continued.	737
Oct. 10 (174)	To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Approval in general of recommendations as to policy.	738
Oct. 27 (182)	To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Instructions for delegate at Angora to take up question of transfer of real property and make representations regarding discrimination against Americans with respect to rights which existing agreements clearly define.	738
Nov. 3 (218)	From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Telegram from the delegate at Angora, November 2 (text printed) reporting that representations had been made, but that little hope was held out for a satisfactory adjustment.	739

[Page XCIII]

Assurances to Great Britain That the American Government Would Discountenance the Shipment of Arms to Turkey

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1923 Nov. 13 (965)	From the British Chargé Desire that the United States aid Great Britain in the provisional application to Turkey of the arrangements contemplated in article 6 of the Arms Traffic Convention of September 1919, by preventing arms reaching or being manufactured in Turkey through action of U. S. citizens, both through reciprocity and through U. S. declared policy made public September 27, 1923.	739
Dec. 6	To the British Chargé Expression of doubt as to efficacy of agreement in question; assurance, however, that the American Government will decline to sell war supplies in troubled areas of Near East or to support its nationals in efforts to sell or to promote manufacture of such in Turkey.	741
1924 Apr. 5 (314)	From the British Ambassador Notification that Great Britain has been obliged to postpone any further attempt to secure provisional application to Turkey of article 6 of the Arms Traffic Convention of 1919, having failed to secure unanimity among Governments concerned; and that Great Britain proposes to remove its embargo on the export of arms and munitions to Turkey.	742
Apr. 15 (155)	To the Ambassador in Great Britain Transmittal of British note with reference to the removal of the British embargo on the export of arms and munitions to Turkey. Information that the Department perceives no reason for altering its policy at the present time.	743

Appointment of an American Representative To Participate in a Consultative Capacity in the Work of the Sanitary Commission for Turkey

[Page XCIV]

Date and Number	Subject	Page
1924 July 21 (636)	From the British Ambassador Invitation to appoint a delegate to represent the United States on the Sanitary Commission to be established under article 116 of the treaty of July 24, 1923, between Turkey and the Allied Powers. (Footnote: Information that identic notes were received from the French and Italian Chargés.)	743
Aug. 29	To the British Ambassador Inability of United States to designate a member of the Sanitary Commission with authority to participate in its decisions, as the Council of the League of Nations is to be the final authority on questions presented to the Commission. Desire to designate a representative to participate in the Commission in a consultative capacity and to enter appropriate reservations regarding American interests should occasion arise. (Sent, mutatis mutandis, to the French and Italian Chargés.)	744
Oct. 2 (891)	From the British Ambassador Acceptance of suggestion that the United States appoint a representative to participate in the Sanitary Commission in a consultative capacity. (Footnote: Information that similar notes were received from the French and Italian Chargés.)	745
Oct. 23	To the Consul General at Constantinople (tel.) Instructions to cooperate with Surgeon W. W. King of the U. S. Public Health Service, who has been designated to participate in consultative capacity in meeting of proposed Sanitary Commission at Constantinople.	745