800.01 M 31/213
The Chargé in Great Britain (Sterling) to the Secretary of
State
London, March 16,
1925.
[Received March 26.]
No. 1111Sir: Referring to my despatch No. 1096 dated
March 5, 1925,8
concerning the proposed “C” mandate treaties, I have the honor to
enclose a copy, in triplicate, of the formal reply of the British
Government addressed to me under date of March 14, which has just been
received.
It will be seen from the reply that the Governments of the Dominions are
unwilling to comply in full with some of the claims advanced by the
United States Government, but are willing to enter into a binding
engagement “that so long as the terms of the mandates remain unaltered,
United States nationals and goods will be treated in all respects on a
footing equal to that enjoyed by the nationals and goods of any state
member of the League of Nations, with the exception of those within the
British Empire, subject only to the proviso that this shall not involve
the violation of any existing treaty engagements towards third
parties.”
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure]
The British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (Chamberlain) to the
American Chargé (Sterling)
[London,] 14 March,
1925.
No. W 1946/5/98Sir: His Majesty’s Government have been in
consultation with the governments of the self-governing dominions in
the matter of the wishes of the Government of the United States of
America in regard to the treatment of United States nationals and
goods in the territories administered under the British “C”
mandates.
- 2.
- As the United States Government were assured in the notes from
the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston to Mr. Harvey of the 22nd and
29th December, 1921,9 dealing with
Palestine and with the territories in Africa administered under
“B” mandates, His Majesty’s Government had never desired to
deprive the United States of the fruits of a victory to which
they had so generously
[Page 215]
contributed, and were willing to meet the wishes of the United
States as regards the treatment of their nationals in those
territories subject to the obligations imposed upon them by
their existing treaty engagements. In this spirit His Majesty’s
Government entered upon the negotiation of treaties to regulate
the position of the United States in the territories in question
and have, as you are aware, concluded such treaties in terms
satisfactory to your government.
- 3.
- The contents of Mr. Harvey’s several notes, the last of which
was dated the 25th October, 1923,10 dealing with the territories
administered under “C” mandates have been carefully examined
with the object of determining how far it is possible to adopt
in these territories a procedure similar to that followed in the
case of the territories referred to in the preceding paragraph.
This examination has led both His Majesty’s Government and the
Governments of the Dominions to the conclusion that it will not
be possible to treat the “C” mandated territories on the same
footing as those administered under the “A” and “B” mandates for
the following reasons:
- 4.
- The terms of the different types of mandate vary fundamentally
and this variation has its basis in the terms of the Treaty of
Versailles.11 It is true
that the United States have not ratified that treaty, but that
does not alter the fact that, as between Germany and those
powers which have ratified it, those provisions are binding.
Under article 119 of the treaty Germany renounced “in favour of
the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and
titles over her oversea possessions.” Under article 22 those
possessions situated in South West Africa and the Southern
Pacific were assigned to the mandatory with provision for their
administration “under the laws of the mandatory as integral
portions of its territory.” This provision was incorporated in
the terms of the “C” mandates which, as your Government are
aware, have been approved and confirmed by the Council of the
League of Nations.
- 5.
- The Government of the United States will remember that the
plenipotentiaries representing the Commonwealth of Australia,
New Zealand and the Union of South Africa refrained from
pressing the question of the annexation of these particular
territories at the earnest request of the United States
Government or president at the time, but only on the express
understanding that in return for accepting, instead, mandates
over these territories, they would be free to administer them as
integral parts of the mandatory dominions. It is impossible now
to admit any departure from this express understanding.
- 6.
- Apart from these considerations, the governments of the
dominions would be unable, for reasons of a practical and
physical nature, to comply in full with some of the claims
advanced by the United States Government. With the object
nevertheless of testifying to their friendly sentiments towards
the United States, they are willing that an assurance should be
given, embodied, if desired, in the form of a binding
engagement, that so long as the terms of the mandates remain
unaltered, United States nationals and goods will be treated in
all respects on a footing equal to that enjoyed by the nationals
and goods of any state member of the League of Nations, with the
exception of those within the British Empire, subject only to
the proviso that this shall not involve the violation of any
existing treaty engagements towards third parties.
I have [etc.]
(In the absence of the Secretary of State)
G. H. Villiers
