867n.01/444
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) to the Secretary of
State
London, October 14,
1925.
[Received October 27.]
No. 431
Sir: Referring to my telegram No. 318 of
October 14, 12 noon, 1925,36 I have the honor to enclose a copy, in triplicate,
of a note from the Foreign Office, dated October 13, 1925, relative to
the Palestine Mandate Convention.
I have [etc.]
For the Ambassador:
F. A. Sterling
Counselor of
Embassy[Enclosure]
The British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (Chamberlain) to the
American Ambassador (Houghton)37
[London,] 13 October,
1925.
No. E 4182/214/65
Your Excellency: I have the honour to
inform you that His Majesty’s Government have considered
sympathetically the various questions dealt with in Your
Excellency’s note of December 19th 1924,38 and memoranda of May 4th39 and July 3rd last,40 relative to the position of United States
citizens in Palestine prior to and pending the entry into force of
the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention of December 3rd
1924. His Majesty’s Government understand that the United States
Government desire to reach a friendly settlement of
[Page 227]
the outstanding cases that have arisen
in connection with this subject, before the Convention concerned is
actually brought into force by the formal exchange of the
ratifications which have already taken place. As from the date of
this exchange the position will of course be fully regularised, and
no further cases of this type can arise. It is therefore desirable
from every point of view that the exchange of ratifications should
take place with the least possible delay.
- 2.
- The particular cases of which a settlement is desired fall
into two main categories—administrative and legal. As regards
the former, His Majesty’s Government fully understand the
position taken up by the Government of the United States, that
their prior assent is indispensable to the imposition of any
dues or taxes upon United States citizens in Palestine pending
the entry into force of the Convention. His Majesty’s Government
realize, moreover, that this position has not been changed by
the mere signature of the Convention. It appears, however, that
only one case in this category—that of Mr. Sachs—has formed the
subject of protest by the United States authorities. I
understand from your memorandum of July 3rd last that the views
of your government in this matter could be satisfactorily met by
the remittance of the accrued storage dues on the shipment of
matches to Mr. Sachs; by his indemnification for the difference
between the market value in Palestine of the shipment and its
original cost, together with the present Customs duty thereon;
by Mr. Sachs being relieved of any loss of accrued interest
which he may have sustained as a result of the action of the
Palestine authorities in this matter; and by his receiving an
amount equal to such reasonable profit as might have accrued on
the sale of this shipment had the new duty not been put into
effect. His Majesty’s Government while adhering to their own
views in regard to the questions of principle involved, which,
as you are aware, are in conflict with those held by your
government, are willing to undertake, on behalf of the Palestine
Government, that the steps suggested above as regards the
particular case of Mr. Sachs’ shipment of matches will be taken
by the Palestine Government immediately after the entry into
force of the Convention. As regards the question of principle,
His Majesty’s Government consider now that adequate provision
has been made for the future, the situation will be adequately
met if each government takes formal note of the view held by the
other, while at the same time expressing its regret that it is
unable on grounds of principle to conform thereto.
- 3.
- With regard to the Skora case41 and other cases
involving the question of jurisdiction over American citizens
prior to the entry
[Page 228]
into force of the Palestine Mandate Convention, His Majesty’s
Government notice with satisfaction that the United States
Government have no objection to the retrial by the Palestinian
Courts of the cases concerned, but regret that it is not
possible for them to take the measures suggested in your notes
under reply. Such measures would involve ex
post facto legislation of the kind which is as contrary
to British as to United States constitutional practice. Here
again it appears that the only solution is that suggested above:
that is, for each government to take formal note of the view
held by the other, while expressing its regret that it is unable
on principle to conform to it.
- 4.
- If there is any civil case, however, in which a United States
citizen has refused to appear in the Palestinian courts, relying
upon his rights under the former capitulatory system, and where
he alleges that he had a good defence and that, had he appeared,
the judgment would therefore not have been entered against him,
the Palestinian Government will be prepared to request the Chief
Justice, or some other responsible officer, to investigate the
case. Should this officer, as a result of his investigations,
form the opinion that the defence, which would have been put
forward by the American citizen had he appeared, would have
succeeded, His Majesty’s Government will undertake that the
Palestine Government will offer fair compensation to the United
States citizen concerned as an act of diplomatic courtesy not
affecting the question of principle involved.
- 5.
- It does not appear to His Majesty’s Government that any useful
purpose would be served by a further discussion of the
complicated legal position arising out of the abolition of the
capitulations prior to the entry into force of the Convention.
It is apparent that the views held by His Majesty’s Government,
as Mandatories for Palestine, and those held by the United
States Government on this matter cannot be reconciled, and, in
view of the conclusion of the Mandate Convention, further
attempts to reconcile these views appear unnecessary. His
Majesty’s Government have, however, no desire to obtain from the
Government of the United States any formal abandonment of the
capitulatory rights of United States citizens in Palestine prior
to the entry into force of the Convention. On the contrary, they
readily take formal note of the fact that the claim to these
rights was not abandoned by the United States Government. At the
same time they feel convinced that the United States Government
will equally appreciate the position of His Majesty’s
Government, and will as a friendly act refrain from pressing
them to recede therefrom.
I have [etc.]
(In the absence of the Secretary of State)
Lancelot Oliphant
