123 P 53/260
The Acting Secretary of State to the Minister in Persia ( Philip )
Sir: The Department has received and read with interest your despatch No. 22 of February 7, 1926 with regard to the question of precedence among the diplomatic representatives in Teheran subsequent to the overthrow of the Kadjar Dynasty and the accession of Reza Shah Pahlevi to the throne of Persia.
The Department has noted the attitude at first assumed by the Persian Government that you would take precedence over your colleagues bearing the rank of Minister by reason of the fact that you were the first foreign representative of that rank to present credentials to the new Shah. It has furthermore noted the grounds on which the Persian Foreign Office reconsidered its original opinion.
The Department approves of your action in having refrained from taking any part in the discussions relating to this matter pending the receipt of definite instructions setting forth the policy to which this Government has in the past consistently adhered when situations similar to that obaining in Teheran have arisen.
The leading authorities on International Law and Diplomatic Practice appear to hold that the date of the original reception of the Diplomatic Representatives by the Chief of State shall determine the order of precedence among diplomats of the same rank and that in case of a change of monarch or regime necessitating the presentation of new credentials, the original precedence of such foreign representatives is not thereby disturbed (see Moore’s International Law Digest, Vol. IV p. 734).
There are enclosed for your further information on this subject:2
- (1)
- A copy of a despatch No. 287 of February 24, 1875 from Mr. Cushing, the then American Minister at Madrid, together with the Department’s return instruction No. 147 of March 24, 1875 ( Foreign Relations, part 2, 1875, pp. 1105–1108),
- (2)
- A copy of an instruction No. 67 of May 28 [27], 1886 from Secretary Bayard to Mr. Charles W. Buck, the then American Minister to Peru. (Ms. Inst., Peru, Vol. XVII, p. 217),
- (3)
- An excerpt from Satow’s Diplomatic Practice Vol. I, pp. 343–345,
- (4)
- An excerpt from Pradier-Fodere’s Cour de Droit Diplomatique, p. 339,
- (5)
- An excerpt from Foster’s Practice of Diplomacy, p. 71.
In view of the above precedents which are consistent with the practice of this Government in such cases, the Department deems it proper that you acquiesce in the point of view as set forth by the representatives of the Persian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in their conversations with you with respect to the order of precedence to prevail among the Diplomatic Representatives in Teheran.
Should you see no objection, you may furthermore inform the Persian Government of this Government’s position and of the precedents therefor. You may also inform your British and your other colleagues. It is believed that such action on your part may assist in establishing a useful precedent and thereby perhaps obviate in the future the recurrence of a situation of uncertainty as to precedence among diplomatic representatives in Teheran or elsewhere.
I am [etc.]