List of Papers
[Unless otherwise specified, the correspondence is from or to officials in the Department of State.]
COLOMBIA
Proposed Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights Between the United States and Colombia
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Aug. 28 (905) |
To the Minister in Colombia
Instructions to inquire as to Colombia’s disposition to conclude with the United States a general treaty of friendship, commerce and consular rights, providing for unconditional most-favored-nation treatment. |
1 |
| Nov. 8 (971) |
From the Minister in Colombia
Foreign Office note, November 3 (text printed), stating Colombia’s willingness to negotiate proposed treaty. (Footnote: Information, in a Treaty Division memorandum, January 21, 1931, that instructions and a draft treaty were prepared but never sent.) |
3 |
Statement by the Colombian Government That It Could Not Become a Party to an Arbitration of the Colon Fire Claims
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Nov. 4 (1226) |
From the Colombian Minister
Colombian note, November 4 (text printed), quoting stipulation in U. S.-Panaman claims convention of July 28, 1926, to the effect that Colombia shall be invited to become a party to an arbitration of the 1885 Colon fire claims, and declaring impossibility of becoming a party to an arbitration of claims which, since the independence of Panama in 1903, have ceased to concern Colombia. |
4 |
| Nov. 26 |
To the Colombian Minister
Suggestion that Colombia withhold her views, pending ratification of the convention and issuance of an invitation to Colombia to participate in arbitration. |
6 |
| Dec. 21 (1439) |
From the Colombian Minister
Statement that intention of Colombian note was to avoid diplomatic discussion by advising United States of Colombian views in advance of ratification of the convention. |
7 |
CUBA
Proposal by Cuba That the Commercial Convention Between the United States and Cuba, Signed December 11, 1902, Be Revised
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Apr. 8 (1390) |
From the Ambassador in Cuba
Inquiry as to whether a request by Cuba for revision of the reciprocity treaty of 1902 would be favorably received. |
10 |
| Apr. 30 (692) |
To the Ambassador in Cuba
Instructions to refrain from discussion of revision pending Departmental consultations. |
12 |
| May 7 (1416) |
From the Ambassador in Cuba
Foreign Office note, May 5 (text printed), requesting the Ambassador to ascertain whether the United States would be disposed to begin negotiations for modification of the treaty. |
12 |
| May 17 (84) |
From the Ambassador in Cuba (tel.) Report that pressure of Cuban public opinion prompted the note of May 5 and that the Government would appreciate an early expression of U. S. willingness to enter upon a discussion of U. S.-Cuban trade relations with a view to rendering them truly reciprocal. |
17 |
| Aug. 21 (781) |
To the Ambassador in Cuba
Assurance that the Cuban proposals are continuing to receive careful consideration. |
17 |
Convention Between the United States and Cuba for the Prevention of Smuggling of Intoxicating Liquors, Signed March 4, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Mar. 4 |
Convention Between the United States of America and
Cuba
For the prevention of smuggling of intoxicating liquors. |
18 |
| Mar. 4 (185) |
From the Cuban Secretary of State to the American
Ambassador
Understandings that (1) in the event the United States should adhere to the protocol of December 16, 1920, creating the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague, it will refer claims arising under the convention to that tribunal, and (2) whenever the United States shall seize a Cuban vessel in accordance with provisions of the convention, it will make a prompt report to the Cuban diplomatic representative in Washington. |
21 |
| Mar. 4 (675) |
From the American Ambassador to the Cuban Secretary
of State
Confirmation of understandings set forth in note No. 185 of March 4. |
22 |
Convention Between the United States and Cuba for the Suppression of Smuggling, Signed March 11, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926, Mar. 11 |
Convention Between the United States of America and
Cuba
For the suppression of smuggling. |
23 |
Consular Convention Between the United States and Cuba, Signed April 22, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Apr. 22 |
Convention Between the United States of America and
Cuba
Denning the duties, rights, privileges, and immunities of consular officers. |
27 |
Additional Extradition Treaty Between the United States and Cuba Signed January 14, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Jan. 14 |
Treaty Between the United States of America and
Cuba
Enlarging the list of crimes on account of which extradition may be granted. |
35 |
Disinclination of the United States To Conclude a Trade Marks Convention With Cuba as Proposed by the Cuban Government
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1925 Nov. 3 (1226) |
From the Ambassador in Cuba
Cuban proposal to conclude a trade marks convention. |
37 |
| 1926 Jan. 15 (1302) |
From the Ambassador in Cuba
Advice that Embassy has presented note to Cuban Government, quoting article VIII of the trade marks convention of August 20, 1910, and the act of March 19, 1920, giving effect to that article. |
37 |
| Jan. 29 (641) |
To the Ambassador in Cuba
Instructions to inform Cuban Government that existing U. S. laws in regard to fair trade practices are believed to be adequate to protect Cuban interests, and therefore a trade marks convention is not considered necessary. |
38 |
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Consent by the United States to the Emission of Bond Issue of $10,000,000 by the Dominican Government
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Oct. 14 |
From the Dominican Minister
Application, as required by the 1924 convention, for U. S. approval of flotation of a 10 million dollar loan for public works and other improvements. |
40 |
| Oct. 25 (87) |
From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
(tel.) Recommendation that Department reconsider decision to approve flotation of only 4 to 5 million dollars of bonds and consent to flotation of entire 10 million dollar loan. |
41 |
| Oct. 26 (31) |
To the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.) Inability to approve any part of loan unless assured that it will be wisely expended and that construction projects will be undertaken by reliable companies. |
42 |
| Oct. 28 (32) |
To the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.) Reasons for objection to notation of the entire amount of the loan, and request for opinion as to Dominican Government’s reaction to U. S. suggestion that a public works board, consisting of one Dominican member, one U. S. member, and the General Receiver of Customs, be appointed to control expenditure of the loan proceeds. |
42 |
| Oct. 30 (91) |
From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
(tel.) Opinion that Dominican Government would not consent to General Receiver of Customs as a member of board; suggestion that the amount available for expenditure be limited to a specified sum for each of 3 years, and to certain authorized purposes. |
44 |
| Nov. 8 (95) |
From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
(tel.) Proposal that there be added to the suggestion in telegram No. 91, October 30, the condition that after the Department has approved the loan the purposes and amounts cannot be changed without Department’s acquiescence. |
44 |
| Nov. 11 |
From the Dominican Minister
Formal Dominican proposal for 10 million dollar loan, with request for U. S. approval. |
45 |
| Nov. 12 |
From the Dominican Minister
Dominican Government’s intention to furnish the U. S. Government with details of harbor improvements contemplated under loan proposal. |
46 |
| Nov. 19 |
To the Dominican Minister
Approval of 10 mi lion dollar loan, with the understanding that it will become a part of the Dominican public debt and be administered on the same terms as other loans under the 1924 convention. |
47 |
| Nov. 19 |
From the Dominican Minister
Acceptance of U. S. understanding as set forth in the Secretary’s note of November 19. |
49 |
| Nov. 20 |
To the Dominican Minister
U. S. consent to increase of 10 million dollars in Dominican public debt, in accordance with the notes exchanged November 19. |
50 |
ECUADOR
Good Offices of the American Minister on Behalf of Chinese in Ecuador
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Jan. 27 (656) |
From the Minister in Ecuador
Successful efforts of Minister to secure release of Chinese merchants who were arrested in Guayaquil and threatened with deportation. |
51 |
| Mar. 3 (468) |
To the Minister in Ecuador
Approval of Minister’s good offices. |
57 |
EGYPT
Efforts by the United States To Protect the Interests of American Archeologists in Egypt
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Feb. 2 (249) |
To the Minister in Egypt
Draft note for Egyptian Government (text printed), requesting that article 10 of the excavation permit be supplemented by a statement that the Egyptian Antiquities Service will give freely to excavators all archeological material of which it has no need; instructions to withhold note until further advice, to consult confidentially with British and French colleagues to determine their attitude as to similar representations, and to secure opinions of American archeologists. |
58 |
| Feb. 2 (368) |
To the Ambassador in Great
Britain
Instructions to ascertain confidentially British attitude toward supporting proposed U. S. representations. |
63 |
| Feb. 2 (1851) |
To the Ambassador in France
Instructions to ascertain confidentially French willingness either to support proposed U. S. representations or to take similar action. |
65 |
| Mar. 13 (6) |
From the Minister in Egypt (tel.) Information that no commitment has yet been made by British and French colleagues; Minister’s belief that he independently can secure the desired action by Foreign Office. |
66 |
| Apr. 6 (136) |
From the Chargé in France (tel.) Decision of French Government to present note distincte; report of French Minister in Egypt that British High Commissioner proposes to act similarly. |
66 |
| Apr. 7 (11) |
From the Minister in Egypt (tel.) Approval of draft note by British and French colleagues, inquiry as to whether to present note. |
67 |
| Apr. 9 (923) |
From the Chargé in Great Britain
Foreign Office note, April 7 (text printed), reporting British High Commissioner’s willingness to support U. S. Minister’s representations and to act in concert with French Minister. |
67 |
| Apr. 12 (9) |
To the Minister in Egypt (tel.) Instructions to report (1) whether Egyptian political situation is now opportune for presentation of note, (2) whether archeologists’ divergent views have been reconciled, and (3) whether any modification in note is required to obtain concurrence of Harvard-Boston expedition official. |
68 |
| Apr. 17 |
From the American Legation to the Egyptian Ministry
for Foreign Affairs
Aide-mémoire requesting that the desired supplementary statement to article 10 be incorporated in the excavation permit. |
69 |
| Apr. 17 (15) |
From the Minister in Egypt (tel.) Report that the political situation is favorable; that the Harvard-Boston expedition official finds draft note objectionable but approves of aide-mémoire; and that articles to be issued by Egyptian Government will embody principles set forth in Department’s note. |
71 |
| Apr. 23 (11) |
To the Minister in Egypt (tel.) Information from Metropolitan Museum of New York that British and French have made representations, and that U. S. Minister has presented aide-mémoire; necessity that statement requested in aide-mémoire come from Foreign Office rather than from Egyptian Antiquities Service; instructions to telegraph latest developments. |
72 |
| Apr. 25 (16) |
From the Minister in Egypt (tel.) Expectation that official acceptance of proposal to include statement will be made shortly. |
72 |
| May 26 (830) |
From the Minister in Egypt
Transmittal of copies (texts printed) of clarifying statement to article 10 proposed May 16 by Egyptian Government; of note to Foreign Office, May 17, enclosing clarifying statement made as a counterproposal to Egyptian statement; and of Foreign Office aide-mémoire, May 26, agreeing to supplement article 10 with a statement based as completely on U. S. statement as Egyptian policy permits. |
73 |
| July 26 |
From the President of the Metropolitan Museum of
Art
Decision to resume excavations in Egypt as a result of the satisfactory clarification of article 10. |
76 |
Representations by Great Britain Against the Exercise by American Consular Courts in Egypt of Jurisdiction Over Seamen of British Nationality on American Vessels
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1920 Sept. 27 (634) |
From the British Ambassador
Representations that action of U. S. consul in Egypt in assuming jurisdiction over British seaman serving as a crew member of an American vessel was unjustifiable, and that sentence of the seaman to imprisonment by U. S. consular court on consul’s charge of disorderly conduct was irregular. |
77 |
| 1921 Apr. 20 |
To the British Ambassador
Opinion that British seaman assumed status of an American seaman when he signed as member of the crew of an American vessel, and thereby became entitled to U. S. protection and subject to its jurisdiction. |
78 |
| 1922 Jan. 18 (41) |
From the British Ambassador
Belief that neither under international law nor law in force in Egypt could a consular court exercise jurisdiction over the national of another State. |
81 |
| 1926 June 23 |
To the British Ambassador
Citation of U. S. Supreme Court decision and U. S. and British diplomatic precedents to establish propriety of U. S. consular jurisdiction over American seamen of foreign nationality. |
82 |
ESTONIA
Agreement Between the United States and Estonia Regarding Mutual Recognition op Ship Measurement Certificates
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 July 17 |
From the Estonian Chargé
Transmittal of Estonian regulations for tonnage measurement of ships, with a view toward the mutual recognition of U. S, and Estonian ship measurement certificates. |
89 |
| Aug. 21 |
To the Estonian Chargé
Acceptance of Estonian regulations and agreement that Estonian ships need not be remeasured in U. S. ports, on the understanding that U. S. ships will receive reciprocal treatment in Estonian ports. |
89 |
| Nov. 30 |
From the Estonian Chargé
Agreement of Estonia to mutual recognition of U. S. and Estonian ship measurement certificates. (Footnote: Information that agreement became operative in Estonia February 13, 1927, and in the United States April 2, 1927.) |
90 |
FRANCE
Efforts To Obtain Ratification of Debt Agreement Between the United States and France, Signed April 29, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Mar. 31 (81) |
To the Charge in France (tel.) Instructions to cable exact words used by Finance Minister in statement with respect to payment of interallied debts by France. |
91 |
| Apr. 1 (127) |
From the Charge in France (tel.) Press report of Finance Minister’s statement (excerpt printed) to the effect that French payments should be fixed equitably in proportion to those received from Germany. |
91 |
| Apr. 29 (108) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Résumé of U. S.-French debt agreement signed at Washington, April 29. |
92 |
| May 5 (173) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) Belief that prior ratification of debt agreement by Congress will facilitate ratification by Parliament. |
92 |
| May 6 (178) |
From, the Ambassador in France (tel.) Hope of Foreign Minister that Congress will act promptly on debt agreement. |
93 |
| May 27 (146) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Opinion of Secretary of the Treasury that favorable action by Congress before adjournment depends on French ratification of debt agreement. |
93 |
| June 2 (153) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Instructions to advise the prospects for prompt French action; information that House has passed debt agreement but that Senate will not consider it until after action by French Parliament. |
93 |
| June 3 (221) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) Belief that agreement will be voted on between June 13 and 20 and that ratification is assured unless Briand government should fall. (Footnote: Resignation of Briand ministry, June 15, followed by a period of rapid changes of ministry, and establishment of Poincaré ministry, July 23.) |
94 |
| June 4 (224) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) French Senator’s belief that removal of U. S. embargo against firm of Boue Soeurs as a mark of good will would facilitate ratification of agreement. (Footnote: Importation of Boue Soeurs merchandise prohibited by Treasury Department under Tariff Act of 1922, because of refusal to submit certain records to inspection.) |
94 |
| June 7 (164) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Refusal to consider reservations of any kind. |
95 |
| June 8 (232) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) Advice that repeated warnings have been given to the French that no reservations would be accepted, that opposition to debt agreement is formidable, and that political and financial situation is extremely complicated. |
95 |
| June 9 (166) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Approval of Ambassador’s warnings to the French that no reservations would be accepted, and suggestion that he refuse to forward any reservations on the ground that such action would result only in rebuff to him. |
96 |
| June 15 (241) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) Possibility that ratification may be postponed until the autumn session of Parliament. |
97 |
| June 15 (174) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Information that embargo against Boue Soeurs was revoked June 8. |
97 |
| July 13 (279) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) For the Secretary of the Treasury frqm the Agent General for German Reparation Payments and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury: Summary of situation in regard to ratification of debt agreement and suggestion that a possible U. S. concession as to “commercialization” and assurance that bonds provided under agreement will not be sold in public market might encourage French ratification. Ambassador’s concurrence in this opinion. (Footnote: Information that Secretary of the Treasury wrote to French Financial Attaché in Washington, July 14, stating that it was not U. S. intention to sell the bonds.) |
97 |
| July 16 (194) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Treasury Department press release (text printed) outlining differences between British and U. S. debt agreements with France; opinion that British agreement is no more lenient than U. S. settlement. |
99 |
| Aug. 6 (313) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) Information that Paris press reports of early ratification of U. S.-French agreement are premature, and that Secretary of the Treasury’s note of July 14 to French Financial Attaché is being kept secret. |
101 |
| Aug. 7 (314) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) Probability that ratification of both U. S. and British agreements will be postponed until autumn. |
101 |
| Aug. 28 (529) |
To American Diplomatic and Consular
Officers
Department memorandum (text printed) comparing U. S. and British debt agreements with France. |
102 |
| Oct. 7 (379) |
From the Chargé in France (tel.) Outline of political and financial reasons for delay in French ratification of U. S. agreement, with information that Poincaré is preparing for ratification during November, with some form of reservations. |
106 |
| Oct. 20 (388) |
From the Chargé in France (tel.) Likelihood that French will attempt to reopen negotiations with the United States looking toward modification of agreement, or that there will be much delay in bringing agreement before Parliament, which plans to consider budget and administrative measures when it convenes the second week in November. |
107 |
Failure op Effort op the American Government To Secure Agreement With the French Government on a Naturalization Treaty
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Apr. 1 (6218) |
From the Chargé in France
Transmittal of draft treaty concerning naturalization in the United States of French citizens, with summary of questionable points as brought out in discussions with Foreign Office, in accordance with Department’s desire to negotiate a naturalization treaty as expressed in instructions of May 11, 1923, and July 8, 1925. |
108 |
| Oct. 8 (2048) |
To the Chargé in France
Inability of United States to conclude treaty along the lines suggested in Embassy’s draft; instructions to drop the matter unless there is a likelihood of French Government’s willingness to enter into a treaty similar to Department’s draft transmitted with instruction of May 11, 1923. |
110 |
Failure of the United States To Secure a Convention With France Relating to Letters Rogatory
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1925 July 2 (1591) |
To the Ambassador in France
U. S. desire to enter into convention with France relating to letters rogatory along the lines of transmitted draft convention (text printed). |
113 |
| Oct. 1 (5573) |
From the Charge in France
Foreign Office note, September 24 (text printed), requesting more precise information on certain points. |
116 |
| 1926 Jan. 30 (23) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Explanation of points raised in Foreign Office note of September 24; suggestion that necessity for early conclusion of such a convention is evidenced by inability to obtain testimony from witnesses living in France which is needed in case pending in U. S. Federal court. |
117 |
| Feb. 20 (60) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) Expression by Foreign Office that convention with slight alterations appears acceptable. |
118 |
| Apr. 9 (6233) |
From the Chargé in France
Decision of Foreign Office to execute letters rogatory in the usual manner, and suggestion by French officials that convention as proposed could not be effected without recourse to legislation, nor could any general convention be drawn up to force witnesses to testify in civil cases if they chose to refuse. |
119 |
| Apr. 30 (109) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Instructions to report reason for Foreign Office’s unexplained change of attitude, and to ascertain whether the French Government would be willing to sign a convention if amended. |
120 |
| May 14 (6327) |
From the Ambassador in France
Report that personnel shift in Foreign Office is partly responsible for change of attitude, and that Foreign Office believes the necessity for inserting special clauses required by existing French law would render a convention no more effective than the present practice of transmitting letters rogatory through the diplomatic channel. |
120 |
| June 25 (1627) |
To the Ambassador in France
Instructions to inquire what compulsory judicial measures are contemplated in the Franco-British convention relating to letters rogatory to secure the testimony of a witness in France who refuses to testify voluntarily. |
121 |
| July 16 (6503) |
From the Ambassador in France
Advice that judge may impose a small fine on a witness who refuses to answer a summons issued under letters rogatory, and may impose a similar fine for contempt when a witness declines to give testimony in answer to judge’s request. Opinion that British measures of compulsion are no more drastic than French measures. |
122 |
Efforts To Reach an Understanding With France for Reciprocal Recognition of American and French Legislation Regarding Inspection of Vessels
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1925 Jan. 13 (1299) |
To the Ambassador in France
Instructions to advise French Government that in order to reestablish reciprocal vessel inspection relations, it will only be necessary that French Government accept American legislation on this subject and agree to recognize the inspection certificates issued to American vessels by the U. S. Government. Further instructions to furnish information to the Foreign Office (substance printed) Which will enable French Government to recognize the American Bureau of Shipping. |
123 |
| June 22 (5319) |
From the Ambassador in France
Foreign Office request for copies of American laws concerning security of navigation and hygiene on board commercial vessels, and its advice that American Bureau of Shipping cannot be accorded recognition until an agreement has been concluded as to the equivalence of U. S. and French legislation. |
126 |
| Nov. 5 (5682) |
From the Ambassador in France
Assurance by Foreign Office that, pending agreement concerning the equivalence of U. S. and French navigation certificates, American ships calling at French ports will experience no difficulties. |
127 |
| 1926 July 28 (1979) |
To the Ambassador in France
Instructions to advise French Government that since the vessel inspection laws of France approximate those of the United States, the U. S. Government desires to enter into a new reciprocal agreement, and expects as a consequence of such agreement that recognition of the American Bureau of Shipping will be readily effected. (Footnote: Information that no further action in this matter was taken until 1930.) |
127 |
Exemption of American Business Firms in Madagascar From Payment of Special Taxes
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Aug. 14 (1063) |
From the Consul at Tananarive
Unsuccessful efforts of consul to secure the removal of discriminations in Madagascar against American citizens with respect to purchase of domanial concessions, right to possess real estate, and imposition of certain taxes. |
129 |
| Oct. 12 (2052) |
To the Chargé in France
Instructions to express to Foreign Office the hope that Madagascar discriminations against American citizens will be removed, in view of article 7 of the consular convention of 1853 with France. |
130 |
| Nov. 5 (1084) |
From the Vice Consul in Charge at
Tananarive
Removal by Madagascar of discriminatory tax against American citizens of 5 percent on the amount of trading and revenue licenses. |
132 |
| 1927 Feb. 10 (7147) |
From the Ambassador in France
Foreign Office note, February 8 (text printed), stating that article 7 of the convention of 1853 refers to the “States of the Union” and to “France”, and that therefore the convention is inapplicable to colonies of either country. |
133 |
Precautions by the United States for the Safety of Americans During the Syrian Insurrection
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Feb. 17 |
From the Consul at Beirut (tel.) Report that situation in Damascus is deplorable, with looting and kidnapping by the rebels, and no apparent hope of a peaceful settlement between the French mandatory authorities and rebels. |
134 |
| Feb. 20 |
From the Consul at Beirut (tel.) Telegram to consul at Damascus, February 20 (text printed), urging departure of all Americans because of dangerous conditions and threatened kidnappings of Americans for ransom. |
135 |
| Feb. 23 |
To the Consul at Beirut (tel.) Instructions to inform French mandatory authorities that the United States holds them responsible for the safety of Americans in Damascus. |
135 |
| Mar. 3 (329) |
From the Consul at Damascus
Transmittal of pertinent documents (texts printed) setting forth efforts by U. S. consul and dean of consular corps at Damascus to secure assurances from the French authorities for the protection of foreign nationals. |
136 |
| Mar. 9 (2118) |
From the Consul at Beirut
Transmittal of pertinent documents (texts printed) setting forth representations to the French authorities as to lack of protection of American nationals in Damascus and French assurances of adequate military protection for foreigners. |
142 |
| May 7 |
To the Consul at Beirut
Approval of action of consuls at Beirut and Damascus in protecting American citizens and in making representations to the French authorities. |
146 |
| May 18 (378) |
From the Consul at Damascus
Transmittal of pertinent documents (texts printed), relating to successful efforts by consul to secure assurances from French mandatory authorities that advance notice of coercive military measures against native sections of Damascus and nearby districts will be given to consular corps in order that their nationals may be removed from the threatened areas. |
147 |
| July 19 |
To the Consul at Damascus
Instructions that the repeated failure of French authorities to keep promise to notify consular corps in advance of contemplated military action should not preclude further representations to those authorities in this connection. |
152 |
| July 26 |
From the Consul at Beirut (tel.) Continued military action of French and rebels in Damascus region. |
152 |
| Dec. 8 (450) |
From the Vice Consul in Charge at
Damascus
Improvement in general situation in Damascus and outlying districts, with fighting on a large scale apparently finished, but conditions far from peaceful and possibility of further rebel outbreaks. |
153 |
GERMANY
Insistence of the United States on Its Rights to Priority Payments for Costs of Army of Occupation Under the Agreement of January 14, 1925
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 May 12 (185) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Hill: Request for authorization to attend meetings of committee representing Allied Governments and United States to allocate the costs in future of armies of occupation, Interallied Rhineland Commission, and Military Mission of Control in Germany, as provided under Dawes annuities. |
156 |
| May 19 (132) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Hill: Authorization to attend meetings; information that British Ambassador’s note, May 13 (substance printed), suggests that the committee also settle any other outstanding questions arising under Dawes annuities. |
156 |
| May 21 (204) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Hill: Suggestion that U. S. Government might wish to reconsider its representation at meetings if other than the original questions are to be brought up; request to be informed if discussions as to allotments for army costs should be limited to the third annuity. |
157 |
| May 25 (144) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Hill: Instructions not to participate in any controversy regarding allotments for armies of occupation unless changes contemplated would have a disadvantageous effect on U. S. share of the annuities; Department’s preference that discussion of allotments for army costs be limited to the third annuity, as there is a possibility of such costs being reduced in subsequent years. |
159 |
| June 5 (229) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Hill: Request for opinion on the possibility, if there were a substantial reduction in army costs, of extending the agreement beyond the third annuity year, on the condition that the question would be reconsidered in the event of further reduction of army costs. |
160 |
| June 14 (173) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Hill: Consent to proposition set forth in Ambassador’s telegram No. 229, June 5. |
161 |
| Sept. 28 |
From the Agent General for Reparation
Payments
Transfer Committee’s resolution, September 18, to begin liquidation of U. S. priority in Dawes annuities on account of army costs in arrears, by the payment of monthly installments commencing September 1, 1926, such installments to represent substantially the same proportion of the monthly income available in the annuities, and not to exceed the annual amount of 55 million gold marks provided in the agreement of January 14, 1925. |
161 |
| Oct. 15 |
To the Agent General for Reparation
Payments
Secretary’s understanding that Transfer Committee’s resolution will not in any way prejudice U. S. priority rights in the event that additional cash transfers should be authorized, and declaration that the United States in no way waives its rights under the agreement of January 14, 1925. |
162 |
| Nov. 19 |
From the Agent General for Reparation
Payments
Assurance that Transfer Committee does not intend to prejudice U. S. priority rights in the event that additional cash transfers should be authorized, and information that Secretary’s letter of October 15 has been referred to the Reparation Commission because that body is responsible for the distribution of the amounts available each month. |
163 |
Rejection by Arbitrators of Claim of the Standard Oil Company to the D. A. P. G. Tankers
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Aug. 13 |
From the Unofficial Representative on the Reparation
Commission
Transmittal of majority award of arbitrators, rejecting Standard Oil Co.’s claim to the five D. A. P. G. tankers and awarding them to the Reparation Commission, and of dissenting opinion of minority arbitrator (texts printed). |
166 |
| Oct. 2 (371) |
From the Chargé in France (tel.) From Hill: Decision of Reparation Commission to award tankers to Great Britain. |
195 |
| Nov. 10 (286) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Hill: U. S. readiness to release tanker fleet upon assurance that expenditures incurred for repairs to two of the vessels during U. S. management of the fleet will be reimbursed from operating proceeds of the entire fleet. |
196 |
| Nov. 17 (430) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Hill: Contention of British and Finance Service that expenditures incurred for the two vessels should not be reimbursed from the earnings of the entire fleet; French suggestion that the two vessels be sold immediately and proceeds of sale be disposed of by Reparation Commission. |
197 |
| Nov. 24 (294) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Hill: Instructions to affirm U. S. position with regard to reimbursement of expenses from earnings of entire fleet, to insist on surrender of the vessels to Reparation Commission, to state U. S. readiness to make immediate substantial payment from net operating fund prior to final accounting, and to recommend that the two vessels be sold at public sale. |
198 |
| Nov. 29 (445) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Hill: Decision of Legal Service that United States is entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred for tankers out of earnings of entire fleet. |
199 |
| Dec. 3 (457) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Hill: Acceptance by Reparation Commission of U. S. suggestions set forth in telegram No. 294, November 24. |
200 |
| Dec. 4 (461) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) From Hill: Advice that tankers may now be delivered to British under authorization from Reparation Commission; Commission’s request that substantial part of tanker earnings be paid immediately to Reparations account in New York bank. |
200 |
| Dec. 20 (337) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) For Hill: Notification that Standard Oil Co. made $400,000 payment to Reparation Commission’s account December 20. |
201 |
Policy of the Department of State Regarding American Bankers’ Loans to German States and Municipalities
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Feb. 8 (6) |
To the Ambassador in Germany (tel.) Instructions to cable comments on loans to German states and municipalities floated in the United States in 1924 and 1925, with particular reference to the control exercised by German Council for Foreign Credits. |
201 |
| Feb. 12 (23) |
From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.) Opinion that few applications for loans have been submitted to Council recently because of German feeling that public corporations should cease borrowing from abroad for the time being. |
202 |
| Mar. 5 (36) |
From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.) From Gilbert: Belief that Council does not exercise effective control and that Department should not change its attitude toward German loans in American market; suggestion that special care should be taken in regard to proposed loans to Prussian State and Reichspost because of possible difficulties under Treaty of Versailles. |
203 |
| Sept. 1 |
From Harris, Forbes & Company
Inquiry as to possible objection by Department to flotation in the United States of bonds of the Prussian State. |
203 |
| Sept. 2 |
To Harris, Forbes & Company
Information that there are no questions of Government policy which would justify objection by Department. Suggestion, however, that bankers should consider the fact that under Treaty of Versailles the first charge on assets and revenues of Prussia is created in favor of reparation and other treaty payments. |
204 |
Objection by the Department of State to Proposed Loan by Lee, Higginson & Company to the German Potash Syndicate
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1925 Nov. 23 |
Memorandum by the Economic Adviser, Department of
State
Conclusion that Department should object to proposed loan by Lee, Higginson & Co. to the German Potash Syndicate, on the ground that the syndicate contemplates a monopoly on potash which will adversely affect American consumers. |
205 |
| Nov. 28 |
To the Secretary of Commerce
Request for opinion as to the desirability of inquiring what assurances the German syndicate is prepared to give against restriction of production or other actions likely to raise the price of potash marketed in the United States. |
207 |
| Nov. 28 |
From the Secretary of Commerce
Belief that no present encouragement to loan should be given, but that the inquiry suggested would be useful; opinion that Potash Syndicate is a vicious governmental monopoly. |
207 |
| Nov. 30 |
To Lee, Higginson & Company
Inquiry as to what assurances Potash Syndicate will give against restricting production or taking other measures with a view to regulating the price of potash in the United States. |
208 |
| Dec. 2 |
From Lee, Higginson &
Company
Withdrawal of request for Department’s comment on proposed loan, as European bankers have decided to proceed with the financing. |
209 |
| 1926 Jan. 22 |
Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Record of conversation with official of Potash Importing Corp. of America, in which the Secretary stated disinclination of the U. S. Government to reconsider decision on the potash loan at the present time. |
210 |
| Feb. 26 |
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State of a
Conversation With Messrs. Gray and Simpson of J. Henry Schroder
& Co.
Willingness of Department to study statement offered by Lee, Higginson & Co. (text printed) that it is not the intention of Potash Syndicate to restrict production or to raise prices to the detriment of American consumers. |
211 |
| Mar. 23 |
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of
State
Information that it had been decided that U. S. policy with regard to the potash loan should remain unchanged, and that Lee, Higginson & Co. have been so advised. |
213 |
GREAT BRITAIN
Claims of American Citizens Against Great Britain Arising Out of the War, 1914–1918
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1925 Nov. 3 (344) |
From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Foreign Office concern over possibility that United States might soon ask payment for claims arising from British naval blockade prior to U. S. entry into the war of 1914–1918. |
214 |
| Nov. 4 |
Memorandum by the Secretary of
State
Conversation in which British Ambassador protested against possible U. S. presentation of blockade claims, and Secretary stated that the exact nature of all outstanding claims would not be known until the Department’s survey was completed. |
215 |
| Nov. 24 |
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of
State
Conversation with British Ambassador, in which Assistant Secretary stated that as far as he knew the Department had always intended to present the blockade claims. |
216 |
| Feb. 4 |
Memorandum by the Secretary of
State
Conversation with British Ambassador, during which Ambassador left aide-mémoire dated February 4, and in which Secretary stated that in his opinion all the claims should be taken up. |
217 |
| Feb. 4 |
From the British Embassy
Aide-mémoire agreeing to U. S. proposal of October 27, 1925, that claims arising out of U. S. and British naval operations during period April 6, 1917, to March 3, 1921, be settled by correspondence between Navy Department and Admiralty. Suggestion that all intergovernmental claims arising out of the war be settled by direct negotiation between the U. S. and British departments concerned. |
218 |
| Mar. 16 (186) |
From the British Ambassador
Request for appointment for purpose of ascertaining Department’s contemplated action on Senator Borah’s resolution introduced into Senate March 15 inquiring what steps have been taken to negotiate conventions with Great Britain and France covering blockade claims arising during the period August 1, 1914, to April 6, 1917. |
219 |
| Mar. 20 (62) |
From the Charge in Great Britain (tel.) Unfavorable reaction of British press to news that the United States might present the blockade claims. |
220 |
| Mar. 25 |
Memorandum by the Secretary of
State
Conversation in which British Ambassador agreed to ask instructions of his Government as to Secretary’s proposal that each Government appoint commissions to study all the claims of both Governments, to settle those on which they could agree, and to submit the remainder to arbitration. |
221 |
| Mar. 29 |
Memorandum by Mr. Spencer Phenix, Assistant to
Assistant Secretary of State Olds
Conversation between the Secretary of State and the British Ambassador, in which the Ambassador stated that he could not recommend to his Government consideration of the blockade claims; reiteration of Department’s desire to consider all claims at the same time; suggestion by Secretary that settlement of the whole matter might be facilitated by maintaining negotiations on an informal basis, without publicity, and that records in Washington and London be studied by representatives of the two Governments, who would settle such cases as they could. |
222 |
| Apr. 7 |
To the British Embassy
Aide-mémoire outlining the procedure suggested by the Secretary March 29. |
224 |
| Apr. 14 (73) |
From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Willingness of Chamberlain, British Foreign Secretary, to have informal investigation of claims situation, if carried on in Washington and without publicity. |
226 |
| Apr. 29 |
Memorandum by the Secretary of
State
Conversation with officials of British Embassy, in which agreement was reached that Mr. Phenix and Mr. Broderick would begin joint examination of the claims in Washington on behalf of their respective Governments. |
227 |
| May 14 (73) |
To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Instructions to inform Chamberlain of contents of note of May 14 to the British Ambassador (extract printed) which advises the Ambassador of the Secretary’s intention to send Mr. Phenix to London in June to secure further data from prize court and other records. |
227 |
| June 1 (86) |
To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Instructions to endeavor to secure Chamberlain’s consent to proposed examination of British records. |
229 |
| June 4 (116) |
From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Chamberlain’s reluctance to approve proposed visit, especially in view of change in plan for having a U. S. naval delegation in London at the same time; his willingness to reconsider his answer if the Secretary, after reading the U. S. Ambassador’s cable and hearing from the British Ambassador, still wishes Mr. Phenix to go to London. |
230 |
| June 5 (89) |
To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Displeasure of Secretary at Chamberlain’s attitude; transmittal of note to be read to Chamberlain (text printed) stating that since British Government has refused cooperation in bringing about a settlement by informal negotiation, Secretary feels free to proceed in any appropriate manner. |
230 |
| June 5 (90) |
To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Instructions to withhold action on telegram No. 89 at request of British Ambassador, who is cabling recommendation that the proposed examination be agreed to and that Mr. Broderick be authorized to accompany Mr. Phenix to London later in the summer. |
232 |
| June 7 (117) |
From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Explanation that interview with Chamberlain June 4 had been carried on in a friendly spirit, but that Chamberlain was much concerned as to the exact object of Mr. Phenix’s proposed visit. |
233 |
| June 10 (93) |
To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Résumé of situation, with instructions to convey to Chamberlain, if approached, the exact nature of Mr. Phenix’s proposed visit, and the position of the United States. |
233 |
| June 15 (128) |
From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Suggestion that U. S. Ambassador be authorized to tell Chamberlain that if visit is not agreed to, it will be necessary to circularize claimants to ascertain the facts; and to repeat that many American claims had no connection with the blockade. |
236 |
| June 16 (131) |
From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Chamberlain’s telegram to British Ambassador consenting to visit of Mr. Phenix, if accompanied by the naval delegation; his statement in interview with U. S. Ambassador that he would not object if Mr. Phenix came without the naval delegation, and suggestion that September would be a desirable time. |
237 |
| June 16 (103) |
To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Secretary’s surprise that Borah resolution (text printed) passed Senate June 15; instructions to state informally to Chamberlain that Secretary’s response to resolution depends on Chamberlain’s attitude toward Mr. Phenix’s investigation of the claims in London. |
238 |
| June 17 (413) |
From the British Ambassador
Assurances that Chamberlain now fully appreciates and reciprocates the friendly spirit of the Secretary in approaching the difficult matter of the claims situation; advice that Chamberlain still prefers that Mr. Phenix’s visit coincide with that of the naval delegation, and that British attitude regarding consideration of blockade claims remains the same. |
238 |
| June 19 |
To the British Ambassador
Statement that Chamberlain told U. S. Ambassador that he would raise no objection if Mr. Phenix came to London, even if unaccompanied by the naval delegation; information that Secretary of Navy is being approached on subject of sending a naval mission not later than September 1; Secretary’s feeling that question of consideration of so-called “blockade claims” should be dealt with after consideration of governmental claims. |
240 |
| June 21 (108) |
To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Cancelation of instructions in telegram No. 89, June 5; opinion that the United States should break off the September negotiations at first sign of obstructive tactics or lack of cooperation on part of British Government. |
242 |
| July 12 |
To the British Ambassador
Plans of Navy Department to send mission to London in September to discuss claims between that department and the British departments concerned. |
243 |
| July 15 |
From the British Ambassador
Agreement of British Government to consider plans for the proposed naval claims meeting as soon as formally notified by U. S. naval attaché in London. Receipt of authorization for Mr. Broderick to meet Mr. Phenix in London September 1. |
244 |
| July 20 |
To the Assistant Secretary of
State
Instructions to proceed to London about September 18 and in the light of the Phenix-Broderick report to obtain Chamberlain’s approval of some definite procedure for formal consideration by the British Government of meritorious claims. |
244 |
| Sept. 23 |
From the Assistant Secretary of
State
Preliminary results of London negotiations; memorandum of conversation with Sir William Tyrrel of the Foreign Office, September 21 (text printed), stating optimistic attitude of both parties toward arriving at a prompt solution. |
245 |
| Nov. 9 |
From Mr. Spencer Phenix, Assistant to Assistant
Secretary of State Olds
Report on the subject of claims and complaints against the British Government lodged with the Department of State since August 18, 1910 (text printed); opinion that only 11 of the 2,658 cases studied possess conspicuous merit. |
250 |
| Nov. 13 |
From Mr. Spencer Phenix, Assistant to Assistant
Secretary of State Olds
Information that a study of American claims presented directly to British Government confirms opinion expressed in report November 9 that only 11 cases possess conspicuous merit. List of formal claims against British Government which have been filed, with disposition recommended in each case. |
287 |
| Dec. 8 |
Memorandum by Mr. Spencer Phenix, Assistant to
Assistant Secretary of State Olds
Report of conferences December 5 and 7 between representatives of the U. S. and British Governments for the purpose of agreeing upon a formula for settlement of claims; and annexes consisting of suggested formulas of November 18 and December 5 and statement of account of December 8 (texts printed). |
294 |
| Dec. 14 |
Memorandum by Mr. Spencer Phenix, Assistant to
Assistant Secretary of State Olds
Report of conferences December 10–13, during which agreement was reached upon text of note to be sent by Department to British Embassy, incorporating text of formula for settlement of claims (texts printed). (Footnote: Information that the exchange of notes took place May 19, 1927.) |
303 |
| Dec. 21 |
Memorandum by Mr. Spencer Phenix, Assistant to
Assistant Secretary of State Olds
Conversation December 20 between Assistant Secretary of State Olds, Mr. Phenix, and Mr. Broderick, in which the latter advised that Foreign Office had telegraphed approval of proposed note, with a minor change. |
306 |
| Dec. 22 |
Memorandum by Mr. Spencer Phenix, Assistant to
Assistant Secretary of State Olds
Conversation December 21 between Mr. Phenix and Mr. Broderick, in which U. S. agreement to changes incorporated in draft text of note received from British Ambassador was expressed. |
308 |
Claim of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey Against the British Government for the Destruction of Property in Rumania in 1916
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1924 May 16 (124) |
To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Instructions to inform Foreign Office of U. S. desire to begin negotiations to adjust Standard Oil Co.’s claim against the British Government for the destruction of oil properties of its subsidiary in Rumania in 1916. |
308 |
| Oct. 10 (779) |
From the Ambassador in Great
Britain
Foreign Office note, June 23, 1924 (text printed), disavowing responsibility of British Government to compensate either British or foreign companies, and declaring the responsibility to belong to Rumanian Government, because it assumed that obligation when it yielded to Allies’ urging that the oil wells be destroyed to prevent their falling into German hands. Foreign Secretary’s note, October 6, 1924 (text printed), endorsing the views of Foreign Office note of June 23, 1924. |
309 |
| 1925 Jan. 31 |
To the Ambassador in Great
Britain
Memorandum by the Solicitor of the Department of State (text printed), to be submitted to the Foreign Office, answering the arguments of Foreign Secretary’s note of October 6, 1924, and proposing arbitration by an international tribunal. |
315 |
| 1926 Sept. 10 (1340) |
From the Ambassador in Great
Britain
Foreign Secretary’s reply, April 15, 1926 (text printed), to Ambassador’s representations based on memorandum of January 31, 1925, affirming that the Rumanian Government alone is responsible for compensating the oil companies’ claims, and stating opinion that the Standard Oil Co.’s claim does not lend itself to arbitration between the U. S. and British Governments. |
322 |
| Dec. 6 (766) |
To the Ambassador in Great
Britain
Instructions to deliver note to Foreign Office (text printed), presenting arguments to uphold U. S. contention that British Government is responsible either for adjusting the claim or submitting the question of liability or amount of damage to arbitration. (Footnote: Information that a note based on this instruction was presented to the Foreign Office May 2, 1927.) |
326 |
Cooperation op the British Government With the American Government To Prevent Liquor Smuggling Into the United States
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1925 Dec. 2 |
Memorandum by Mr. William R. Vallance, Assistant to
the Solicitor of the Department of State
Conference of State, Treasury, and Justice Department officials with the British Ambassador and other British Embassy representatives, regarding the presence of U. S. Coast Guard vessels in Bahaman waters without prior permission of British authorities, and seizures by Coast Guard of liquor ships under the U. S.-British liquor smuggling convention of 1924. |
336 |
| 1926 Mar. 27 |
From the British Embassy
Administrative measures British Government is prepared to adopt to assist in the prevention of smuggling of liquor into the United States from the sea, and invitation to hold discussions in London on the subject. |
346 |
| Apr. 26 |
To the British Ambassador
Expression of appreciation for British offer of cooperation, and acceptance of invitation to hold discussions in London. |
348 |
| July 31 (1245) |
From the Ambassador in Great Britain
Joint report, July 27 (text printed), of discussions between U. S. and British officials, containing suggestions for administrative measures to prevent the smuggling of liquor into the United States. |
349 |
| Sept. 16 |
To the British Ambassador
U. S. acceptance of suggestions submitted in report of London discussions. |
354 |
| Sept. 29 (560) |
From the British Chargé
British acceptance of suggestions, with information that they will be considered in effect as of September 29, 1926; inquiry whether United States may not desire cooperation of British consular officers in ports additional to those mentioned in report of London conference. |
355 |
| Oct. 4 |
To the British Chargé
Expression of appreciation for additional offer of cooperation by British consular officers. |
356 |
| Oct. 28 |
To the British Chargé
Communication of list of additional European, U. S., and Central and South American ports in which the cooperation of British consular officers is desired. |
356 |
| Dec. 8 (792) |
From the British Chargé
Information that consular officials at the ports mentioned in Secretary’s note of October 28 have been notified to extend cooperation to U. S. authorities. |
357 |
| Dec. 17 |
To the British Chargé
Expression of appreciation for British Government’s cooperation. |
358 |
Efforts by the United States To Obtain for American Rubber Manufacturers Relief From British Restrictions on the Export of Raw Rubber
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Apr. 7 (918) |
From the Chargé in Great Britain
Foreign Office note of April 6 (text printed), stating that British Government would welcome an understanding with the U. S. Government to the effect that both Governments would avoid action calculated to foster and encourage price fixing; information that British Government exercises no control over the issue of loans in the London market. |
358 |
Continued Negotiations To Ensure Recognition of the Principle of the Open Door in the Turkish Petroleum Company’s Concession in Iraq
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Jan. 8 (5) |
From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Opinion that, in view of reported willingness of Gulbenkian, a minority stockholder, to arbitrate his claims to pre-war oil concessions of Turkish Petroleum Co., a refusal on the part of American interests to arbitrate will mean either an attempt to force British Government to deny Gulbenkian his legal rights or an intention to withdraw from the negotiations entirely. |
362 |
| Jan. 14 (5) |
To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Contradictory opinion, with suggestion that an arbitration might possibly result in unfavorable terms to American interests if they chose to participate; reiteration of previous position that Gulbenkian’s claim based on pre-war concession is invalid. |
363 |
| Jan. 23 (9) |
To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Belief of American group that Ambassador’s representations have caused British Foreign Office to exert pressure on British group to prepare the way for American group to take up its participation. Exchange of cables between heads of Dutch and American groups (extracts printed) expressing opinion that British Government should disregard the welfare of the individual and take action to benefit the entire enterprise. |
364 |
| Jan. 27 (15) |
From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Willingness of Gulbenkian to settle on American terms, if the desired guarantees are given; possibility that American group is employing U. S. Government to use its influence with British Foreign Office to force Gulbenkian to lower his terms. |
365 |
| Jan. 28 (17) |
From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Summary of facts in Gulbenkian’s case; opinion that American group has requested Department to use influence with Foreign Office to assist it in bargaining with Gulbenkian. |
366 |
| Feb. 10 (20) |
To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Opinion that the international point of view must be considered, and that the United States would have grounds for representations against Great Britain, if by adhering to validity of pre-war concessions of Turkish Petroleum Co., Great Britain tried to prevent American participation in the enterprise on a fair basis. |
367 |
| Feb. 12 (30) |
From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.) Agreement that the United States should maintain its right to participate on an equal basis, but should cease its efforts when equal participation has been accorded to American nationals, and should not be concerned with the conditions offered to its nationals. |
368 |
| Apr. 1 |
To the French Embassy
Memorandum stating that the United States, in order to maintain the principle of the Open Door and equality of opportunity in the development of economic resources of mandate territories, feels justified in supporting efforts of American companies to secure participation. |
368 |
| Apr. 6 (69) |
From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.) Information that Gulbenkian has agreed to settlement satisfactory to the two English groups and the American group, and that details of the settlement are to be submitted to French group for its approval. |
369 |
| July 26 |
From the Counselor of Embassy at London to Mr. Allen
W. Dulles
Request to inform Department that agreement has not yet been concluded, but that American group’s representative believes progress has been made and that matter will soon be settled to the satisfaction of all parties. |
370 |
GREECE
Refusal of the United States To Join in Representations to Greece Regarding Alleged Violations of the Loan Agreement of February 10, 1918
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1925 Nov. 23 (1007) |
From the British Ambassador
Desire that the United States and France join Great Britain in representations to Greece because the latter concluded contracts with Foundation Co. of New York for drainage of Salonica plain and with Société Commerciale de Belgique for railway material, and, by pledging securities to cover the loans without securing approval of the three Governments, has violated the loan agreement of February 10, 1918. |
371 |
| Dec. 12 |
To the British Ambassador
Opinion that no grounds exist at present for protesting Greek action, because 1918 agreement will not have been violated until the actual loan notation and pledging of securities therefor. |
372 |
| 1926 Aug. 23 (512) |
From the British Ambassador
Suggestion that the United States, France, and Great Britain make a joint protest to Greek Government because of supplementary contract concluded with Foundation Co., increasing the temporary loan and pledging additional security therefor. |
373 |
| Sept. 1 |
To the British Ambassador
Inquiry as to British Government’s reasons for suggesting a joint protest at this time and basing protest specifically on the Foundation Co. case, when Greece has made other financial arrangements recently in violation of the 1918 agreement. |
374 |
| Nov. 25 |
From the British Embassy
British motives for not protesting the various Greek loans, and feeling that the present Foundation Co. case should be objected to for the reason that steps should be taken to bolster the effectiveness of the 1918 agreement. |
375 |
| Dec. 27 |
To the British Embassy
U. S. position that the representations desired by the British Government would serve no useful purpose at the present time, since U. S. protest to Greece in July in reference to Swedish Match Co. was ineffectual, and in consideration of the human-itaria nature of the Foundation Co. project. |
378 |
Representations by the United States Against the Nonexemption of American Consular Officers in Greece From the Provisions of the Forced Loan of 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Jan. 24 (6) |
From the Minister in Greece (tel.) Issuance of decree imposing forced loan on bank notes; Foreign Office announcement of nonexemption of foreigners. |
380 |
| Jan. 25 (7) |
From the Minister in Greece (tel.) Advice that Minister formally communicated to Foreign Office provisional reservation against application of the decree to American citizens, pending instructions from the Department. |
380 |
| Jan. 27 (4) |
To the Minister in Greece (tel.) Instructions to insist on equality of treatment for American nationals if exemption is granted to nationals of countries having treaties with Greece exempting them from forced loans. |
381 |
| Feb. 25 (521) |
From the Minister in Greece
Greek note verbale, January 30 (text printed), advising exemption only of foreign diplomatic personnel and Government funds in cash boxes of legations and consulates; subsequent correspondence between U. S. Minister and Foreign Minister (texts printed), in which the former repeated his previous reservations as to the rights of the United States and its citizens. |
381 |
| July 2 (328) |
To the Chargé in Greece
Instructions to protest if Greek Government should attempt to apply forced loan decree to American consular officers of career, basing protest on favored-nation-provision of article 2 of consular convention with Greece of 1902 if consular officers of another Government are granted exemption, or on article 3, which provides for exemption of consuls from direct taxes. |
385 |
| July 22 (606) |
From the Chargé in Greece
Representations to Greek Government (text printed), based on articles 2 and 3 of consular convention. |
387 |
| Aug. 25 (345) |
To the Chargé in Greece
Instructions to supplement representations by oral protest emphasizing application of article 3, as reference to article 2 was not precisely applicable. |
389 |
| Sept. 13 (629) |
From the Chargé in Greece
Admission by Foreign Office that forced loan was in contravention of article 3, and request that Minister ascertain if Department would be satisfied with statement that the specific instance of collection of forced loan from Consul Fernald would not be considered a precedent establishing right of Greek Government to levy forced loan on an American consular officer of career. |
390 |
| Oct. 28 (357) |
To the Chargé in Greece
Instructions to make representations to Foreign Office that the United States cannot agree to any exceptions to the principle that American consular officers of career in Greece are exempt from such forms of taxation as the forced loan, and that it expects the Greek Government to reimburse such offi-, cers for any payments under forced loan, upon notification of the amounts involved. |
391 |
| Nov. 19 (669) |
From the Chargé in Greece
Advice that the prescribed representations were made to: Foreign Office, and that Mr. Fernald was the only consular officer affected by collection of the forced loan. |
392 |
GUATEMALA
Proposed Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights Between the United States and Guatemala
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 July 17 |
To the Guatemalan Minister
Advice that the United States is now ready to enter into negotiation of the proposed treaty of friendship, commerce and consular rights, and will be glad to submit a draft treaty. (Footnote: Information that Guatemalan note, December 28, 1923, requested submittal of draft treaty suggested by the Secretary of State, but that negotiations were suspended while the Senate had under consideration the treaty signed with Germany, December 8, 1923.) |
393 |
| Aug. 27 |
From the Guatemalan Minister
Request for submittal of draft treaty. |
393 |
| Sept. 20 |
To the Guatemalan Minister
Transmittal of draft treaty. |
394 |
| Sept. 22 |
From the Guatemalan Minister
Information that draft treaty has been forwarded to Foreign Office. (Footnote: Information that the negotiations did not result in the conclusion of any treaty.) |
395 |
HAITI
Temporary Withdrawal of United States War Vessels From Haitian Waters Because of Presidential Election
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Jan. 7 (2) |
From the High Commissioner in Haiti (tel.) Request of President Borno that U. S. war vessels be withdrawn from Haitian waters for a few months preceding the presidential elections. |
396 |
| Jan. 15 (2) |
To the Chargé in Haiti (tel.) For General Russell: Information that Navy Department has ordered withdrawal of vessels. |
396 |
| Apr. 12 (37) |
From the High Commissioner in Haiti (tel.) Reelection of President Borno. |
396 |
| May 19 (304) |
To the High Commissioner in Haiti
Inquiry by Navy Department as to Haitian Government’s attitude toward return of U. S. warships to Haitian waters. |
397 |
| May 27 (825) |
From the Chargé in Haiti
Despatch of General Russell, May 14 (extract printed), reporting that President Borno has no objection to return of U. S. vessels to Haitian waters. |
397 |
Visit of President Borno of Haiti to the United States
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Apr. 17 (787) |
From the High Commissioner in Haiti
Desire of President Borno to visit the United States in June. |
398 |
| Mav 20 (34) |
To the Chargé in Haiti (tel.) Assurance that President Borno will be cordially welcomed. |
399 |
| May 28 |
From the Chargé in Haiti (tel.) Tentative itinerary of President, with request for information as to details of arrival in New York and transportation to Washington. |
399 |
| June 4 (42) |
To the Chargé in Haiti (tel.) Plans for reception of President in New York and schedule of Washington visit. |
400 |
| Julv 6 (70) |
From the Chargé in Haiti (tel.) Return of President to Haiti; his statement of increased desire to cooperate in concluding treaty with the United States. |
400 |
Agreement Between the United States and Haiti According Mutual Unconditional Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Customs Matters, Signed July 8, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1925 Aug. 10 (649) |
To the Chargé in Haiti
Instructions to address note to Foreign Office suggesting conclusion of a commercial modus vivendi, to be followed by a general treaty of friendship, commerce and consular rights providing unconditional most-favored-nation treatment; suggestion that Haiti might wish to terminate commercial convention of 1907 with France. |
401 |
| Aug. 31 (48) |
From the Chargé in Haiti (tel.) Opinion that suggestion of concluding modus vivendi now, with coincident necessity for termination of Franco-Haitian convention, would not be favorably received by President Borno, because such termination would meet with popular opposition before December. |
402 |
| Sept. 4 (35) |
To the Chargé in Haiti (tel.) Instructions to ascertain President’s views on the proposed modus vivendi, and, if he is seriously opposed, not to pursue the matter. |
402 |
| 1926 May 7 (48) |
From the High Commissioner in Haiti (tel.) Consent of Haitian Government to modus vivendi, with desire to except Dominican Republic; High Commissioner’s request for authority to include exception of Dominican Republic and to fix effective date as July 27, 1926, in the text of modus vivendi) information that Franco-Haitian agreement will not be in effect after July 26. |
402 |
| June 29 (692) |
To the Chargé in Haiti
Willingness of United States to except Dominican Republic, and request that exchange of notes take place immediately, with effective date October 1, 1926. |
403 |
| July 8 (172) |
From the American Chargé to the Haitian Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs
Submittal of modus vivendi. |
403 |
| July 8 |
From the Haitian Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs to the American Chargé
Acceptance of modus vivendi. |
405 |
Commercial Convention Between France and Haiti, Signed July 29, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 May 3 (802) |
From the High Commissioner in
Haiti
Information that Haitian Government has sent a note to French Chargé abrogating Franco-Haitian commercial convention of 1907, as of July 27, 1926. |
407 |
| May 6 |
From the French Ambassador
Expression of French Government’s surprise that it was not advised of contemplated modifications in Haitian commercial relations; opinion that Department’s assurances to Ambassador’s predecessors in 1916 and 1925 to effect that due consideration of requests pertaining to modification of present customs duties would be afforded by American Financial Adviser have been disregarded; desire that Financial Adviser be instructed to maintain the present status quo during any possible negotiations between France and Haiti. |
407 |
| June 28 |
To the French Chargé
Lack of evidence that Financial Adviser has failed to consider any requests for modification; advice that the original action toward terminating the Franco-Haitian agreement was taken by France in 1919 when it denounced the convention with the provision that it might be prolonged by tacit agreement every 3 months; inability of United States to request maintenance of status quo, as that is for decision by Haitian Government. |
408 |
| July 14 (193) |
To the Ambassador in France (tel.) Instructions to endeavor to prevent the discrimination which the French Government intends to apply against Haitian imports unless Haiti continues the privileged position of certain French imports. |
410 |
| July 26 (76): |
From the Chargé in Haiti (tel.) Recommendation for Department’s approval of convention under negotiation by France and Haiti, providing for (1) the entrance into France of all principal Haitian products at minimum duties, and the entrance into Haiti of certain specified French products at one-third reduction of prospective duties, and (2) termination of convention af ter 3 years unless renewed by mutual consent. Information that the tariff preferences would apply equally to similar products from the United States. |
411 |
| July 27 (51) |
To the Chargé in Haiti (tel.) Department’s disposition not to offer objection to the proposed convention. |
412 |
| July 29 (300) |
From the Ambassador in France (tel.) Information from Foreign Office that negotiations are being held to conclude new commercial treaty with Haiti; French position that they are not asking for discrimination against other countries in their favor and that they understand reductions in rates extended to certain articles would be extended to other countries which have most-favored-nation treaties with Haiti. (Footnote: Information that the convention was signed July 29, 1926.) |
412 |
Promise by the United States Not To Raise Certain Objections to the Claims Agreement Between France and Haiti, Signed June 12, 1925
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1925 Oct. 5 (628) |
From the High Commissioner in
Haiti
Agreements between Haiti and France, signed August 11, 1923, and June 12, 1925 (text of latter printed), for the settlement of French claims, and High Commissioner’s note to Foreign Office, October 5, 1925 (text printed), setting forth provisions of those agreements which conflict with treaty of 1915 and protocol of 1919 between the United States and Haiti. |
413 |
| Dec. 9 (76) |
From the High Commissioner in Haiti (tel.) Foreign Office statement that 1925 agreement makes only slight changes in 1923 agreement, which was approved by Department; opinion of legal adviser to High Commissioner that 1925 agreement conflicts with protocol of 1919, and that modifications in protocol can only be made by the United States becoming a party to the agreement, which would have to be approved by Haitian Council of State. |
421 |
| 1926 Jan. 18 (3) |
To the Chargé in Haiti (tel.) For General Russell: Request for comments on observations Department contemplates making to Haitian Minister concerning the agreement. |
422 |
| Jan. 21 (8) |
From the High Commissioner in Haiti (tel.) Approval of Department’s contemplated observations; suggestion that French Legation in Haiti officially present a complete list of French claims to Claims Commission before February 1. |
423 |
| Jan. 26 (6) |
To the Chargé in Haiti (tel.) For General Russell: Information that memorandum has been sent to Haitian Minister setting forth Department’s observations and enclosing a draft of proposed exchange of notes; instructions to endeavor to secure Foreign Office acceptance of the suggested alterations and explanations. |
423 |
| Jan. 30 (11) |
From the High Commissioner in Haiti (tel.) Foreign Minister’s acceptance of suggested alterations. |
424 |
| Feb. 3 (8) |
To the Chargé in Haiti (tel.) For General Russell: Advisability of naming date for hearing French claims; possibility of proceeding under Franco-Haitian agreement of 1923 pending solution of present difficulties. |
424 |
| Feb. 5 |
From the Haitian Minister
Note setting forth provisions of Franco-Haitian agreement of 1925 and requesting that United States agree not to object to certain specified provisions which conflict with protocol of 1919. |
424 |
| Feb. 9 |
To the Haitian Minister
U. S. consent, with understandings, to Haitian request in note of February 5. |
426 |
| Feb. 11 |
To the French Ambassador
Assurance that French claims will be heard by Claims Commission after February 15. |
428 |
| Feb. 23 (718) |
From the High Commissioner in
Haiti
Information that Franco-Haitian agreement of 1925 was formally notified to Claims Commission, and ratified by the National Assembly. |
428 |
Support by the United States of Haitian Refusal To Arbitrate With France the Question of Paying Interest in Gold on Gold Loan of 1910
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Feb. 16 |
From the French Ambassador
Renewal of request that U. S. Government induce Haitian Government to agree to proposition of the Bank of the Parisian Union that the question of redemption in gold of Haitian gold loan of 1910 be sent to arbitration. |
429 |
| Mar. 26 |
To the French Ambassador
Inability of U. S. Government to advise Haitian Government to agree to the desired arbitration, because it believes the loan is payable in francs of current circulation and not in gold, and because it does not find provision in the loan contract which would entitle the bank to invoke arbitration on this subject. |
429 |
| Apr. 1 (298) |
To the High Commissioner in
Haiti
Information that a note was communicated to the French Ambassador, March 26. |
431 |
| June 28 |
From the French Chargé
Presentation of further arguments for arbitration. |
431 |
| July 31 |
To the French Chargé
U. S. adherence to decision of March 26. |
432 |
| Dec. 23 |
From the French Chargé
Adherence of French Government to its position, with proposal that the question as to whether under the loan contract there is occasion for arbitration, be referred to an arbitrator. |
432 |
| 1927 Feb. 1 |
To the French Chargé
Inability of U. S. Government to accede to French proposal of December 23, 1926. |
433 |
HONDURAS
Amends by the Government of Honduras for Violation of the American Consular Premises at Ceiba
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Oct. 28 |
From the Vice Consul at Ceiba (tel.) Request for despatch of U. S. war vessel to Ceiba to protect American lives and property endangered by armed outbreaks; suggestion that strong measures be taken to obtain satisfaction from Honduran Government for deliberate affront to the U. S. Government by the mayor de plaza, who not only was personally insolent but who also ordered his troops to an insulting show of force which menaced safety of the consular premises. (Repeated to the Minister in Honduras.) |
435 |
| Oct. 29 (65) |
From the Minister in Honduras (tel.) Honduran President’s expression of regret over incident; information that he gave orders that mayor and troops are to salute American flag at consulate and that mayor is to make public apology to vice consul, after which mayor is to be court-martialed. (Repeated to vice consul at Ceiba.) |
436 |
| Oct. 29 |
To the Vice Consul at Ceiba (tel.) Information that Navy has been requested to despatch vessel; instructions to lodge strong formal protest with Governor of Ceiba against action of mayor in violating the consular premises. (Communicated to the Minister in Honduras.) |
436 |
| Oct. 30 |
To the Vice Consul at Ceiba (tel.) Advice that U. S. destroyer will arrive at Ceiba November 1; instructions to repeat to Minister in Honduras. |
437 |
| Oct. 30 (66) |
From the Minister in Honduras (tel.) Information from Honduran President that due to the unusual conditions at Ceiba, the carrying out of his orders of October 29 cannot be effected, but that Minister of War is being sent to Ceiba at once. (Repeated to vice consul at Ceiba.) |
437 |
| Nov. 6 |
From the Vice Consul at Ceiba (tel.) Recommendation that, in view of precarious local conditions, U. S. Government accept statement by Governor of Ceiba (extract printed), declaring that the incident is regretted, that the mayor will receive disciplinary punishment for having acted on his own initiative and contrary to orders of his superiors, and that there was no intention of offending the U. S. consular representative. (Repeated to the Minister in Honduras.) |
437 |
| Nov. 10 |
To the Vice Consul at Ceiba (tel.) Acceptance of vice consul’s recommendation that the incident be considered terminated with receipt of Governor’s statement of November 6; insistence on publication of the statement in Ceiba press to make Honduran Government’s apology generally known. |
438 |
| Nov. 14 |
From the Vice Consul at Ceiba (tel.) Publication of Governor’s statement in Ceiba press November 13, and infliction of disciplinary punishment upon mayor de plaza. |
438 |
ITALY
Arrangement Between the United States and Italy Granting Relief From Double Income Tax on Shipping Profits
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Mar. 10 |
From the Italian Ambassador
Inquiry as to whether royal decree of March 4, 1926 (text printed), providing for exemption of American shipping interests from Italian income tax, satisfies the equivalent exemption provisions of section 213 (b) (8) of the Revenue Act of 1921. |
439 |
| May 5 |
To the Italian Ambassador
Information that decree satisfies the equivalent exemption provisions of the Revenue Acts of 1921,1924, and 1926; agreement that the earnings of Italian shipping interests in American ports will be exempt from income tax. |
440 |
Right of American Citizens When Arrested To Communicate With American Consular Officers
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Aug. 20 (965) |
From the Ambassador in Italy
Information that Naples police authorities had been reprimanded for failure to notify U. S. consul general of the arrest and detention of three American citizens, October 16, 1925; transmittal of copy of Ambassador’s aide-mémoire of July 8, 1926, making representations to Foreign Office (text printed); transmittal of Foreign Minister’s aide-mémoire of August 18 (text printed), stating that (1) no obligation to notify consular officers exists either by virtue of treaties between the United States and Italy or international usage, (2) no obligation to allow prisoners to communicate with consular officers exists, and (3) that the Naples authorities had no intention to offend consul general by their attitude. |
440 |
| Nov. 9 (651) |
To the Chargé in Italy
Instructions to discuss matter further with Foreign Office with a view to establishing the principle that American citizens have the right to communicate with American consular officers upon arrest by Italian authorities, and that Italian citizens have the corresponding right to communicate with Italian consular officers upon arrest by American authorities. (Footnote: Information that no record of further negotiations has been found in Department files.) |
443 |
Permission for Flight Over Territory of the United States by an Italian Naval Hydroplane
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 June 10 |
From the Italian Ambassador
Request that permission be granted for flight by Italian naval hydroplane over U. S. territory. |
445 |
| Oct. 28 |
To the Italian Ambassador
Consent to proposed flight granted by Federal departments and Governors of the States concerned. (Footnote: Information that upon receipt of revised itinerary dated February 1, 1927, the Department notified the appropriate Federal and State authorities and communicated permission to the Italian Ambassador.) |
446 |
JAPAN
Arrangement Between the United States and Japan Granting Relief From Double Income Tax on Shipping Profits
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1923 Mar. 21 |
From the Japanese Ambassador
Inquiry as to whether U. S. Government is granting exemption from income tax to earnings of foreign ships operating in U. S. ports in compliance with section 213 (b) (8) of the Revenue Act of 1921. |
448 |
| Apr. 18 |
To the Japanese Ambassador
Reply that exemption is granted to countries which satisfy the equivalent exemption provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, and that the Japanese case is being studied. |
448 |
| June 9 |
To the Japanese Ambassador
Information that Japanese legislation does not satisfy the equivalent exemption provisions because it imposes tax on earnings of U. S. vessels if the owner, though not a resident of Japan, does business in Japan or maintains an office or place of business therein. |
449 |
| 1924 Jan. 23 (229–E) |
From the Chargé in Japan
Efforts of Japanese shipowners to secure revision of Japanese law in order that they may take advantage of U. S. exemption. |
450 |
| June 26 |
To the Japanese Ambassador
Japanese Ambassador’s note, May 27 (extract printed), requesting information as to the requirements necessary to establish reciprocity, and Treasury Department reply, June 18 (extract printed); observation that Treasury reply has been made in the light of the Revenue Act of 1924 which is now applicable. |
451 |
| Aug. 4 (73) |
From the Japanese Chargé
Promulgation of law, July 18, providing for exemption from income tax on shipping profits to foreigners or foreign corporations having no domicile in Japan, on condition of reciprocal treatment from the other country. |
452 |
| Oct. 14 |
To the Japanese Chargé
Request for statement from Japanese Government as to whether an American citizen or corporation having an office, place of business, or agent in Japan will be exempt. |
453 |
| 1925 Feb. 12 (17) |
From the Japanese Chargé
Japanese interpretation of law that exemption will apply to a foreigner or foreign corporation which maintains an office, place of business, or agency in Japan. |
455 |
| Mar. 27 |
To the Japanese Ambassador
Conclusion by Treasury Department that Japan now satisfies exemption requirements of Revenue Act of 1924. |
455 |
| May 6 |
To the Japanese Ambassador
Treasury Department note (extract printed), stating that its previous correspondence has been corrected to show date of promulgation of Japanese law as July 18, 1924, instead of July 17 as inadvertently stated in a note from the Japanese Embassy, September 13, 1924. |
456 |
| June 18 (72) |
From the Japanese Ambassador
Outline of methods suggested for adoption by both countries in computing exemptions for the year 1924; Japanese intention to put law into effect in its possessions and territories, and desire that the United States do likewise. |
457 |
| Sept. 1 |
To the Japanese Ambassador
Inability of Treasury Department to accept Japanese suggestions for computing exemptions for the year 1924, and its insistence that reciprocal exemption be carried out from and including July 18, 1924, the date of promulgation; informa? tion that Revenue Act of 1924 is not in force in all possessions of United States. |
458 |
| 1926 Mar. 31 (41) |
From the Japanese Ambassador
Willingness of Japanese Government to agree with Treasury Department views expressed in State Department’s note, September 1, 1925. |
461 |
| June 8 |
To the Japanese Ambassador
Information that effect was given to the reciprocal arrangement on part of the United States by issuance of Treasury decision 3812. |
461 |
Proposal by Japan That a Conference Be Called To Revise the Fur Seals Convention, Signed July 7, 1911
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Jan. 5 |
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of
State
Conversation in which Japanese Ambassador stated that identic notes are being delivered to the United States, Great Britain, and Soviet Russia requesting that a conference be held to amend the convention for the protection of fur seals, signed at Washington, July 7, 1911. |
462 |
| Jan. 5 (1) |
From the Japanese Ambassador
Japanese Government’s desire that a conference be held to amend the convention. |
462 |
| Jan. 20 |
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of
State
Conversation in which Japanese Ambassador stated that his Government desired less stringent regulations protecting fur seals, because the seals were damaging the fishing industry; Under Secretary’s opinion that it would be difficult for the U. S. Government to participate in a conference and sign a convention with representatives of the Soviet Russian regime which the United States had not recognized. |
463 |
| Mar. 1 |
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of
State
Conversation with the Counselor of the Japanese Embassy, in which Under Secretary suggested that a conference would not be desirable at present because of nonrecognition of the Soviet regime by the United States, and proposed that if the Japanese Government would advise exactly what modifications it desired in the convention and the reasons therefor, the U. S. Government would endeavor to find a way of achieving the modifications by other means than amending the convention. |
464 |
| Mar. 18 (192) |
From the British Ambassador
Inquiry as to whether the U. S. Government has been approached by Japan in the fur seals matter and if so what attitude the United States intends to take toward the proposed conference. |
465 |
| Undated [Rec’d Mar. 20] |
From the Japanese Embassy
Reluctance to postpone conference because of urgent need to remove danger to fishing industry; desire to have the United States participate in the conference under either of two suggested arrangements: (1) U. S. signature to treaty without regard to recognition of Soviet regime, or (2) separate treaties among the United States, Great Britain, and Japan on the one hand, and Great Britain, Soviet Russia, and Japan on the other. |
466 |
| May 4 |
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of
State
Conversation in which Mr. Balfour of the British Embassy commented that the action taken by the United States in asking for the exact modifications Japan desired to have made in the convention was similar to the action taken by his Government. |
467 |
| Undated [Rec’d July 20] |
From the Japanese Ambassador
Renewal of suggestion that separate treaties be signed; statement of the modifications which Japan desires. |
469 |
| Aug. 13 |
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Far
Eastern Affairs
Conversation in which Counselor of Japanese Embassy read a telegram from his Government (substance printed), refusing at the present time to furnish the data on which it based its contention that almost all the seals in Japanese waters belong to the American herds of the Pribilof Islands. |
471 |
| Nov. 29 |
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of
State
Conversation with the Japanese Ambassador, in which the Under Secretary restated the U. S. Government’s position that it would be glad to consider any suggestions by Japanese Government to improve the fur seals situation by administrative regulations rather than new treaty provisions. |
472 |
| Undated |
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Far
Eastern Affairs
Statement of U. S. position in regard to suggestions contained in the Japanese note which was left with the Under Secretary of State on July 20. (Footnote: Information that this memorandum was handed to the Japanese Ambassador by the Under Secretary of State on November 29.) |
473 |
Suits in Japanese Courts Against United States Shipping Board
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Aug. 11 |
From the Chairman of the United States Shipping
Board
Request that instructions be issued to Ambassador in Japan to claim immunity of U. S. Shipping Board in suits brought against it by two Japanese banks. |
478 |
| Aug. 18 (75) |
To the Ambassador in Japan (tel.) Instructions to telegraph Shipping Board attorney in Japan to plead Board’s immunity. |
481 |
| 1927 Apr. 11 (203) |
To the Ambassador in Japan
Instructions to endeavor informally to convince Foreign Office of the legal grounds in support of Shipping Board’s plea of immunity; arguments in favor of U. S. position as expressed in letter from Chairman of Shipping Board, February 7 (text printed). (Footnote: Information that Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation advised Department, June 26, 1928, that the question of immunity had not yet been determined; further information that Shipping Board advised, January 22, 1929, that it had recently reached a settlement with the Japanese banks in regard to the cases in question.) |
481 |
LATVIA
Provisional Commercial Agreement Between the United States and Latvia According Mutual Unconditional Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Customs Matters, Signed February 1, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1924 July 29 (35) |
To the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Instructions to advise Foreign Office of U. S. desire to enter immediately into modus vivendi with Latvia for mutual unconditional most-favored-nation treatment in commercial matters by means of an exchange of notes (draft printed). |
488 |
| Aug. 2 (122) |
From the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Foreign Minister’s acceptance of proposal, with exception that arrangement be in form of a provisional agreement instead of exchange of notes. |
490 |
| Aug. 23 (42) |
To the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Authority to conclude arrangement in form of procès-verbal (text printed). |
491 |
| Sept. 20 (151) |
From the Chargé in Latvia (tel.) Information that Foreign Office desires change in title of procès-verbal to “provisional agreement” and addition of Finland to list of countries excluded from operation of agreement. |
492 |
| Sept. 23 (153) |
From the Chargé in Latvia (tel.) Opposition of Latvian commercial interests to conclusion of any arrangement other than a permanent treaty. |
493 |
| Oct. 25 (166) |
From the Chargé in Latvia (tel.) Preference of Foreign Minister to wait for conclusion of formal commercial treaty instead of proceeding with provisional agreement; Foreign Minister’s assurance that in case the contingency arose that new maximum tariffs would be applied to the United States, Latvia would unquestionably sign a temporary agreement. |
493 |
| 1925 Aug. 4 (39) |
To the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Instructions to endeavor to secure signature of provisional commercial agreement based on draft transmitted in Department’s telegram No. 42, August 23, 1924, with change of title to “provisional agreement” and a minor change in phraseology. (Footnote: Information that on April 16, 1925, the Minister in Latvia reported desire of Foreign Minister to enter into treaty of commerce and friendship with the United States.) |
494 |
| Aug. 6 (68) |
From the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Suggestion that U. S. assurance of intention to reopen negotiations for formal commercial treaty may influence Foreign Minister to sign proposed provisional agreement; inquiry as to Department’s attitude toward concluding formal treaty now. |
494 |
| Aug. 11 (41) |
To the Chargé in Latvia (tel.) Instructions to press for prompt conclusion of provisional agreement; advice that Latvian Minister is recommending signature to his Government; information that Department intends to reopen treaty negotiations upon completion of study of Latvian counterproposals which was suspended during the period of Senate consideration of treaty with Germany. |
495 |
| Aug. 12 (73) |
From the Chargé in Latvia (tel.) Foreign Minister’s doubt that Diet will ratify proposed provisional agreement, and his reiteration of desire to conclude treaty. |
495 |
| Aug. 18 (74) |
From the Chargé in Latvia (tel.) Inquiry whether instructions of August 11 to press for prompt conclusion of provisional agreement are still in effect, in view of information contained in Chargé’s telegram of August 12. |
496 |
| Aug. 19 (43) |
To the Chargé in Latvia (tel.) Confirmation of instructions of August 11. |
496 |
| Sept. 15 (81) |
From the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Impossibility of proceeding with negotiations for provisional agreement until general elections take place October 4 and the new government is formed. |
497 |
| Oct. 22 (53) |
To the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Latvian Minister’s intention of renewing recommendation to his Government for conclusion of provisional agreement, in view of assurance that the United States will soon reopen negotiations for permanent treaty; instructions to make tactful efforts after elections to arrange the provisional agreement. |
497 |
| Nov. 23 (96) |
From the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Inquiry whether Department would object to adding Finland to list of countries excluded from operation of provisional agreement; advice that signature of agreement is now likely. |
498 |
| Nov. 24 (59) |
To the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Authority to include Finland in list of excluded countries and to proceed to signature of agreement. |
498 |
| Dec. 18 (61) |
To the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Instructions to make certain clarifying changes in phraseology of agreement. |
498 |
| Dec. 23 (107) |
From the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Report that progress of negotiations is slow because new government has not yet been formed. (Footnote: Information from Minister in Latvia, January 4, 1926, that the new Cabinet was accepted by the Latvian Diet on December 22, 1925.) |
499 |
| 1926 Jan. 28 (10) |
From the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Inquiry whether Department has any objection to substituting the words “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” for “Russia” in the agreement, and to inserting the provision that agreement will come into force upon ratification by Latvian Diet and notice to that effect. |
499 |
| Jan. 28 (7) |
To the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Disapproval of suggested substitution of “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”; approval of proposed provision with regard to effective date. |
499 |
| Feb. 2 (11) |
From the Minister in Latvia (tel.) Information that provisional agreement was signed February 1, and will be approved by Cabinet February 2; Minister’s expectation that ratification will take place within 2 weeks after submission to Diet on February 5. |
500 |
| Feb. 1 |
Agreement Between the United States of America and
Latvia
Provisional commercial agreement. (Footnote: Information that ratification by the Latvian Diet was notified to the United States on April 30, 1926.) |
500 |
LIBERIA
Negotiations Concerning the Firestone Rubber Concessions and the Finance Corporation op America Loan
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Jan. 12 |
From the Chief of the Division of Western European
Affairs
Suggestion that Department notify bankers that it perceives no objection to terms of loan to Liberia, subject to an agreed modification regarding pledging of revenues, and that the U. S. Government is ready to assume functions assigned under loan agreement and the Firestone rubber agreements of September 16 and 17, 1925, upon request of the Liberian Government. |
503 |
| Jan. 23 (Dip. No. 324) |
From the Chargé in Liberia
Objections of President King of Liberia to loan agreement in its present terms; probability that rubber agreements, with textual modifications agreed upon by Liberian Government and Firestone representative in Liberia, will be ratified by legislature, and that loan agreement will be passed, with authority granted to the President to ratify, subject to certain modifications submitted. |
505 |
| Jan. 28 (4) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Ratification by legislature of loan and rubber agreements. |
507 |
| Jan. 28 |
Joint Resolution Passed by the Liberian
Legislature
Approving the loan agreement concluded between the Government of Liberia and the Finance Corporation of America, January 1, 1926. |
507 |
| Jan. 30 |
Joint Resolution Passed by the Liberian
Legislature
Approving the agreements concluded between the Government of Liberia and the Firestone Plantations Company, September 16 and 17, 1925. |
516 |
| Jan. 31 (5) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Summary of principal modifications made by Liberian Legislature in texts of loan and rubber agreements. |
517 |
| Feb. 3 (5) |
To the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Inacceptability to bankers and Firestone of loan agreement as modified by legislature; Firestone’s intention to withdraw if Liberian Government maintains the position indicated by its modifications. |
518 |
| Feb. 5 (6) |
To the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Firestone’s insistence that the agreements signed by him and the Liberian Secretary of State in September 1925 are binding contracts and may not be modified, it being understood that the Liberian Secretary of State had been empowered to commit his Government by an act of the legislature in January 1925; concurrence of Department in Firestone’s opinion, and instructions to communicate this position to Liberian Government. |
518 |
| Feb. 7 (8) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Opinion that while Liberian Government might adjust the minor modifications in loan agreement, it will adhere to its position regarding major modifications which are matters of principle, such as assigning of revenues. |
519 |
| Feb. 12 (Dip. No. 334) |
From the Chargé in Liberia
Report of conferences with Liberian President and Secretary of State in which Liberian modifications in loan agreement were discussed and Executive agreed to resubmit agreement to legislature for ratification in substantially its original form, but still with certain of the modifications insisted upon by Liberia. |
519 |
| Feb. 13 (11) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Summary of latest modifications in loan agreement; Libe-rian opinion that modifications in rubber agreements, with exception of arbitration clause, are merely those agreed upon with Firestone representative; inquiry as to whether Department can secure provisional assent of American interests because Firestone’s statement that he might remove enterprise elsewhere may discourage Liberia from taking any further action to adjust matters. |
523 |
| Feb. 16 (12) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Information that loan agreement was ratified with modifications summarized in Legation’s telegram No. 11, February 13. |
524 |
| Feb. 16 |
Joint Resolution Passed by the Liberian
Legislature
Supplementary to the joint resolution of January 28, 1926, approving the loan agreement between the Government of Liberia and the Finance Corporation of America. |
524 |
| Feb. 17 |
To Mr. Harvey S. Firestone (tel.) Department’s disappointment at present unfavorable state of negotiations and hope that some satisfactory arrangement can eventually be reached. |
528 |
| Feb. 17 (13) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Information that statement in Department’s telegram No. 6, February 5, with regard to binding character of the September 1925 agreements is incorrect, because Liberian act of January 1925 applied only to ratification by Secretary of State of certain original draft agreements which Firestone refused to sign and which were withdrawn; probability that operation of objectionable modifications could be set aside by Executive power if absolutely essential to Firestone. |
528 |
| Feb. 17 (9) |
To the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) From Castle: Firestone’s insistence on binding character of rubber agreements and indication that he may withdraw except for agreement covering Mount Barclay plantation; information that Department cannot intervene in matter of modifications because those points of disagreement are business negotiations and must be settled between the interested parties. |
529 |
| Feb. 18 |
From Mr. Harvey S. Firestone (tel.) Suspension of Firestone business activities under way with regard to Liberia; declaration that Liberia must accept agreements without change if Firestone is to go ahead, otherwise no alternative except to withdraw with exception of Mount Barclay. |
530 |
| Feb. 24 (Dip. No. 336) |
From the Chargé in Liberia
Opinion that loan and rubber agreements should be accepted; attitude of Government that unless Firestone accepts entire proposition he cannot go ahead with Mount Barclay; economic advantages to the United States of Firestone operations in Liberia; information that Legation was obliged to act in situation because Firestone representative had been instructed not to interfere and bankers had no representative. |
531 |
| Feb 26 (10) |
To the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Instructions to make no communication which could be considered as participation in business negotiations unless authorized by Department; advice that situation cannot properly be considered until ratification texts are received; understanding that in the interval Firestone operations will not be discontinued. |
536 |
| Mar. 2 (Dip. No. 339) |
From the Chargé in Liberia
Assurance that no communication has been made to Liberian Government which could be interpreted as interference in business negotiations. |
537 |
| Mar. 6 (19) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Departure for the United States of Financial Adviser of Liberia to clear up misunderstandings and consummate negotiations. |
538 |
| Mar. 9 (Dip. No. 346) |
From the Chargé in Liberia
Note from Liberian Secretary of State to the Chargé March 4 (text printed), advising of Financial Adviser’s mission, and letter of authorization of March 4 (text printed), instructing Financial Adviser to conclude loan agreement and explain modifications in loan and rubber agreements. |
538 |
| Mar. 11 |
Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of
Western European Affairs
Conversation with Firestone officials in which statement was made that Firestone’s greatest objection to modifications in rubber agreements is the arbitration clause; intimation that Mr. Hines, representing Firestone interests, will go to Liberia with liberal powers to bring about adjustment of situation. |
539 |
| Mar. 13 (Dip. No. 348) |
From the Chargé in Liberia
Further explanation of Liberian Government’s contention that its modifications in rubber agreements were merely interpretations based on mutual understanding except the clause regarding arbitration, and were needed to assure ratification by legislature. |
541 |
| Apr. 23 (377/M. F.) |
From the Liberian Secretary of
State
Statement of Liberian Government’s position with regard to the whole situation. |
543 |
| Aug. 19 (25) |
To the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) For Bussell from Castle: Information that Firestone will not accept rubber agreements in form ratified by legislature and that Harvey Firestone, Jr., is going immediately to Liberia with the hope of making satisfactory adjustments. |
546 |
| Sept. 25 |
From Mr. Guy Cary of Shearman &
Sterling
Draft of revised loan agreement (extracts printed), to be handed to Liberian Government by Firestone, Jr. |
546 |
| Sept. 30 (35) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Information that Firestone, Jr., and President King have settled questions under rubber agreement, and that amended agreement containing revised arbitration clause will be submitted to legislature. |
555 |
| Oct. 20 (27) |
To the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Disinclination of Department to offer any suggestions, as to phrasing of revised arbitration clause as it is not a party to the agreement. |
556 |
| Oct. 24 (38) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) For Castle: Inacceptability of new draft loan agreement to Liberian Government; information that Government has heard that because maximum rubber prices were fixed at London in August the bankers are not inclined to make loan except on onerous terms. |
556 |
| Oct. 25 (39) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) For Castle: Information that entire question of loan hinges on the alleged London agreement; report from Liberian Minister at London that Firestone, Jr., agreed at London conference that in consideration of rubber prices conceded by Dutch and British producers, Firestone would limit operations in Liberia to present holdings and make terms of loan impossible of acceptance by Liberia; Liberian Government’s instructions to Financial Adviser to advise bankers that while Government will not agree to assign all its revenues, it will consent not to issue second half of loan before acceptance of such issue. |
557 |
| Oct. 26 |
From the Financial Adviser of Liberia to the
National City Bank of New York (tel.) For Hoffman: Information that critical situation has developed as result of departure from conditions laid down by Government as to basis for loan. |
557 |
| Oct. 27 (28) |
To the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Instructions to furnish additional information on alleged London agreement. |
558 |
| Oct. 28 (1013/L) |
From the Liberian Secretary of State to the General
Receiver of Customs of Liberia
Inacceptability of proposed loan agreement; authorization to ascertain if Finance Corporation sees any possibility of reconciling its point of view and that of Liberian Government. |
558 |
| Oct. 28 |
From the National City Bank of New York to the
Financial Adviser of Liberia (tel.) From Finance Corporation of America: Acceptance of Liberian stipulations with regard to assignment of revenues and issuance of second half of the loan. |
559 |
| Nov. 1 (29) |
To the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Information that bankers have cabled Financial Adviser accepting Liberian stipulations. |
560 |
| Nov. 2 (30) |
To the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Finance Corporation’s ignorance of alleged London conference on rubber prices. |
560 |
| Nov. 10 (42) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Ratification of planting agreements by legislature; President’s consideration of remaining points of difference in loan agreement. |
560 |
| Nov. 10 |
An Act Passed by the Liberian
Legislature
Approving the agreement concluded between the Government of Liberia and the Firestone Plantations Company, October 2, 1926 (text printed). |
561 |
| Nov. 12 |
From the Assistant Chief of the Division of Western
European Affairs
Information from bankers’ representative that Liberian Government insists on new wording of arbitration clause (text printed) in loan agreement to provide that third arbitrator will be of different nationality than the other arbitrators. |
568 |
| Nov. 12 |
Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of
Western European Affairs
Information that telephonic reply was made to bankers, stating that if they would accept the amended arbitration clause the Department could see no objection thereto. |
569 |
| Nov. 20 |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Personal message from President King to Secretary of State Kellogg (text printed), requesting good offices to secure consideration of Liberian desire for revision of article 15 to limit Financial Adviser’s power to block negotiation of new loans and for revision of article 25 to provide arbitration clause similar to the one in rubber agreements. |
569 |
| Nov. 24 (34) |
To the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Information that Finance Corporation hopes that revised articles 15 and 25 (texts printed) will meet the objections raised by Liberian Government. |
570 |
| Nov. 28 (44) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) For Castle: President King’s declination to accept Finance Corporation’s draft of article 15 because of proviso that refunding loan may not be negotiated until after 25 years. |
572 |
| Nov. 29 (35) |
To the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Willingness of Finance Corporation to revise article 15 by reducing refunding period from 25 to 20 years. |
572 |
| Dec. 8 (45) |
From the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Information that legislature ratified loan agreement in agreed form. |
573 |
| Dec. 9 (1199/M. F.) |
From the Liberian Secretary of
State
Transmittal of joint resolution passed by Liberian Legislature, December 7, 1926 (text printed), ratifying and incorporating text of loan agreement between the Government of Liberia, the Finance Corporation of America, and the National City Bank of New York (dated, for convenience, as of September 1, 1926), with request of Liberian Government that Department undertake the obligations imposed upon it by the agreement. |
573 |
| Dec. 14 (36) |
To the Chargé in Liberia (tel.) Instructions to convey to President King expression of Department’s hope that with conclusion of Firestone negotiations and ratification of loan agreement Liberia will enter upon new era of prosperity; commendation of Legation’s activities throughout the entire negotiations. |
596 |
| Dec. 20 (Dip. No. 422) |
From the Chargé in Liberia
Note from President King, December 16 (text printed), asking Chargé to convey thanks to Secretary of State for his message of good will. |
596 |
Arbitration Convention Between the United States and Liberia, Signed February 10, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Feb. 10 |
Convention Between the United States of America and
Liberia
For the settlement of differences by arbitration. |
597 |
| Feb. 10 |
From the American Chargé to the Liberian Secretary
of State
Understanding that Liberia will not be averse to considering modification of convention of arbitration, or making of separate agreement, under which disputes could be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, in the event of U. S. adherence to the protocol of December 16, 1920. |
599 |
| Feb. 10 |
From the Liberian Secretary of State to the American
Chargé
Confirmation of U. S. understanding. |
599 |
Steps Taken Toward Completing the Delimitation op the Franco-Liberian Boundary
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Feb. 8 (Dip. No. 330) |
From the Chargé in Liberia
Appointment by France and Liberia of commissions to proceed to delimitation of Franco-Liberian boundary; assurance that Chargé will do his utmost to guard against any responsibility to the United States which might arise because of Liberian Government’s inclusion of two Americans in its commission. |
600 |
| Mar. 1 |
From the Ambassador in France
Memorandum of conversation between the second secretary of the American Embassy at Paris and the Liberian Minister in France, February 26 (text printed), in which recent developments regarding delimitation of the Franco-Liberian boundary were discussed and information given by Minister that French commission was en route to Liberia; Minister’s statement that French Foreign Office hoped to submit to Liberian Government by March 4 a draft of an arbitration treaty. |
601 |
MEXICO
Representations by the United States Against Mexican Agrarian and Petroleum Legislation
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Jan. 21 (1674) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico
Note from Mexican Foreign Minister, handed to Ambassador January 20 (text printed), presenting specific arguments on which Government bases its contention that the recently enacted petroleum and alien land laws are not retroactive and confiscatory in effect, and declaring that their administration will be regulated by the Executive in accordance with principles of international law. |
605 |
| Jan. 30 (760) |
To the Ambassador in Mexico
Note for Foreign Minister, dated January 28 (text printed), presenting U. S. views on the Mexican contentions of January 20 and asking for information as to the exact nature of the regulations the President intends to issue. |
613 |
| Feb. 12 (1679) |
From the Mexican Minister for Foreign
Affairs
Reply stating that the President proposes to issue regulations which will take into consideration and define all the points which have been under discussion and which will conform to the principles of international law. |
622 |
| Mar. 2 (804) |
To the Ambassador in Mexico
Note for Foreign Minister, dated March 1 (text printed), requesting information as to the practical application of the alien land law in reference to certain hypothetical cases. |
631 |
| Mar. 27 |
From the Mexican Minister for Foreign
Affairs
Explanation of Executive’s views on questions set forth in Secretary’s note of March 1. |
637 |
| July 30 |
To the Ambassador in Mexico
Note for Foreign’Minister, dated July 31 (text printed), summarizing situation as it now appears to the United States, concluding that the points of difference between the U. S. and Mexican Governments lie in the practical interpretation and specific application of several basic principles upon which the two Governments agree. |
642 |
| Oct. 7 |
From the Mexican Minister for Foreign
Affairs
Reservations of Mexican Government with reference to the basic principles upon which it and the U. S. Government were said to be in agreement, and suggestion that since the points of difference raised are so unlikely to cause injury to American citizens, it will be sufficient to leave to the Mexican courts the responsibility for deciding any cases which might arise; belief that the consideration of hypothetical cases is not as worth while as the consideration of concrete cases. |
653 |
| Oct. 30 |
To the Chargé in Mexico
Note for Foreign Minister (text printed) stating that the U. S. Government’s purpose in engaging in correspondence was to define the issues clearly, and reiterating the position that it expects Mexican Government to respect acquired property rights of Americans in Mexico and to take no action under the laws in question or the regulations issued thereunder which would operate to the disadvantage of American nationals. |
669 |
| Nov. 17 |
From the Mexican Minister for Foreign
Affairs
Expectation that U. S. Government will indicate any concrete cases in which recognized principles of international law have been violated or will be violated in disregard of legitimate interests of American citizens, as Mexican Government would make indemnity for such violations. |
671 |
| Dec. 22 (516) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Report of a conference with Foreign Minister, December 21, from which Ambassador gathered the impression that Mexican Government might yield to the firm position of the U. S. Government as expressed in note of October 30. |
672 |
| Dec. 26 (376) |
To the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to ascertain from Foreign Office, if Ambassador deems advisable, whether Mexican Government will grant oil companies’ desire for extension of time for the filing of applications for confirmatory concessions. |
673 |
| Dec. 27 (522) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Belief that it would be unwise to discuss matter with Foreign Office at present, and that it would be preferable to wait until the companies’ request has been made. |
673 |
| Dec. 27 |
From the Director of the Association of Producers of
Petroleum in Mexico (tel.) Telegram to Mexican President and Secretary of Industry, Commerce, and Labor (text printed), requesting extension of time for filing applications for confirmatory concessions. |
674 |
| Dec. 28 (377) |
To the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Approval of course outlined in telegram No. 522, December 27. |
675 |
| 1927 Jan. 3 |
From the Director of the Association of Producers of
Petroleum in Mexico
Telegram from the Mexican Secretary of Industry, Commerce, and Labor, December 29, 1926 (text printed), incorporating text of President’s refusal of oil companies’ request of December 27. |
675 |
Representations by the United States Against the Orders of June 8 and August 24, 1926, Relative to Provisional Permits To Drill Oil Wells
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 June 15 (272) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Issuance by Department of Industry, Commerce, and Labor of order, June 8, prescribing special conditions governing issuance of provisional permits for drilling oil wells on lands to which the applicants have not fully proven their acquired rights; suggestion that order may have possible confiscatory effect; advice that majority of oil producers will protest because order jeopardizes their rights. |
676 |
| June 16 (2401) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico
Information that the order (text printed) has been circularized among oil companies but not made public, and that Oil Producers’ Association intends to make protest after securing adhesion of independent producers; opinion of oil company representative that order is further evidence of Mexican Government’s intention to confiscate foreign oil properties. |
677 |
| June 21 (212) |
To the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to make representations to Foreign Office asking for prompt reply as to: (1) under what authority of law the order was issued; (2) what proof of acquired rights is required; (3) whether order is intended to apply to lands on which permits have previously been issued and titles approved; and requesting that order be withdrawn until matter can be further considered. |
679 |
| July 16 (315) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Suggestion that further representations be made to secure satisfactory reply to representations already made; information that order has been neither withdrawn nor modified and that petroleum companies decline to negotiate because Government will not concede any compromise except with regard to amount of bond to be furnished by applicant. |
679 |
| July 19 (317) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Failure of Foreign Office note of July 17 (extract printed), to answer the questions contained in Embassy’s representations; information that while a few oil companies will accept the prescribed conditions and apply for concessions, the others are firmly opposed. |
680 |
| July 20 (241) |
To the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to press for a prompt reply supplementing Foreign Office note of July 17. |
680 |
| July 23 (319) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Correction indicating that all the companies referred to in telegram No. 317, July 19, are firmly opposed to order. |
681 |
| July 23 (2568) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico
Intention of British Minister to present to Foreign Office a memorandum of protest from British-owned oil company. |
681 |
| Aug. 6 (329) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Information that two British oil companies are presenting modified memorandum which they understand will be accepted and will in effect nullify order of June 8; belief of the companies that changed Mexican attitude is due to U. S. representations. |
682 |
| Aug. 19 (348) |
From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.) Recent indications to oil companies’ representatives by Secretary of Industry that he will not agree to any modification other than amount of bond; Chargé’s suggestion that Embassy delay making another request for reply to its representations because Government may soon announce its decision. |
682 |
| Sept. 15 (2830) |
From the Chargé in Mexico
Observation that Executive decree of August 24, 1926 (text printed), modifying order of June 8, does not satisfy the objections set forth in U. S. representations. |
683 |
| Sept. 25 (1035) |
To the Chargé in Mexico
Instructions to press for detailed reply to U. S. representations and to advise Department of companies’ attitude toward the new order. |
685 |
| Oct. 1 (2912) |
From the Chargé in Mexico
Reply that Embassy sent note to Foreign Office October 1 and is proceeding to ascertain companies’ attitude. |
685 |
| Dec. 23 (3417) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico
Information that no reply has been received to note of October 1; official statement issued by Department of Industry, Commerce, and Labor and published in Mexican press (text printed), purporting to clarify the orders of June 8 and August 24, in response to written request of certain of the companies. |
686 |
Reservation by the United States of the Rights of American Citizens Which May Be Affected by the Mexican Law of Colonization of April 5, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 May 20 (2264) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico
Mexican law of colonization of April 5, 1926 (text printed). |
688 |
| June 11 (928) |
To the Ambassador in Mexico
Instructions to make representations to Mexican Government, inviting attention to objectionable features of colonization law and reserving the rights of American citizens which may be unfavorably affected thereby. |
692 |
Reservation by the United States of the Rights of American Citizens Which May Be Affected by the Mexican Decree of April 8, 1926, Regarding the Restitution and Dotation of Waters
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 May 12 (2217) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico
Executive decree of April 8, 1926, regulating the functioning of agrarian authorities in the matter of restitution and dotation of waters (text printed). |
693 |
| June 22 (936) |
To the Ambassador in Mexico
Instructions to make representations to Mexican Government, inviting attention to objectionable features of decree and reserving the rights of American citizens which may be injuriously affected thereby. (Footnote: Information that Ambassador sent note to Foreign Minister June 29 and received a reply July 10 stating that the matter had been referred to the appropriate authorities for consideration.) |
701 |
Good Offices of the Department of State in Behalf of American Citizens Adversely Affected by Mexican Religious Legislation
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Mar. 2 |
To the Chairman of the House of Representatives
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Data, in compliance with resolution passed by House of Representatives (text printed’), regarding Americans ordered expelled from Mexico on account of their religious beliefs; assumption that the ground of expulsion is teaching in violation of Mexican religious legislation. |
702 |
| Mar. 9 |
Press Release Issued by the Department of
State
Information that Ambassador in Mexico was instructed to use his good offices in behalf of American citizens to prevent undue hardship or injury because of the sudden and rigorous enforcement of religious legislation and that the case of the Reverend Mr. Krill had been satisfactorily settled. |
703 |
| May 18 |
To the General Secretary of the National Catholic
Welfare Conference
Regret that intercession of Ambassador with Mexican Foreign Office and representations of Department to Mexican Embassy at Washington have been unsuccessful in preventing the expulsion of Archbishop Caruana. |
704 |
| Aug. 25 (995) |
To the Chargé in Mexico
Summary of conversation with Mexican Ambassador August 13, in which Secretary stated that while Mexican Government was probably within its legal rights in expelling certain Americans, he would continue to protest any invasion of personal or property rights in violation of either Mexican or international law, and the Ambassador stated that he was aware of U. S. sentiment on the Mexican religious situation and thought the matter would be adjusted. |
705 |
Renewed Negotiations for a Settlement of the Dispute Over the Rio Grande Boundary
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Apr. 22 (148) |
To the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to secure confirmation of proposal by Mexican Commissioner on International Boundary Commission that American Commissioner join with him in settling the pending banco cases, as they constitute the only obstacle to commencement of defense plan and rectification in the Rio Grande. |
706 |
| May 28 (2317) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico
Foreign Office note, May 28 (text printed), confirming Mexican Commissioner’s proposal and adding that Government would favor the undertaking of the rectification works as a whole. |
707 |
| June 12 (197) |
To the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Instructions to advise Mexican Government that its Commissioner apparently misinterpreted instructions when he stated that pending banco cases were the only obstacle to general rectification, and that because general rectification would involve much preliminary work leading to conclusion of treaty, thereby delaying urgent flood control measures, it would be more expedient if Mexican Government would approve Minute No. 61 of Boundary Commission recommending cuts in El Paso-Juarez section and providing that jurisdiction over segregated lands will remain as it is until otherwise agreed between the two Governments; also that upon approval of Minute No. 61 the American Commissioner would be instructed to proceed to decision of the banco cases. |
708 |
| July 16 (2534) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico
Foreign Office note, July 10 (text printed), stating willingness to carry out provisions of Minute No. 61, with understanding that the two Governments discuss the elimination of bancos and that efforts will be made to carry out as soon as possible the general plan for rectification from El Paso to Fort Quitman. |
709 |
| Sept. 20 (1026) |
To the Chargé in Mexico
Instructions to propose to Foreign Office, in view of impracticability of carrying out recommendations of Minute No. 61, that the two Governments appoint a joint commission to prepare a convention covering a general plan for elimination of bancos and rectification of the Rio Grande from El Paso to Fort Quitman or farther if necessary and also dealing with the status of lands segregated from one country or the other by the contemplated works. |
711 |
| Oct. 28 (3073) |
From the Chargé in Mexico
Foreign Office note, October 27 (text printed), accepting in principle the idea of concluding proposed convention but with the understanding that it be drafted by International Boundary Commission which is empowered by convention of 1889 to decide all questions with relation to the boundary line formed by the river. |
713 |
MOROCCO
Attitude of the United States Toward Proposed Changes in the Status of Tangier
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Feb. 12 (67) |
From the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier
Receipt of identical communications from Belgian, British, French, Netherlands, and Spanish consuls general proposing that direct official contact be created between American consular court and Mixed Court constituted as of June 1, 1925, by Statute of Tangier (Belgian note of January 30, printed), and reply thereto (note of February 6 to Belgian consul general printed) stating opinion that adequate contact already exists because jurisdiction and procedure of American court are independent of and unmodified by Statute of Tangier, to which the United States has not adhered. |
716 |
| Mar. 25 (379) |
To the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier
Approval of position outlined in note to Belgian consul general. |
720 |
| May 4 (95) |
From the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier
Verbal representations to Spanish colleague in advance of any claims which may arise in connection with duties levied on goods of American citizens and protégés passing into Spanish sphere of influence from International Zone of Tangier, such action in demanding duty in addition to duty already paid upon entrance into Tangier Zone being in violation of the treaties concerning American rights; possibility that Tangier Statute signatories will succeed in urging Spain to be reasonable. |
720 |
| June 5 (106) |
From the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier
Information that situation is aggravated because Spanish authorities are now levying export as well as import duties; suggestion that in the absence of the expected modifications, American Embassy in Spain make representations, also reminding Spanish Government that U. S. Government has made no formal recognition of. Spanish authorities in Morocco. |
722 |
| July 2 (53) |
To the Ambassador in Spain
Instructions to advise Spanish Government informally that application of customs barrier to American citizens or protégés would be an invasion of American rights, expressing hope that authorities will refrain from action which would necessitate a formal protest. |
723 |
| July 6 (100) |
From the Ambassador in Spain
Report of press interview given by Gen. Primo de Rivera (extract printed), in which statement was made that international conference to settle Moroccan situation would not be feasible until tribes were disarmed, and that it was desired to include Tangier in Spanish Zone. |
724 |
| Aug. 15 (60) |
From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Foreign Minister’s request that Spain’s desire to secure control of International Zone through agreement by the interested Governments be communicated to Department for its acquiescence, inasmuch as the United States is a party to Treaty of Algeciras, which would have to be modified if Spain’s hopes for possession of the Zone are realized. (Copies mailed to London, Paris, Rome, and Tangier.) |
725 |
| Aug. 16 (5) |
To the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier (tel.) Instructions to report any American claims involving Spanish sphere of influence which U. S. Government would require settled and any other prerequisites to U. S. recognition of existing Spanish protectorate; warning that information that Spain has approached the United States should not be divulged. |
726 |
| Aug. 16 (136) |
From the Ambassador in Spain
Foreign Office note, August 15 (text printed), setting forth the bases on which Tangier would be incorporated in Spanish protectorate. |
726 |
| Aug. 17 (129) |
From the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier
Advice that agreement between Spanish and Tangier Zone authorities, signed July 25, removes levy of duplicate customs duties; recommendation that Department advise Spanish Government in sense of draft note (text printed) that it will make formal protest if agreement should be denounced, unless provisions are made to protect rights of American citizens. |
727 |
| Aug. 18 |
From the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier (tel.) Suggestion that, after satisfactory adjustment of pending American claims, if any formal recognition of Spanish Zone is to be extended, it should be preceded by an understanding based on certain principles relating to American rights which were established at time of U. S. recognition of French protectorate. (Copy sent to Embassy at Madrid.) |
729 |
| Aug. 20 (98) |
From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.) Opinion that in spite of Foreign Oifice attitude that Italy is no more concerned with Tangier question than the United States, Italy is quite interested but is leaving the burden of controversy for the present with Spain and Great Britain as against France. |
730 |
| Aug. 25 (62) |
From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Information that Foreign Office has issued invitations to United States, France, Great Britain, Italy, and all States adhering to Statute of Tangier, to participate in conference at Geneva, September 1, with reference to Spain’s desire to incorporate International Zone. (Repeated to London, Paris, and Rome.) |
730 |
| Aug. 25 (40) |
To the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Incapacity of U. S. Government to reply to Spanish Government’s request for acquiescence in its desire to incorporate International Zone; information that if other signatories to Treaty of Algeciras proceed to consider suggestion, United States will do likewise. |
731 |
| Aug. 26 (63) |
From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Opinion that Spanish attempt to promote conference at Geneva, as expressed in invitation of August 23 (text printed), indicates connection between Tangier aspirations and desire for permanent seat on League Council. (Repeated by mail to London, Paris, Rome, and Tangier.) |
731 |
| Aug. 26 (103) |
From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.) Italian position that it would participate if conference were held at Lausanne instead of Geneva, in order that clear distinction be made between Tangier question and matters to be discussed at League meetings. (Repeated to London, Madrid, and Paris.) |
733 |
| Aug. 27 |
To President Coolidge
Request for permission to instruct Mr. Hugh Gibson to attend conference at Geneva to insure that U. S. interests, especially all rights acquired under Treaty of Algeciras, will be safeguarded; assurance that U. S. participation will be on basis of its economic interests as opposed to any desire for political interference. (Footnote: Information that the President’s approval was received on August 28.) |
734 |
| Aug. 28 (66) |
From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Information given to press by Foreign Minister that Spain desires favorable solution of Tangier question before League Assembly meets. |
737 |
| Aug. 28 |
From the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier (tel.) Suggestion that it would be impolitic to participate in international conference until U. S. recognition of Spanish Zone had been extended; information that Italian Embassy at Washington advised its Government that it adhered to U. S. attitude that Tangier question would have to be settled on basis of Treaty of Algeciras. (Copies sent to interested Embassies.) |
737 |
| Aug. 31 (44) |
To the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Instructions to inform Spanish Government that U. S. Government would participate in conference to discuss Tangier question if all the major powers interested in Morocco should be present. |
739 |
| Sept. 1 (66) |
From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.) Information that, in response to a note in sense of Department’s telegram No. 44, Foreign Minister replied that Spain would continue efforts to bring about a conference of the signatories to Treaty of Algeciras, and that because Spain will dissociate herself from League when it convenes in September, there is no longer any connection between Spain’s interest in Tangier question and League aspirations. (Copies sent by mail to London, Paris, Rome, and Tangier.) |
739 |
| Sept. 14 (157) |
From the Ambassador in Spain
Foreign Office note, September 7 (text printed), stating that Great Britain and France have invited Spain to participate in preliminary conversations with regard to Moroccan situation as it appears under Statute of Tangier. |
740 |
| Oct. 1 (91) |
To the Ambassador in Spain
Instructions to advise Spanish Government that U. S. Government will be interested to hear results of preliminary conversations and that its policy as to Tangier question is still that all the major powers interested in Morocco should participate in any proposed conference. |
741 |
| Oct. 14 (401) |
To the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier
Instructions to make representations to Spanish colleague and notify Department and Embassy in Spain should agreement of July 25 be denounced and customs barrier thereby reestablished; opinion that as the United States is not signatory to Tangier Statute, its rights remain intact, and its position has already been made sufficiently clear to Spanish Government. (Copy sent to Embassy in Spain with instructions to take appropriate action if agreement is abrogated.) |
742 |
Reservation of American Rights With Respect to Proposed Changes in the Administration of Cape Spartel Light
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Mar. 11 (76) |
From the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier
Receipt of circular from president of International Commission of Cape Spartel Lighthouse, calling meeting to consider Shereefian Government’s announcement, February 22 (text printed), of intention to undertake improvements and maintenance of light; reconsideration by American Diplomatic Agent, upon assurance that Shereefian note would not be brought up, of refusal to attend meeting, such refusal having been based on fact that the action proposed contravenes provisions of the international convention of 1865 reserving those functions to the signatory powers; comments on political significance of lighthouse proposal as regards French influence in Tangier. |
743 |
| Mar. 17 (79) |
From the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier
Request for approval of schedule of contemplated improvements submitted by Shereefian Government at request of Commission; suggestion that, as Shereefian Government intends to assume all costs, and no derogation to administrative and controlling authority of Commission appears to be attempted at present, no occasion seems to exist for objections by Department. |
747 |
| Apr. 13 (3) |
To the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier (tel.) Approval of attitude with respect to attendance at meeting; information that, subject to acquiescence of the other signatory powers and without prejudice to the convention of 1865, the United States will not object to the proposed modernization. |
748 |
| Apr. 24 (92) |
From the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier
Request for telegraphic instructions as to suggestion that note be sent to Commission, accepting contemplated improvements, and at the same time making general reservations of principle under convention and informally objecting to the restriction of bidders to a specified few concerns; request for Department’s choice of a sound signal. |
748 |
| May 17 (4) |
To the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier (tel.) Approval of proposed note and selection of “Siren” sound signal. |
752 |
| June 7 (107) |
From the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier
Note to president of International Commission, June 3 (text printed), based on despatch No. 92, April 24, as confirmed by Department’s telegram No. 4, May 17. |
753 |
| 1927 Jan. 20 (155) |
From the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier
Acceptance by Commission of similar reservatioi s of principle embodied in U. S., Italian, and Spanish notes; suggestion that affirmative reply might be made to Shereefian memorandum, providing that technical details be settled by engineer in chief of lighthouses in France with corresponding officials in the other signatory countries, and final results submitted to Commission. |
754 |
| Feb. 8 (1) |
To the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at
Tangier (tel.) Instructions to approve suggest 3d procedure, with due regard to the general reservations of principle. |
756 |
Discontinuance of the Extraordinary French and Spanish Joint Naval Vigilance off the Coast of Morocco
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Aug. 3 (6542) |
From the Ambassador in France
Foreign Office note, July 29, enclosing memorandum, July 20 (texts printed), cancelingnote of July 2, 1925, with respect to joint naval vigilance of France and Spain off Moroccan coast, and providing that effective August 1, 1926, each nation shall patrol its respective zone, with exception of specified area where they shall patrol jointly. (Footnote: Telegram No. 38, August 7, instructing Ambassador in Spain to reply, in his discretion, to similar notification from Spanish Government, by stating that U. S. position remains the same as set forth in telegram No. 43, July 31, 1925 [i. e., refusal to recognize right of either country to interfere with U. S. vessels outside 3-mile limit, or with such vessels within 3-mile limit except as provided for in Act of Algeciras].) |
757 |
NETHERLANDS
Arrangement Between the United States and the Netherlands Granting Relief From Double Income Tax on Shipping Profits
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Sept. 13 |
To the Netherlands Chargé
Information that Treasury Department has stated that draft of proposed Netherlands decree (text printed) to prevent double taxation on income derived exclusively from the operation of ships, meets the equivalent exemption requirements of the U. S. Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926; request that date of issuance of decree be furnished. |
759 |
| Oct. 19 (3219) |
From the Netherlands Chargé
Reply that decree in form submitted was promulgated October 1 and published October 8. |
760 |
| Nov. 27 |
To the Netherlands Chargé
Treasury Department letter, November 8 (extract printed), declaring exemption of earnings of Netherlands ships from U. S. income taxes, as a consequence of the promulgation of decree. |
761 |
Proposal To Allocate to the Netherlands Government the Former German Yap-Menado Cable
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1922 Mar. 25 |
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of
State
Record of informal meeting of U. S., British, French, Italian, Japanese, and Netherlands representatives, December 31, 1921, in which tentative arrangement reached by Secretary of State and the Japanese Ambassador for allocation of the former German cables radiating from Yap (text printed) was presented for discussion; unofficial assent of British and French representatives; inability of Italian representative to comment until receipt of instructions from his Government. |
762 |
| Feb. 25 (540) |
From the Netherlands Chargé
Acceptance by Netherlands Government of Yap-Menado cable as assigned by the tentative agreement. |
764 |
| 1923 July 12 |
To the French Ambassador
Inquiry as to French views on adoption of plan submitted on March 6, 1922, by Mr. Henry P. Fletcher, member of the U. S. delegation and chairman of First Subcommittee of International Conference on Electrical Communications, for distribution of former Gern.an cables. (Footnote: Information that the Fletcher plan provided for equal distribution among the United States, France, Great Britain, and Italy of the estimated value of the former German cables in the Atlantic Ocean.) |
765 |
| Sept. 10 |
From the French Chargé
Aide-mémoire (text printed) setting forth French objections to Fletcher plan and emphasizing the fact that the Pacific cables should be considered along with the Atlantic cables. |
765 |
| 1925 Sept. 15 |
To the French Ambassador
Inquiry whether French Government is ready to resume meetings of the First Committee of the Electrical Communications Conference of 1920 in order to reach agreement respecting final allocation of former Gern.an cables in the Atlantic, ahd request to be notified whether November 2 would be convenient, and name of the French representative. |
770 |
| Nov. 3 |
From the French Ambassador
Opinion that the suggested meetings would be of little value unless opportunity is first given to examine any U. S. propositions, because of French objections to Fletcher plan; assurance that no further reservations will be made with respect to allotment of Yap-Menado cable to the Netherlands, inasmuch as Germany agrees that value of that cable be not credited to her account. |
771 |
| Nov. 13 |
From the German Ambassador
Inquiry as to impediments preventing ratification of Washington agreement providing for transfer of Yap–Menado cable to the Netherlands, with expression of desire that transfer be accomplished as soon as possible in order that a pending compromise arrangement between the German-Netherlands Telegraph Co. and its Netherlands creditors may be effected. |
771 |
| Dec. 2 |
To the German Ambassador
Inquiry as to whether there is any objection to Department’s transmitting copy of German note of November 13 to the interested Governments for their consideration. (Footnote: Information that Department was advised December 5 that there was no objection.) |
773 |
| Dec. 12 |
To the British Ambassador
Transmittal of copy of German note of November 13, with request that British Government furnish a statement df views as to definitive conclusion of the Washington arrangement relating to former German cables in the Pacific. (Similar communications addressed to French, Italian, and Japanese Ambassadors.) |
774 |
| Dec. 28 |
From the French Ambassador
Reiteration of statement of November 3, that France no longer makes any reservation to allotment of Yap–Menado cable to Netherlands; declination to participate in any further conferences regarding allotment of former German cables unless it is understood that France will retain Brest–Azores–New York cable. |
775 |
| Dec. 29 (1100) |
From the British Chargé
Information that Foreign Secretary replied to direct note from German Ambassador at London to the effect that British Government agrees to immediate transfer of Yap-Menado cable provided the United States, French, Italian, and Japanese Governments concur. |
775 |
| 1926 Jan. 8 (5) |
From the Japanese Ambassador
Desire of Japanese Government that the Washington arrangement of 1921 be definitively concluded as soon as possible and that Japan share in any equal distribution of total estimated value of the German cables which might be formulated at forthcoming meetings of the First Committee, but that it has no intention of claiming any cable other than the Yap-Shanghai line allotted to it by the arrangement. |
776 |
| Feb. 13 (643 A 12) |
From the Italian Ambassador
Assent to immediate transfer of Yap-Menado cable to Netherlands, in line with earlier Italian acceptance of Fletcher plan. |
778 |
| Mar. 18 |
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of Stale of a
Conversation With the Netherlands Minister
Assurance by Assistant Secretary that he would do everything possible to hasten a final favorable action on the Yap-Menado cable transfer, but that certain details remained to be settled in view of the replies of the interested Governments which were favorable in principle. |
778 |
NICARAGUA
Efforts by the United States To Preserve Constitutional Government in Nicaragua
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Jan. 7 |
To the American Missions in Costa Rica, Guatemala,
Honduras, and Salvador (cir.
tel.) Expression of hope that signatories of General Treaty of Peace and Amity of 1923 will refuse to recognize the government of General Chamorro, should he assume Presidency of Nicaragua during current presidential term, advising him of this attitude before January 11 and making their statement public. |
780 |
| Jan. 8 (5) |
From the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Salvadoran President’s instructions to Foreign Minister to make desired representations to Nicaraguan Foreign Office. (Repeated to Managua.) |
781 |
| Jan. 9 (1) |
From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.) Telegraphic instructions from Guatemalan Government to its representative at Managua to make desired representations. (Repeated to Central American Missions.) |
782 |
| Jan. 10 (3) |
From the Minister in Honduras (tel.) Telegraphic instructions by Honduran Government to its representative at Managua to make desired representations, but not to make the statement public at the present time; Minister’s opinion that Government is anxious to avoid any act which might alienate Nicaraguan sympathy and support, in view of menacing revolutionary movements from Salvador and Guatemala. (Repeated to Managua.) |
782 |
| Jan. 11 (9) |
From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Determination of Chamorro to assume Presidency not later than January 13 and to conduct such a government that the United States will be forced to recognize him; Minister’s request for instructions as to possible departure from Nicaragua and plans for care of Legation. |
782 |
| Jan. 12 (4) |
To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions, in event Chamorro assumes Presidency, to remain at post to protect American interests, making it clear that the United States does not recognize Chamorro or his government; detailed instructions as to conduct of U. S. affairs. |
783 |
| Jan. 13 (10) |
From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Information that on January 12 Congress declared Vice Presidency vacant and sentenced Sacasa to 2 years’ banishment from Nicaragua. |
784 |
| Jan. 15 (6) |
From the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.) Advice that Costa Rican President informed Nicaraguan Chargé that his Government will not recognize Chamorro if he assumes Presidency. (Repeated to Central American Missions.) |
784 |
| Jan. 22 (11) |
To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Receipt of formal note from Nicaraguan Minister dated January 19, advising that Chamorro took charge of the Executive power January 17, and informal reply by the Secretary January 22 (text printed), stating nonrecognition of Chamorro government. Instructions to send copy of Secretary’s note in informal letter to Foreign Minister and to make Secretary’s note public, telegraphing Department so that it may be released to American press also. (Footnote: Information that the note was given to Nicaraguan press January 25.) |
784 |
| May 5 (23) |
From the Chargé in Costa Rica (tel.) Refusal by Costa Rica to permit Nicaraguan troops to pass through its territory en route to Bluefields, Nicaragua. Foreign Minister’s desire for presence of U. S. warship near Colorado Bar. |
785 |
| May 7 (9) |
To the Chargé in Costa Rica (tel.) Instructions to assure Costa Rican Government of U. S. Government’s moral support in its decision to maintain strict neutrality; despatch of Cleveland to Bluefields to protect American lives and property; doubt that despatch of a warship to Colorado Bar would be advisable at present. |
786 |
| May 8 |
From the Consul at Bluefields (tel.) Information that situation at Bluefields has eased since arrival of Cleveland May 6, landing of marines, and declaration that the town is a neutral zone. |
786 |
| May 15 |
To the Consul at Bluefields (tel.) Desire that American forces maintain strict neutrality between contending factions. (Instructions to repeat to Managua.) |
787 |
| June 8 |
Press Release Issued by the Department of
State
Statement that departure from Managua June 7 of Minister Eberhardt is for leave of absence in the United States and has no political significance, and that Mr. Lawrence Dennis will remain as Chargé |
787 |
| Aug. 23 |
From the Consul at Bluefields (tel.) Urgent request for warship to protect American lives and property, in view of increasingly dangerous conditions; telegram of Chinese at Bluefields to Chinese Minister at Washington (text printed) requesting efforts to obtain U. S. protection of Chinese colony. |
788 |
| Aug. 26 (61) |
To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Despatch of Tulsa to Corinto and Galveston to Bluefields. |
788 |
| Aug. 27 (63) |
To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to deliver to Chamorro copy of Secretary’s statement to Nicaraguan Minister August 27 (text printed), which suggests that a conference of all important Nicaraguan leaders might be held as a first step toward the restoration of order; statement that Department would have no objection to the holding of such conference on board a U. S. war vessel, if the Nicaraguans should advance the suggestion. |
788 |
| Aug. 29 (116) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Chamorro’s decision, after reading Secretary’s statement, to maintain his position against all Nicaraguans; expression of willingness to turn over government to American forces, and Charge’s reply that the United States did not desire such a solution. Anticipated arrival of Chamorro’s representative for conferences. |
790 |
| Aug. 29 |
From the Consul at Bluefields (tel.) Arrival of Galveston and satisfactory situation at Bluefields with naval force in charge; critical situation in outlying districts. |
790 |
| Sept. 10 (130) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Letter from Chamorro (text printed) asking Chargé to use his good offices to the end that conferences may be held between Conservative and Liberal leaders to discuss a settlement of the situation on the substantial basis of Chamorro’s withdrawal from the Presidency and replacement by a Conservative elected by National Assembly, and declaring, in the event of lack of agreement at the conferences, his intention to resign in favor of a Conservative elected by National Assembly; request for instructions as to reply, with observation that prompt peace is impossible without good offices of the United States. |
791 |
| Sept. 11 (72) |
To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Authorization to use friendly good offices to obtain a truce and bring about conferences to be held on U. S. warship, provided all contending factions express such a desire; instructions to indicate clearly that Legation is exercising its good offices merely to aid in the restoration of peace and that it cannot become a party to any agreements reached among the contending factions. |
792 |
| Sept. 13 (134) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Information that, in response to Chargé’s reply based on Department’s telegram No. 72, September 11, Chamorro will submit details and list of Liberals and Liberal Republicans he wishes to invite to conferences; request for authorization to have naval forces maintain neutral zone at Corinto in which conferences may be held, if so requested. |
793 |
| Sept. 16 (17) |
To the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.) Instructions to notify Costa Rican Government of a proclamation by the President of the United States, September 15, 1926, placing an embargo on exports of arms and munitions of war to Nicaragua, and to suggest to Foreign Minister that his Government consider taking similar action. (Footnote: Information that the same telegram was sent to the American Missions in Guatemala, Honduras, and Salvador, and that a similar telegram was sent to the Embassy in Mexico.) |
793 |
| Sept. 17 (137) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Desire for immediate reply to Chamorro’s written request that neutral zone be maintained around wharf and hotel at Corinto. |
794 |
| Sept. 23 |
From the Consul at Bluefields (tel.) Agreement by contending factions for a 15 days’ armistice beginning September 23, for purpose of holding conferences, with possible extension of time if necessary; information that Admiral Latimer is to act as arbitrator. |
794 |
| Sept. 24 (142) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Approval by Liberals of plans for conferences, and sending of a Liberal mission to Guatemala to consult Sacasa; probability that conferences will be held first or second week in October. |
794 |
| Oct. 10 (162) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Establishment of neutral zone at Corinto by captain of the Denver. |
795 |
| Oct. 18 (165) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Acceptance by Chargé of conference secretariat’s request that he act as presiding officer, on understanding that he would incur no responsibility nor sign any final agreement; information that the October 17 sessions were harmonious. |
795 |
| Undated [Rec’d Oct. 18] |
From the Secretary of the Conservative Delegation
and the Secretary of the Liberal Delegation at the Corinto
Conference (tel.) Message of good will, expressing the hope that under the friendly offices of the United States peace will be restored. |
796 |
| Oct. 19 (93) |
To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) For the Secretaries of the Conservative and Liberal Delegations: Acknowledgment of message of good will. |
796 |
| Oct. 19 (167) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Deadlock of conference over formula for “reestablishment of peace on basis of constitutionality and the treaty of Washington;” Chargé’s desire for forceful statement from Department with respect to continuing the revolution with the aid of other governments, in view of Liberal threat on record to go ahead with revolution, counting on aid of Mexican and other governments, if Sacasa is not accepted. |
796 |
| Oct. 20 (168) |
From, the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Proposal of Liberal delegation that the question whether the reestablishment of Nicaraguan Government on the basis of constitutionality and the Washington treaties must be made with Sacasa as Executive or whether it is possible to constitute a legal government without taking account of him, be submitted to arbitration by U. S. Secretary of State and the four other Central American Governments, and Charge’s reply that proposal is not a matter for arbitration but a domestic political problem to be settled by Nicaraguans. |
797 |
| Oct. 21 (173) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Request for instructions, in view of Conservative refusal to accept arbitration proposal, possible failure of conference, and the preparation by both sides for resumption of hostilities. |
798 |
| Oct. 22 (50) |
To the Chargé in Guatemala (tel.) Instructions to secure a personal interview with Sacasa, informing him that U. S. Government would firmly oppose any Nicaraguan party which solicited or accepted assistance from any other nation. (Substance cabled to Chargé in Nicaragua.) |
799 |
| Oct. 23 (95) |
From the Chargé in Guatemala (tel.) Report of interview with Sacasa, who explained that he had received no information from Liberals at conference and did not know whether they considered it best to continue the revolution, and refused to discuss Mexican or Central American participation, although not denying their intervention on behalf of Liberals in Nicaragua. |
801 |
| Oct. 23 (176) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Decision of both delegations to close conference October 24 because of failure to reach agreement; intention of Chamorro to deposit Presidency within a week in Diaz or other Conservative who will form provisional government which will hold constituent election, make new constitution, and elect new President and Congress. Extension of armistice until 3 days after close of conference. |
801 |
| Oct. 25 (178) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Inquiry by Admiral Latimer as to use of term “belligerents”, and Chargé’s request for instructions as to his own understanding that the United States does not recognize belligerency but insurgency in respect of contending factions on east coast of Nicaragua. (Repeated to Admiral.) |
802 |
| Oct. 28 (101) |
To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Confirmation of Charges understanding. |
802 |
| Oct. 30 (181) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Deposit by Chamorro of Presidency in Senator Uriza, October 30; intention of Conservative Party to reinstate excluded members of Congress under Solorzano government and secure designation of Adolfo Diaz as designate to receive Presidency within 15 days if possible. |
803 |
| Nov. 2 (103) |
To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Authorization to Chargé to advise political leaders informally, if he deems it judicious, of Department’s feeling that the United States might properly recognize a new designado chosen by Congress and that it considers Diaz a wise choice. |
803 |
| Nov. 6 (106) |
To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Assurance of Department’s careful consideration of the recognition as constitutional President of Nicaragua of a designado chosen by a duly constituted Congress; inability of Department to consider any government which might be subsequently established by Sacasa as anything but a revolutionary government. Imminent return of Minister Eberhardt. to Nicaragua. |
804 |
| Nov. 9 (194) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Details of Conservative plan to convoke the Congress and to designate Diaz, probably November 15 or sooner. Chargé’s request for authorization to attend Diaz inauguration. |
805 |
| Nov. 11 (108) |
To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Willingness of Department, if the reported plans are carried out, to give favorable consideration to recognizing new President, and to authorize Chargé to attend the inauguration. |
805 |
| Nov. 11 (196) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Designation of Diaz by Congress, after the withdrawal of Liberal members with the statement that they intended to present memorial declaring they consider Sacasa President; Chargé’s plan to attend inauguration November 14. (Repeated to Central American Missions.) |
806 |
| Nov. 14 (200) |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Information that Diaz took oath of office November 14. |
806 |
| Nov. 17 |
Press Release Issued by the Department of
State
Explanatory remarks by the Secretary of State as to the Nicaraguan situation, in supplement to his announcement that the Chargé in Nicaragua, acting under instructions, had accorded formal recognition to the Diaz regime. |
807 |
| Dec. 1 |
From Doctor Rodolfo Espinosa (tel.) Announcement that Sacasa assumed Presidency of Nicaragua in Puerto Cabezas December 1 and organized his Cabinet; arguments in support of Liberal contention that Sacasa government is the only legally constituted government, and inference that Department, in spite of recognition of Diaz through its misinterpretation of the law, will be obliged to recognize Sacasa; notification that army has pledged support to Sacasa and that he proposes to subdue the opposition. |
808 |
| Dec. 8 |
From the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Note from President Diaz to Chargé, November 15 (text printed), requesting him to solicit support of Department in preventing further Mexican hostilities and invasions. |
809 |
| Dec. 8 (503) |
From the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.) Press reports of Mexican recognition of Sacasa regime December 7. |
810 |
| Dec. 8 (131) |
To the Chargé in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to state plainly to Diaz, in the event he indicates he expects armed assistance from the United States, that the U. S. Government can go no further than its customary policy of lending encouragement and moral support to constitutional governments when they are threatened by revolutionary movements. |
810 |
| Dec. 15 (239) |
From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Desire of Foreign Minister that U. S. Minister forward to Department the Diaz government note soliciting U. S. aid to protect lives and property of Americans and foreigners, to defend independence of Nicaragua against Mexico, and to restore peace. |
811 |
| Dec. 16 (240) |
From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Departure of Chamorro from Managua for Corinto, en route to Europe on a diplomatic mission. |
811 |
| Dec. 18 (140) |
To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to telegraph certain data as to present situation; information that the United States will grant requests for licenses to export arms to the Diaz government, and that naval forces have been instructed to afford all proper protection on east coast of Nicaragua to American lives and property and to land forces if necessary. |
812 |
| Dec. 19 (246) |
From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Information that Liberals have repeatedly refused to accept Diaz peace terms; data as to Government military strength; opinion that contemplated offer of mediation by Costa Rica would serve no useful purpose so long as Liberals receive Mexican aid; belief that Chamorro’s departure will ease situation only by giving Diaz a free hand to offer satisfactory peace terms. |
813 |
| Dec. 24 |
From Doctor Rodolfo Espinosa
Protest by Sacasa government against the landing of U. S. forces in Puerto Cabezas and Rio Grande and the declaration of those places as neutral zones. |
814 |
| Dec. 26 (254) |
From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Recommendation that U. S. Navy carry out Diaz’ wish to have Rama declared a neutral zone, thus completing neutralization of important centers on east coast; information that Diaz government is in full control of west coast. |
818 |
| Dec. 28 |
Draft Letter From the Secretary of State to the
Secretary of the Navy
Belief that earlier orders to Admiral Latimer should be supplemented by instructions not to declare neutral zones except where absolutely essential to protect lives and property of American and foreign citizens, to confine all activities to the maintenance of such protection, and not to endeavor to control landing of munitions except if illegally exported from the United States. (Footnote: Information, in a memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs, December 29, that the letter was prepared but not sent, and that after consultation with the President and Secretary of the Navy, a telegram embodying the main points of the letter was despatched to Admiral Latimer the night of December 28.) |
818 |
| Dec. 29 (S. C. 117–24) |
From the Secretary of the Navy
Instructions to Admiral Latimer (text printed), in line with the suggestions contained in the draft letter of December 28. |
819 |
| Dec. 29 (147) |
To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to advise Diaz informally that Department replied favorably to Costa Rican President’s inquiry as to approval of his intention to offer mediation. |
820 |
| Dec. 30 (148) |
To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Instructions to report views of President Diaz as to accepting Costa Rican President’s offer of mediation which has formally been made to Diaz and Sacasa. |
820 |
| Dec. 31 (257) |
From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.) Inability of President Diaz to consider Costa Rican offer of mediation because of commencement of conversations with Guatemala with reference to its offer of mediation received the previous day; prejudice against Costa Rican mediation because of numerous actions indicating partiality and active support to Liberal Party. |
821 |
| 1927 Jan. 3 (1) |
From the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.) Message from Costa Rican President to President Diaz and Sacasa, December 29, 1926, offering mediation; Sacasa’s acceptance; and President Diaz’ declination in view of consideration of earlier Guatemalan offer (texts printed). (Repeated to Nicaragua and Guatemala.) |
822 |
NORWAY
Statement by Norway of Its Paramount Interest in the Island of Jan Mayen in the Arctic Ocean
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1924 Sept. 23 (489) |
From the Minister in Norway
Note from Foreign Minister, September 15 (text printed), referring to newspaper reports of sale by a Norwegian citizen to an American citizen of his alleged rights to the Island of Jan Mayen and belief of the two parties that the island is now considered as American, and pointing out that the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, a Government institution, annexed the main portion of the island in 1921 with a view to permanent occupation. |
824 |
| 1926 May 17 |
From the Norwegian Minister
Information that the Meteorological Institute has, with a view to permanent occupation, extended its annexation on Jan Mayen, so that its annexation now comprises the entire island. |
825 |
| Aug. 25 (297) |
To the Chargé in Norway
Instructions to make informal inquiries as to whether the Norwegian Government considers that the Meteorological Institute’s recent activities have changed the political status of Jan Mayen from its previous status as a terra nullius. |
826 |
| Oct. 1 (870) |
From the Minister in Norway
Foreign Office note, September 23 (text printed), advising that while the Meteorological Institute’s activities have greatly increased Norwegian interests on Jan Mayen, no occupation by the Norwegian Government has taken place. |
827 |
PANAMA
Unperfected Treaty Between the United States and Panama for Settlement of Points of Difference, Signed July 28, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 July 27 |
Minutes of the Twenty-third Meeting of the American
and Pan-aman Commissions
Final consideration of draft treaty. |
828 |
| Aug. 4 (433) |
To the Minister in Panama
Transmission, for confidential information, of copy of treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Panama, signed at Washington, July 28, 1926 (text printed), and copies of the five exchanges of notes made at the same time (texts printed). (Footnote: Information that the treaty was not perfected.) |
833 |
Proposals by Panama To Modify the Unperfected Treaty Between the United States and Panama, Signed July 28, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Oct. 14 |
From the Panaman Legation
Suggestion that Panama and the United States jointly undertake the proposed road construction north of Alhajuela, Panama contributing the $1,250,000 to be paid her by the United States for transfer of jurisdiction over a portion of the city of Colon and the United States covering the balance of the cost, instead of fulfilling that provision of article II of the treaty signed July 28, 1926, which stipulates that the United States shall construct the roads and Panama shall reimburse her for all costs in excess of $1,250,000. |
854 |
| Undated |
Procès-Verbal of a Conversation Held on December 8,
1926, Between the Panaman Minister, Representing the Government of
Panama, and the Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs and
Mr. Stokeley Morgan, of the Same Division, Representing the
Department of State
Inability of the United States to accede to the suggested modification of article II, and suggestion that it might be possible to add a protocol providing that the United States will expend $1,250,000 on such roads as Panama specifies or will deposit that sum to Panama’s credit to be used for construction of such roads or public works as Panama desires. |
859 |
| Dec. 17 (D–369) |
From the Panaman Minister
Suggestion that Panama would transfer to the United States jurisdiction over the portion of Colon specified, without requiring the $1,250,000 payment, if the U. S. Government would make or arrange that there be made to Panama a $30,000,000 loan, covering not less than a 50-year term, at interest not greater than 4 percent, the proceeds to be used to redeem its external debt and carry out construction of roads and other public works. |
861 |
| Dec. 18 (D–370) |
From the Panaman Minister
Formal inquiry as to what provisions Panama must take to reimburse the United States for the costs of construction of the roads north of Alhajuela in excess of $1,250,000, in accordance with article II. |
862 |
| Dec. 21 |
To the Panaman Minister
Inability of the United States to consider Panaman loan suggestion. |
862 |
| Dec. 23 |
To the Panaman Minister
Proposal to undertake as soon as possible after ratification of the treaty by both parties construction of the Colon-Porto Bello or the Colon-Alhajuela road, whichever Panama prefers, expending thereon the sum of $1,250,000, and continuing such construction as soon as the Panaman Government deposits funds to the credit of the Panama Canal, using those funds as they accrue until the road program is completed. |
863 |
| Dec. 30 (D–387) |
From the Panaman Minister
Unwillingness to accept U. S. proposal of December 23, and further inquiry as to what measures by Panama for reimbursement would be satisfactory to the U. S. Government. |
864 |
Claims Convention Between the United States and Panama, Signed July 28, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 July 28 |
Treaty Between the United States of America and
Panama
For the settlement of claims. |
865 |
PARAGUAY
Proposed Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights Between the United States and Paraguay
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Aug. 26 (332) |
To the Minister in Paraguay
Instructions to inquire as to Paraguay’s disposition to conclude with the United States a general treaty of friendship, commerce and consular rights, providing for unconditional most-favored-nation treatment. |
871 |
| Oct. 5 (12) |
From the Minister in Paraguay (tel.) Foreign Minister’s favorable disposition and request for copy of draft treaty immediately. |
873 |
| Oct. 20 (13) |
To the Minister in Paraguay (tel.) Information that Department is preparing instructions and draft treaty to go forward shortly. |
873 |
| 1927 Jan. 20 (227) |
From the Minister in Paraguay
Regret that late arrival of draft treaty will result in the entrance into the negotiations of active opposition from the Paraguay National Chamber of Commerce, which that day publicly urged the Government to refuse to enter into any treaties incorporating the most-favored-nation clause. (Footnote: Information that no draft treaty was presented to the Paraguayan Government and that negotiations were discontinued.) |
874 |
PERSIA
Decision That When Change of Regime Necessitates New Credentials, Precedence of Diplomats of Same Rank Is Determined by Date of Original Reception
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Feb. 7 (22) |
From the Minister in Persia
Request for instructions as to whether, in view of the recent change of regime in Persia, precedence of the foreign diplomatic representatives remains the same as under the previous regime, or is determined by the date of presentation of credentials to the new regime. |
875 |
| Mar. 13 (461) |
To the Minister in Persia
Arguments based on international law and Department’s action in the past, including instructions to the Minister in Peru, May 27, 1886 (text printed), in support of the theory that a change of regime necessitating the presentation of new credentials does not disturb the original precedence of diplomats of the same rank as determined by the date of first presentation of credentials. |
877 |
PORTUGAL
Efforts by the United States in Behalf of American Holders of Portuguese Tobacco Monopoly Bonds
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1924 June 13 (842) |
From the Minister in Portugal
Information that Portuguese decree No. 9761, June 3, 1924, provides that Portuguese holders of the various issues of internal and external debt bonds will be paid principal and interest in paper escudos instead of gold or its equivalent as specified in the original contracts, limits the time in which foreign holders may apply for their payments to July 30, 1924, and discriminates against the other foreign bondholders by making special provision for British holders; request for instructions. |
880 |
| Aug. 6 (32) |
To the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Instructions to request that American holders be granted equality with respect to British holders in regard to the right to receive payment in sterling at London. (Footnote: Information that a note in this sense was presented to the Foreign Minister, August 14.) |
881 |
| Oct. 14 (37) |
To the Chargé in Portugal (tel.) Instructions to continue representations with a view to securing early and favorable decision, and to advise whether decree 9761 provides that the actual amount of sterling specified on the coupons will be paid to British holders. |
882 |
| Oct. 17 (51) |
From the Chargé in Portugal (tel.) Reply that British bondholders will receive the actual amount of sterling specified on the coupons. |
882 |
| Oct. 30 (39) |
To the Chargé in Portugal (tel.) Instructions to present note to Foreign Minister (text printed) expressing U. S. desire that decree 9761 be amended to permit American holders of tobacco monopoly bonds to receive payment pursuant to the terms of the contract and in terms equally favorable to those enjoyed by bondholders of any other nationality. |
882 |
| 1925 Feb. 3 (5) |
From the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Request for telegraphic reply, in response to Foreign Minister’s inquiry on behalf of the Portuguese Treasury, as to the number of tobacco bonds of 1891 and 1896 held by Americans. |
883 |
| Feb. 7 (6) |
To the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Advice that, while the Department will furnish the requested data as soon as available, the extent of American holdings has no bearing on the situation. (Footnote: Information that on March 20 the Department advised the Minister that Americans held tobacco bonds of 1891 in the amount of 300,000 francs, and that no tobacco bonds of 1896 appeared to have been placed in the United States.) |
883 |
| June 4 (1094) |
From the Minister in Portugal
Memorandum of a conversation with the Director General of the Treasury, May 30 (extracts printed), in which that official stated that as soon as he learned the extent of French holdings, an important consideration because of a French group’s control of the tobacco monopoly, he would arrange for bonds held by foreigners in Portugal and the colonies to be stamped in the same manner as bonds held by foreigners outside of Portugal and the colonies. (Footnote: Information that in order to prevent the bonds of the external loan from passing out of the hands of Portuguese nationals, it had been determined that all bonds should be stamped in either London or Paris.) |
884 |
| Aug. 31 (678) |
To the Minister in Portugal
Instructions to renew oral and written representations on behalf of American bondholders. (Footnote: Information that a note based on this instruction was presented to the Foreign Minister, September 21.) |
885 |
| Dec. 2 (1272) |
From the Minister in Portugal
Information that decree No. 11289, published in Diario do Governo of November 28, authorizes the Minister of Finance to carrv out the immediate liquidation of the tobacco loan of 1891 and 1896. |
886 |
| Dec. 11 (45) |
From the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Request for reply to inquiry of Foreign Minister as to the number of tobacco bonds held by Americans, their value in sterling, and where deposited; information that U. S. Minister called attention to statements in Department’s telegram No. 6, February 7, 1925. (Footnote: Information that the Department referred the Minister to its telegram No. 6 of February 7.) |
886 |
| 1926 Jan. 8 (1) |
To the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Instructions to advise the newly established Government in Portugal of the Department’s continued interest in the tobacco bond situation, and if no satisfactory reply is received within a reasonable time, to present the note of September 21 in its original unaltered form. (Footnote: Information that the original note presented September 21 had been somewhat altered in phraseology at the request of the Permanent Secretary General of the Foreign Ministry.) |
887 |
| Jan. 12 (2) |
From the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Information from Foreign Minister that decree will be issued opening a credit for the repurchase of tobacco bonds; assurance that American Minister will carry out instructions in Department’s telegram No. 1, January 8, as developments indicate to be best. |
888 |
| Jan. 13 (3) |
From the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Foreign Office inquiry as to possibility of placing all American-held tobacco bonds in one bank in America and one in London, so that Portuguese Government could immediately pay both principal and arrears of interest in sterling, and its intention to send note quoting text of the decree which will open necessary credit and provide for payment in sterling of principal and interest and stating that the principal and interest of American-held tobacco bonds will be paid in sterling or its equivalent. |
888 |
| Jan. 15 (2) |
To the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Inability of Department to take any action on Foreign Office suggestion as to concentration of American-held tobacco bonds until it has studied the decree to determine whether it safeguards American interests, and until decree has been published. |
888 |
| Jan. 19 (4) |
From the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Additional note from Foreign Office, January 12, stating that decree No. 11388 (extract printed) was published January 8, and emphasizing Government’s need for certain data as to names of bondholders, etc.; Minister’s opinion that decree is of a general nature, placing the Government in funds, but not stating specifically what will be done for American bondholders. |
889 |
| Jan. 21 (5) |
From the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Receipt of Foreign Office note dated January 19, stating that payment of principal and interest will be made in sterling; Minister’s observation that by failing to state a place, date, and period for making payment, treatment equivalent to that accorded to British is not being accorded to Americans. |
889 |
| Jan. 22 (3) |
To the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Reply to telegram No. 4, January 19, stating that Department will not be satisfied until Portuguese Government gives assurance that the credit will be applied to American-held tobacco bonds, and instructing Minister to suggest to Portuguese Government that it designate a bank in America or Europe where American-held bonds could be presented within an adequate period of time and paid as to principal and arrears of interest, and that it make that fact public. |
890 |
| Jan. 23 (4) |
To the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Assumption, from telegram No. 5, January 21, that the Portuguese Government will soon promulgate a decree designating place for payment and period of time within which American-held bonds may be presented. |
890 |
| Feb. 3 (5) |
To the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Instructions to cable present status of tobacco bond situation. |
890 |
| Feb. 14 (10) |
From the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Proposed procedure of Portuguese Government to set forth an agreement for purchase of bonds at a New York bank during a specified period, in the form of an official note instead of a decree, and Portuguese request that if this procedure be satisfactory, the note of September 21 be not presented. |
891 |
| Feb. 19 (9) |
To the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Willingness of U. S. Government to accept the proposed note in lieu of a decree, intention to give suitable publicity to the arrangement, and agreeability to suggestion that note of September 21 be withdrawn. |
892 |
| Feb. 20 (12) |
From the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Information that the contemplated note has been received, and that it complies with all U. S. demands, specifying redemption through Baring Brothers, London Bankers, and requesting that the matter not be divulged until public announcement of settlement with all bondholders which will probably be made before April 5. |
893 |
| Feb. 20 |
From the Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs to
the American Minister
Official note with regard to the American-held tobacco bonds. |
893 |
| Mar. 22 (12) |
To the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Information that Portuguese note is fairly satisfactory, but that the U. S. Government desires further assurances; authorization to withdraw note of September 21 if Portuguese Government furnishes such assurances. |
894 |
| Apr. 7 (19) |
From the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Verbal agreement of Director General of Treasury to the suggestions in Department’s telegram No. 12, March 22, and expression of Portuguese desire to make payments to American holders in three installments, as agreed with all other bondholders. |
895 |
| May 13 (13) |
To the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Desire that Portuguese Government or Baring Brothers designate an agency in the United States where Americans can deposit their bonds and receive proper receipts; instructions that, upon Portuguese Government’s advice of such designation, the Minister may withdraw note of September 21. |
895 |
| June 10 (18) |
To the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Inquiry as to whether Portuguese Government has taken the requisite action and information that American holdings amount to around £12,000 but that the number of holders is not known. |
896 |
| June 15 (32) |
From the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Information that, although the matter has been delayed by revolution and a vacancy in Finance Portfolio, the requisite action has been promised within the week. |
896 |
| July 16 (1559) |
From the Minister in Portugal
Information that Baring Brothers have designated Kidder, Peabody & Co., New York, to act as receiving agent; suggestion that Portuguese Government’s London agent might instruct the New York agent not only to receive the bonds but also to pay them. |
896 |
| Aug. 4 (23) |
To the Minister in Portugal (tel.) Instructions to press for prompt action in view of delay on part of Portuguese Government, and to report when such action has been taken. |
897 |
| Aug. 9 (43) |
From the Chargé in Portugal (tel.) Receipt, August 8, of Foreign Office note dated August 1 (text printed), stating that instructions had been given to Baring Brothers in regard to Minister’s wishes with regard to the tobacco bonds. (Footnote: Information that on November 2, 1926, the Department notified the Minister in Portugal, that it had been advised, under date of October 25, 1926, by Kidder, Peabody & Co., of the procedure whereby American holders might secure payment, and that the Department now regarded the matter as closed.) |
897 |
RUMANIA
Agreement Between the United States and Rumania According Mutual Unconditional Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Customs Matters, Signed February 26, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Mar. 1 (145) |
From the Minister in Rumania
Notes exchanged February 26, 1926, between the American Minister and the Rumanian Foreign Minister, providing for mutual unconditional most-favored-nation treatment in customs matters (texts printed). |
898 |
Representations by the United States Against Rumanian Legislation Regarding Subsoil Rights in Lands Held in Perpetual Lease
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Jan. 9 (108) |
From the Minister in Rumania
Note No. 152, dated January 6 (text printed), to the Foreign Minister, making representations against the enactment of proposed legislation passed by the Rumanian Senate and pending before the Chamber of Deputies to declare that the subsoil of lands held in perpetual lease belongs to the State; Minister’s request for Department’s confirmation of his position. |
901 |
| Feb. 13 (6) |
To the Minister in Rumania (tel.) Approval of position, and instructions to supplement representations with a statement that the U. S. Government would view with concern any action by the Rumanian authorities which would prejudice American interests in subsoil rights acquired in accordance with the laws of Rumania and in good faith. |
903 |
| Feb. 18 (138) |
From the Minister in Rumania
Note No. 13, dated February 15, to the Foreign Minister (text printed), making supplementary representations; information that agriculture and commerce ministries are discussing matter and will reply soon, and that action by the Chamber of Deputies is expected before the end of the month. |
904 |
| Apr. 6 (171) |
From the Minister in Rumania
Information that the legislation was enacted without debate and without notice of any kind to the Legation or to the parties interested, and that Minister has made no further representations because of a change in the Rumanian Government and the possibility that the law will be interpreted so as not to affect existing contracts. |
905 |
RUSSIA
Disapproval of Flotation in the United States of German Loans To Be Used To Advance Credits to the Soviet Regime
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Mar. 17 |
From Messrs. Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Gardiner &
Reed
Inquiry as to whether Department has any objection to the flotation in the United States by American bankers of a 25 to 35 million dollar loan to a proposed German export company, the proceeds of the loan to be used to extend credit to German industrials in order to sell goods in Russia. |
906 |
| Apr. 2 |
To Messrs. Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Gardiner &
Reed
Disapproval of the proposed loan flotation because the transaction would be in effect an advance to the Soviet regime, which has repudiated Russia’s obligations to the United States and American nationals. |
907 |
| July 10 |
From the New York Trust Company
Outline of proposed arrangement whereby American banks would rediscount certain Russian obligations for German banks; request for Department’s opinion as to whether these terms would make any fundamental difference in its attitude toward permitting Russian credit. |
907 |
| July 15 |
To the New York Trust Company
Disapproval of the proposed arrangement. |
910 |
Refusal of Visa for Appointed Soviet Minister to Mexico To Enter the United States En Route to Her Post
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Oct. 20 |
From the Consul General at Berlin (tel.) Request of Madame Alexandra Kollontay, appointed Soviet Minister to Mexico, that consul general ascertain whether Department will grant her a passport visa to cross the United States en route to her post. |
910 |
| Nov. 2 |
To the Consul General at Berlin (tel.) Instructions that no visa or transit certificate may be issued to Madame Kollontay because of her inadmissibility to the United States under the law. |
911 |
| Nov. 4 |
Press Release Issued by the Department of
State
Information that visa was denied Madame Kollontay because of her active association with the International Communist movement. |
911 |
SALVADOR
Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights Between the United States and Salvador, Signed February 22, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1923 Sept. 20 (26) |
To the Minister in Salvador (tel.) Instructions to ascertain if Salvador would be disposed to enter into negotiations for a general treaty of amity, commerce and consular rights. |
912 |
| 1924 Mar. 26 (14) |
To the Minister in Salvador (tel.) Instructions, in view of Department’s desire to await the outcome of Senate action on commercial treaty with Germany before proceeding to the negotiation of any similar treaties, to ascertain if Salvador would be disposed to effect a modus vivendi by exchange of notes providing for mutual unconditional most-favored-nation treatment with respect to customs duties. |
912 |
| Apr. 7 (514) |
From the Minister in Salvador
Opinion by Foreign Minister that there may be difficulty in negotiating the proposed exchange of notes; his willingness, however, to exchange the notes if it is found possible to conclude matter to the Department’s satisfaction. |
913 |
| Aug. 28 (125) |
To the Chargé in Salvador
Instructions to renew discussions as to conclusion of modus vivendi and to present draft note to be exchanged (text printed) if Salvadoran Government is in favor of proposal. |
914 |
| Sept. 26 (576) |
From the Chargé in Salvador
Advice that matter is still undecided, and that Foreign Minister has informally advanced certain objections. |
916 |
| Oct. 20 (41) |
To the Minister in Salvador (tel.) Information that Department, although preferring indefinite term, will accede to Salvadoran suggestion that modus vivendi be for 2-year term, thereafter ending 6 months following notice of termination by either party, will agree to effective date as 30 or 60 days after signature if Salvador so suggests, but will insist on U. S. exception of Cuba because of U. S.-Cuba reciprocity treaty; instructions to point out that the most-favored-nation treatment the United States already accords to Salvador is conditioned upon reciprocal treatment. |
917 |
| 1925 Jan. 2 (622) |
From the Minister in Salvador
Intention of pressing the matter again within a few days, in view of nonreceipt of any definite answer from the Salvadoran Government. |
919 |
| Jan. 14 (2) |
From the Minister in Salvador (tel.) Transmittal, at request of Foreign Minister, of suggestion that the United States grant Salvadoran and preferably all Central American sugar the same rates as now granted Cuban sugar. |
919 |
| Jan. 17 (2) |
To the Minister in Salvador (tel.) Inability of Department to accede to Salvadoran suggestion because treaty with Cuba makes U. S. concessions to Cuba exclusive. |
920 |
| Apr. 24 (14) |
To the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Suggestion that Salvador, if unwilling to accept proposed exchange of notes, might be willing to proceed to the signature and ratification of a general treaty. |
920 |
| Apr. 28 (15) |
From the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Information that Salvador will not exchange notes unless more tangible advantages are granted; suggestion that Department await Legation’s report of further conferences in which Finance Minister will participate. |
921 |
| May 9 (18) |
From the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Opinion that, since further conferences have indicated that Salvadoran opposition is not likely to be overcome, a most desirable manner of beginning negotiations for a general treaty might be a formal note couched in broad terms and a reference to Salvadoran note of July 19, 1922. (Footnote: Information that the note of July 19, 1922, set forth Salvador’s desire to conclude a treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation with the United States.) |
921 |
| June 25 (25) |
To the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Instructions to abandon modus vivendi plans and to proceed to negotiation of a general treaty of friendship, commerce and consular rights, informing Salvadoran Government that delay in Department’s program of negotiating similar treaties with a number of Central and South American and European countries has been ended by Senate approval of the treaty with Germany. |
922 |
| July 1 (36) |
From the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Information that President and Foreign Minister stated their willingness to open negotiations but observed that fiscal and customs questions had best be dealt with in general terms; President’s suggestion that two treaties be signed, one of friendship and the other of commerce and consular rights. |
922 |
| July 3 (27) |
To the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Instructions to present draft treaty of commerce and consular rights which Department will forward shortly, before discussing a separate treaty of friendship. |
923 |
| July 7 (808) |
From the Chargé in Salvador
Receipt from Foreign Office of written confirmation of verbal assurances that Salvadoran Government is ready to proceed to the study and discussion of a treaty of friendship, commerce and consular rights. |
923 |
| Aug. 6 (189) |
To the Chargé in Salvador
Transmittal of draft treaty (extracts printed), with instructions to present it to Foreign Office, and explanation of U. S. Government’s position with regard to both general features and specific provisions of the treaty. |
924 |
| Aug. 25 (61) |
From the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Submittal of draft treaty to Foreign Office; Chargé’s request for information as to principal grounds on which Department bases desire for most-favored-nation treatment, in order that he may use it discreetly in conversation without committing the Department. |
932 |
| Sept. 5 (39) |
To the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Reasons for desire that unconditional most-favored-nation clause be included; instructions to base informal written communication on this information if it is thought advisable. |
933 |
| Oct. 5 (76) |
From the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Information that among other difficulties the principal one is most-favored-nation treatment; request for advice as to whether Department has already officially admitted the right of Salvador or other Central American countries to favor neighboring countries; inquiry whether article 7 covers special privileges granted by Salvador to other foreigners or only privileges granted by treaty. |
934 |
| Oct. 22 (44) |
To the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Information that appropriate exceptions of neighboring countries have been made in exchanges of notes with Nicaragua and Guatemala according most-favored-nation treatment, and that Department is willing that Salvador except Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua; advice that article 7 refers to commercial privileges originating in domestic legislation, Executive decree, regulations or otherwise as well as privileges originating in treaties. |
934 |
| 1926 Jan. 19 (960G) |
From the Chargé in Salvador
Report that negotiations for the treaty of friendship, commerce and consular rights have been steadily progressing and are now practically concluded. |
935 |
| Feb. 20 (986G) |
From the Chargé in Salvador
Report that complete agreement has been reached and that treaty will be signed February 22. |
936 |
| Apr. 4 (1020G) |
From the Chargé in Salvador
Report that treaty was signed February 22. |
937 |
| May 7 (1046G) |
From the Chargé in Salvador
Report that opposition to ratification of the treaty had developed in National Assembly, which had referred it to Supreme Court for report on judicial and technical questions involved. |
938 |
| May 24 (68) |
From the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Information that the National Assembly is opposed to ratification of treaty before it has been ratified by the U. S. Senate. |
939 |
| May 29 (50) |
To the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Ratification of treaty by Senate May 28. |
939 |
| May 31 (72) |
From the Chargé in Salvador (tel.) Ratification by National Assembly May 31. (Footnote: Information that because ratification was subject to six amendments, the United States did not proceed to exchange of ratifications, and that a second submission of treaty to National Assembly resulted in ratification June 30, 1927, subject to two amendments; further information that in instruction No. 65, December 18, 1929, the Chargé was instructed to effect the exchange of ratifications and to include the National Assembly’s declarations in the protocol of exchange, and that the ratifications were exchanged at San Salvador on September 5, 1930.) |
939 |
| Feb. 22 |
Treaty Between the United States of America and the
Republic of Salvador
Of friendship, commerce and consular rights. |
940 |
| 1930 Sept. 5 |
Protocol
Of exchange. (Footnote: Text of understandings set forth in the protocol of exchange, as incorporated in legislative decree of June 30, 1927, by the National Assembly.) |
954 |
SPAIN
Convention Between the United States and Spain for the Prevention of Smuggling of Intoxicating Liquors, Signed February 10, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1924 July 12 (370) |
From the Ambassador in Spain
Receipt of note from Foreign Office enclosing a draft convention between Spain and the United States for the prevention of smuggling of intoxicating liquors into the United States and stating that while Spanish Government accepts the U. S. convention in principle, it objects to certain provisions; Ambassador’s request for text agreeable to Department. (Footnote: Information that the U. S. text referred to was a confirmation copy of text transmitted to Ambassador in Spain in telegram No. 27, June 9, 1923.) |
956 |
| Dec. 5 |
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of
State
Conversation with Spanish Ambassador, in which Under Secretary restated Department’s desire that the final conclusion of the liquor treaty coincide with an exchange of notes providing for mutual unconditional most-favored-nation treatment in regard to customs duties, and handed Ambassador copy of recent U. S.-Italian liquor treaty which the United States would be willing to conclude with Spain exactly as it stands. |
957 |
| 1925 Oct. 16 (74–18) |
From the Spanish Ambassador
Submittal of Ambassador’s full powers to sign a liquor smuggling convention and a tentative draft of Spanish text of convention. |
958 |
| Dec. 1 |
To the Spanish Ambassador
Acceptability of full powers and tentative draft, with comments on certain objectionable provisions; submission of amended English translation of Spanish draft text. |
959 |
| 1926 Jan. 20 (63–05) |
From the Spanish Ambassador
Information that Spanish Government has accepted Department’s changes and has authorized Ambassador to sign the convention. |
960 |
| Feb. 8 |
To the Spanish Ambassador
Suggestion that the convention be signed February 10. |
961 |
| Feb. 10 |
Convention Between the United States of America and
Spain
For the prevention of smuggling of intoxicating liquors. |
962 |
| Aug. 27 (67–19) |
From the Spanish Chargé
Request that Department issue appropriate instructions to customs and prohibition authorities at specified U. S. and Porto Rican ports in order that Spanish vessels calling at those ports will be accorded the treatment provided for in the convention. |
965 |
| Sept. 9 |
To the Spanish Chargé
Information that the U. S. Government cannot grant the Spanish Government’s request at present because the convention will not go into effect until the ratifications are exchanged. (Footnote: Information that the ratifications were exchanged in Washington November 17, 1926, and the convention was proclaimed by the President the same day.) |
965 |
SWITZERLAND
Proposed Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights Between the United States and Switzerland
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1925 July 15 |
Memorandum by Mr. Prentiss B. Gilbert of the
Division of Western European Affairs
Outline of previous correspondence with reference to a proposed treaty of amity, commerce and consular rights with Switzerland, indicating that in October 1923 Switzerland favored such a treaty, but that negotiations were suspended by the Department pending Senate action on a similar treaty with Germany. |
967 |
| July 23 (83) |
To the Chargé in Switzerland (tel.) Instructions to inquire whether Switzerland is still favorable to entering into negotiations for a treaty of friendship, commerce and consular rights. |
968 |
| Nov. 4 (119) |
From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.) Information that, upon presentation of a draft treaty to Swiss political authorities, reply was received that treaty must be carefully studied and that answer would probably not be ready for at least a month. (Footnote: Information that further negotiations failed to lead to conclusion of a treaty.) |
968 |
Termination of Representation of Swiss Interests in Egypt by American Diplomatic and Consular Officers
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Jan. 18 (745) |
From the Minister in Egypt
Aide-mémoire from British Residency in Egypt, January 15 (text printed), advising that in view of U. S. desire to be relieved from representation of Swiss interests in Egypt, the Swiss Government approached the British Government as to its willingness to assume that representation, and stating that British Government is favorably disposed but would like to have U. S. observations on the subject. |
969 |
| Feb. 12 (2) |
To the Minister in Egypt (tel.) Instructions to inform British High Commissioner that the United States will be pleased to relinquish the representation of Swiss interests in Egypt, if the Swiss Government so requests. |
970 |
| July 7 (276) |
To the Chargé in Egypt
Instructions, in view of note from Swiss Federal Political Department to the American Legation in Switzerland, June 3 (text printed), stating that arrangements had been made for relieving U. S. Government of representation of Swiss interests in Egypt by transfer of that function to British and Italian officials, to inform American Consulates and report to Department whether any Swiss property is in Legation’s or Consulates’ possession. |
970 |
| Aug. 20 (18) |
To the Minister in Egypt (tel.) Instructions to report what action has been taken on instruction No. 276, July 7, and whether arrangements have been made with British Residency for formal transfer of Swiss interests. |
972 |
| Aug. 21 (29) |
From the Chargé in Egypt (tel.) Information that Department’s instructions have been followed literally, that notice has been sent to registered Swiss, and that British Residency expressed satisfaction August 10; reference to action of Egyptian Foreign Office reported in despatch No. 860, August 3. (Footnote: Information that despatch No. 860 transmitted Egyptian Foreign Office official communiqué (extract printed) stating the new arrangements for protection of Swiss interests.) |
972 |
| Nov. 2 (907) |
From the Minister in Egypt
Advice that official U. S. representation of Swiss interests ceased by Legation on August 5, by Cairo consulate on August 7, and by Alexandria and Port Said consulates on August 31. |
972 |
TURKEY
Efforts by the Department of State To Obtain Ratification of the General Treaty Between the United States and Turkey, Signed at Lausanne, August 6, 1923
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 Jan. 14 |
From the American Men’s and Women’s Clubs of
Constantinople (tel.) Desire for prompt U. S. ratification of treaty with Turkey signed at Lausanne. (Footnote: Information that a copy of this telegram was mailed to Senator Borah, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, January 18.) |
974 |
| Feb. 24 (12) |
To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Information that canvass of Senate indicates that at present there are not sufficient votes to secure ratification, and that any additional representations by Americans in Turkey as to the importance of ratification might be helpful in eventually securing the necessary votes. |
974 |
| Mar. 27 (18) |
To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Likelihood that Senate will soon take up treaty, and information that proposed resolution of ratification (text printed) contains certain reservations. |
975 |
| Apr. 20 (26) |
To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Remarks by the Secretary of State in speech at New York, April 20 (extract printed), with reference to U. S. policy regarding Turkey. |
975 |
| May 8 (31) |
To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Instructions, in view of Senator Borah’s intention to bring up treaty in spite of uncertainty regarding ratification, to send views on various phases of the present and future situation in Turkey. |
976 |
| May 15 (35) |
From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Detailed reply to Department’s telegram No. 31, May 8. Opinion that ratification is essential to protection and expansion of American interests, but that treaty should not be brought up for a vote unless it is felt that ratification can be secured. |
977 |
| May 20 |
To Senator Charles Curtis
Transmittal, in response to request, of a statement (text printed) giving the outstanding reasons why the Turkish treaty should be ratified. |
979 |
| June 24 (43) |
To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Instructions, to be carried out the day following adjournment of U. S. Congress, for meeting situation which will be created by failure of Senate to act on treaty. |
981 |
| June 26 (59) |
From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Belief that informal endeavors to prepare Turkish official opinion for possible delay in U. S. action on the treaty have met with some measure of understanding. Opinion that although there is only slight possibility of extending scope of commercial modus vivendi, renewal for a longer term than provided by law might be secured. |
983 |
| July 3 (46) |
To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Adjournment of Congress July 3, and Senate consent to take up treaty in January 1927; Department’s feeling that it would be wise to discuss immediately the renewal of the modus vivendi but no other modifications; commendation for efforts to prepare Turkish officials for the further postponement of action on the treaty. (Footnote: Information that modus vivendi was renewed on July 20 for a further period of 6 months dating from August 20, 1926.) |
984 |
| Dec. 23 (108) |
From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Press statement by Foreign Minister (extract printed) summarizing reasons for his expectation that National Assembly will ratify treaty. |
985 |
| Dec. 29 |
To Senator William E. Borah
Information and comments on questions regarding Turkish treaty as set forth in resolution introduced by Senator King, December 22; enclosure of letter from President Harding’s secretary to the Chairman of the American Committee for Independence of Armenia, November 10, 1922, with regard to U. S. attitude toward the protection of Armenians (text printed). |
986 |
| Dec. 31 (111) |
From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Press statement by president of Foreign Relations Committee (text printed), expressing belief that prompt Turkish ratification of treaty will benefit both Turkey and the United States and that committee will present treaty to Assembly immediately. |
991 |
Agreements Between the United States and Turkey According Mutual Unconditional Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Customs Matters, Signed February 18 and July 20, 1926
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1925Mar. 14 (30) |
To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Instructions to telegraph Turkish reaction to news of Senate delay in ratification of Turkish treaty and High Commissioner’s opinion as to the proper course to be followed within the next few months. |
992 |
| Mar. 17 (33) |
From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Declaration by Turkish Foreign Office official that orders had been issued to apply most-favored-nation treatment to American merchandise, but that if treaty ratification were delayed, such treatment would be withdrawn; High Commissioner’s observation that he did not inform the official of the news contained in Department’s telegram No. 30, March 14. |
992 |
| 1926 Jan. 5 (1) |
From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Information that representations were made against provisions of new Turkish tariff law increasing duties on goods imported into Turkey from countries with which it does not have commercial treaties. |
993 |
| Jan. 9 (1) |
To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Approval of representations and instructions to keep Department informed by telegraph. |
993 |
| Jan. 19 (4) |
From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Information from Foreign Minister that new tariff law was not intended to apply to the United States because an understanding had been reached in the treaty and subsequently, that pending treaty ratifications Turkey will extend benefits of her treaties with other countries to American merchandise, but that a provisional arrangement will be required in the meantime; request for instructions as to effecting a provisional arrangement by written confirmation of the modus vivendi already existing. |
994 |
| Feb. 4 (8) |
From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Request for authorization to take up at once the arrangement of a modus vivendi for a 6-month period, pending treaty ratification, whereby the United States will agree with Turkey to observe provisions of articles 11, 12, and 13 of the treaty. |
994 |
| Feb. 5 (9) |
To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Preference of Department that agreement proposed in telegram No. 4, January 19, be detailed in character, contain definite provisions for its termination, and be effected by exchange of notes. |
995 |
| Feb. 5 (10) |
To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Replying to telegram No. 8, Department’s disapproval of any arrangement whereby the United States would be obligated to observe specific stipulations of an unratified treaty, and observation that the same purpose would be accomplished by the exchange of notes proposed in Department’s telegram No. 9, February 5. |
996 |
| Feb. 8 (10) |
From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Fear that suggested procedure would entail long-drawn-out negotiations which would be distasteful to Turkey and that effective date for application of new duties would arrive before negotiations could be concluded; recommendation of note (text printed) which will safeguard American interests and satisfy Turkey. |
996 |
| Feb. 14 |
From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Submittal of draft note as modified by Foreign Office (text printed), with request for instructions. |
997 |
| Feb. 16 |
To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Approval of draft note with a modification in phraseology and instructions to effect the understanding either by exchange of notes, procès-verbal, or declaration. |
998 |
| Mar. 1 (1803) |
From the High Commissioner in Turkey
Notes exchanged February 18 between American High Commissioner and Turkish Foreign Minister (texts printed), with respect to according mutual most-favored-nation treatment in customs matters pending ratification of the treaty. |
999 |
| July 30 (2008) |
From the High Commissioner in
Turkey
Information that American High Commissioner and Foreign Minister exchanged notes July 20 to extend the commercial modus vivendi for 6 months dating from August 20. |
1000 |
Participation of the High Commissioner in Turkey in Collective Note Requesting Exemption of Diplomatic and Consular Officers From Consumption and Other Special Taxes
| Date and number | Subject | Page |
| 1926 June 22 (55) |
From the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Request for permission to join diplomatic body in signing collective note to the Turkish Government requesting exemption of diplomatic and consular officers from payment of consumption and other special taxes recently enacted. |
1001 |
| June 25 (44) |
To the High Commissioner in Turkey (tel.) Permission to sign collective note if High Commissioner thinks this the best method of protecting American interests, considering the difference between his status and that of his colleagues. |
1001 |
| July 7 (1973) |
From the High Commissioner in
Turkey
Information that High Commissioner signed note, believing that it would carry more weight with Turkish authorities than any other course open to him. |
1001 |
| Aug. 18 (2035) |
From the Chargé in Turkey
Information that as late as August 9, Foreign Office had received no reply to its favorable recommendation to Council of Ministers on action requested by diplomatic corps. |
1002 |