883.0513/88
The Minister in Egypt (Howell) to
the Secretary of State
Cairo, April 9,
1926.
[Received May 7.]
No. 793
Sir: Adverting to my telegram No. 12, of April
9, 11 a.m., and apropos of same, I have the honor to herewith enclose a
copy of a note which I sent to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, in
which I called attention to the agreement entered into between the
Egyptian Government and the Great Powers when the Mixed Courts were
established, as it applied to the representation of each in the
Courts.
I have found the appointment was about to be made, indeed, it was said
likely to be announced any moment, and I desired at least in advance of
the appointment to let them know that we are taking note of the proposal
in question and recognize it as out of conformity with the
agreement.
I have [etc.]
[Page 556]
[Enclosure]
The American Minister (Howell) to the Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs
(Ziwar)
Cairo, April 9,
1926.
No. 339
Excellency: I have the honor to refer to
the changes that have recently taken place in the appointment of
advisers to the various Ministries. It is noted among these changes
that Judge Booth, a British subject, has been appointed Adviser to
the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, making vacant the place which he
has hitherto held as Judge of the Mixed Court of Cairo. I am
creditably informed that it is proposed to fill the vacancy thus
caused in the Mixed Court by the appointment of Judge Booth to the
position above noted, by another Britisher. I respectfully desire to
call Your Excellency’s attention to the fact that this would seem to
be out of conformity with the agreement entered into between the
Great Powers and the Egyptian Government when these courts were
established. You will permit me to call Your Excellency’s attention
to the letter of Her Britannic Majesty’s representative in
Constantinople at the time the Courts were established, Sir Henry
Elliot, the pertinent points of which, touching upon this subject,
read as follows:2
“The question which was raised respecting the nationality of
the judges to be named for the new tribunals received the
attention it deserved from Her Majesty’s Government who
concur in the view of the Khedive as to the importance of
avoiding giving any preponderance to one nationality over
another in the selection of the judges either in
constituting the tribunal or in supplying the vacancies that
may from time to time occur among them.
“The point was held to be so essential, not only for the
interests of British litigants, but also to secure the new
tribunals from any suspicion of partiality, that, to prevent
any question of the kind from hereafter arising Her
Majesty’s Government have instructed me to intimate that
their final acceptance was dependent upon the maintenance of
this principle.”
I raise this question now that Your Excellency may be apprised of our
taking note of the fact that such action is recognized as out of
conformity with the agreement above mentioned.
I seize this opportunity [etc.]
