883.0513/89
The Minister in Egypt (Howell) to
the Secretary of State
Cairo, May 17,
1926.
[Received June 14.]
No. 824
Sir: I have the honor to refer to my Despatch
No. 793, of April 9, 1926, in which I called the attention of the
Department to the
[Page 557]
agreement
entered into between the Egyptian Government and the Great Powers when
the Mixed Courts were established, as it applied to the representatives
of each in the courts.
I am just now in receipt of the reply to my Note No. 339, of April 9,
1926, addressed to His Excellency Ahmed Ziwar Pasha, Minister for
Foreign Affairs, a copy and translation of which I enclose herewith,
which is self explanatory.
I may say in this connection that I have sent a copy of this note from
the Foreign Office to Judge Jasper Y. Brinton, of the Mixed Court of
Appeals, at Alexandria, and likewise a copy to Judge Henry and Judge
Crabitès, of the Mixed Courts of First Instance at Alexandria and Cairo,
respectively, for such comments or observations with respect thereto as
they may desire to make. I shall forward to the Department in due course
a copy of their replies touching upon this question.
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure—Translation]
The Egyptian Ministry for
Foreign Affairs to the American
Legation
Cairo, May 16,
1926.
No. 29.9/2(1065)
By letter dated April 9, 1926, No. 339, the American Legation saw fit
to draw the attention of this Ministry to the opportunity of
replacing by an American Judge Mr. Booth, Judge in the Mixed Courts,
who has been appointed Counsellor to the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs.
In reply the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has the honor to point out
in the first place that the principle announced in the letter of Sir
Henry Elliot was never accepted by the Egyptian Government. This
letter cannot be considered as a convention between the Britannic
and Egyptian Governments, but only as a wish of the Britannic
Government upon which it did not insist at the moment of a definite
accord.
The Courts of the Reform are Egyptian courts and freedom of
appointment and of choice of judges is not limited except by the
conditions imposed in Article 5 of the Regulation of the Judicial
Organization.3
If the Egyptian Government has agreed with certain Powers to choose
among their national[s] a certain number of judges, its right of
free choice for the supplemental seats has been affirmed many
times.
In fact, by Convention, the Great Capitulatory Powers, originally
seven and now four (France, Great Britain, Italy and the United
States of America) have the right each one to the position of
Counsellor to the Court and the Egyptian Government accorded them
later also
[Page 558]
the positions
of Judge of First Instance. Also, and in certain cases by analogy,
it has admitted to other Capitulatory Powers the right to positions
either a Counsellor and a Judge, or two Judges of First
Instance.
Beyond this minimum the Egyptian Government has always reserved to
itself the right to choose freely among all the Capitulatory Powers,
and even non-Capitulatory Powers, for the other positions of Judges
created or to be created in the Court of Appeal and in the Courts of
First Instance. This has been recognized in various correspondence
exchanged between Egypt and the Powers. Thus at the beginning of the
“Reforme” there were three Dutchmen and three Belgians in the Courts
of First Instance, and later two Swiss Judges were appointed,
although Switzerland is not a Capitulatory country.
Then, after the beginning of the War, Germany and Austria lost the
rights belonging to them by treaty, the Egyptian Government gave the
four posts thus becoming vacant in the First Instance to two
Englishmen (one of whom was the predecessor of Mr. Booth), a
Frenchman and an Italian. The Government of the United States must
have recognized the justice of what precedes since at that moment it
did not formulate any protest, and in 1916 it renewed the mandate of
Mixed Tribunals without making objection to the action of the
Egyptian Government.
The Ministry for Foreign Affairs seizes the occasion to renew to the
American Legation the assurances of its high consideration.
