701.05/138
The Chargé in Switzerland ( Dolbeare ) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 28.]
Sir: Upon my arrival in Berne I learned that during the preceding month a clerk in this Legation had violated a local ordinance involving a fine of twenty francs and that the matter had come to the attention of the police, I called immediately upon the householder on whose property the trespass had taken place to give him apologies on behalf of the Legation and of the individual concerned. He was most friendly in the matter and stated that as soon as he had learned the nature of the affair he had at once communicated both with the police and with the Foreign Office to the effect that he had not the slightest wish to sustain the charge. The Foreign Office took no action and I had supposed the matter concluded. Yesterday, however, a police officer called at the dwelling of the clerk bringing to him an official statement that a fine had been imposed on him in the amount of twenty francs plus five francs for the cost of execution.
Calling at the Federal Political Department on another matter, I mentioned this affair and asked whether it was not customary for the Political Department to notify the Legation in the event that one of its staff contravened any of the local regulations or ordinances. My attention was thereupon drawn to a circular issued by the Political Department on February 14, 1921, setting forth the attitude taken by the Swiss Government toward Chiefs of Mission, diplomatic personnel, and “technical or auxiliary official personnel” of the Legations. It appears that in the Swiss view a Chief of Mission enjoys immunity for himself, his family and domestics; other duly accredited diplomatic officers enjoy immunity from the local jurisdiction and freedom from local taxation; the remainder of the Legation’s personnel enjoys, by courtesy, exemption from local taxation and from the laws requiring the surrender of passports, but does not enjoy immunity from local police jurisdiction.
This circular instruction was transmitted to the Department with the Legation’s despatch No. 514, February 21, 1921, and acknowledged [Page 761] by the Department’s instruction No. 200, May 2, 1921,8 but no comment was made on the restriction therein set forth on privileges of the employees of the Legation so far as their submission to the local police is concerned.
It is apparent that strangers in the country unacquainted with all the laws of the place might unwittingly contravene police regulations and there is a distinct possibility of the work of the Mission being handicapped if its staff may be interfered with by the police. On the other hand, the Swiss Government has not only the problem of harboring at Berne a certain number of foreigners in the employ of the various Legations, but has also the problem at Geneva of the extensive Secretariat of the League of Nations which includes hundreds of persons.
I mentioned to the Political Department that I was doubtful whether the American Government had taken full cognizance of the position taken by the Swiss Government in this matter and stated that I should be grateful if the proceedings against the Legation’s employee might be delayed until the Legation could acquaint the Department of State with the problem and learn its position in the matter. In the event that the Department of State accords more liberal treatment to duly registered Legation employees in Washington, I should be glad to receive instructions as to what action should be taken. If, however, the Department holds that the employees of foreign Legations in Washington are subject to the police jurisdiction of that city, I should be glad to be informed in order that I may advise the clerk in question to pay the fine without further delay.
I may add that a withdrawal of immunity from employees of the Swiss Legation in Washington would fail to influence the Political Department in the matter. In fact, the official with whom I spoke stated that as these matters were usually on a reciprocal basis he could quite well foresee that the Department would restrict Swiss privileges in Washington and in this event the Political Department could raise no objection. In general, the tendency of the Swiss Government is to restrict the courtesies and privileges accorded to diplomatic officers to a minimum and the Department may wish to consider whether in negotiating a treaty of commerce and amity with Switzerland in the near future it would not be well to include an article defining the privileges and immunities to be accorded on a reciprocal basis to diplomatic officers and Legation personnel of the contracting parties.
I have [etc.]
- Neither printed.↩