711.632/22a

The Secretary of State to the Minister in Austria ( Washburn )

No. 552

Sir: The following instructions in regard to the provisions of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights, which you are engaged in negotiating with Austria are in continuation of the Department’s instructions No. 459 of May 12, 1926 and No. 527 of December 1, 1926.

Article XV. Criminal and civil jurisdiction over consular officers

Three suggestions were made by Austria in regard to Article XV:

(1)
That in the first paragraph the words “felonious crimes” be substituted for the word “crimes” in line 6 and the word “felon” be substituted for “criminal” in line 8.
(2)
That the provisions of the third paragraph that consular officers shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in the State which receives them in civil cases will be understood to mean that Austrian consular officers in the United States can be sued in the federal courts and not in the State courts. It is understood that in Austria all courts are federal courts.
(3)
That when in attendance at a trial as a witness in a criminal case, a consular officer may be required to testify only as to facts and shall not be required to testify as an expert. The Austrians proposed the following as a substitute for the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article XV:

“In cases of felonies the attendance at the trial by a consular officer as a witness as to fact may be demanded by the prosecution or defense.”

With reference to the first suggestion you state that the Austrian experts understand that the term, “offenses locally designated as crimes” in the United States, which was used in the draft submitted to the Austrian Government by you, is sufficiently broad to include misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment, whereas the German term corresponding to the word “crimes”, which would be used in the Austrian text, has a narrower meaning and includes only serious offenses such as are regarded as felonies in the United States. The Austrian negotiators fear that the provision as originally drafted would operate unequally on American consular officers in Austria and Austrian consular officers in the United States to the disadvantage of the latter in that by reason of the breadth of meaning of the word “crimes”, Austrian consular officers in the United States would be subject to prosecution not only for offenses of the gravity of a felony, but also for misdemeanors, while American consular officers in Austria, by reason of the narrower meaning of the German term would be subject to prosecution for serious offenses only and not for misdemeanors.

The same question came up in the negotiation of the treaty with Germany, and the American draft of that treaty which was in the same language as the original draft submitted to Austria, was modified before signing so as to subject consular officers to prosecution for “offenses locally designated as crimes other than misdemeanors”. The first paragraph of Article XVIII of the Treaty with Germany, which corresponds to Article XV of the draft under negotiation with Austria, reads as follows:

“Consular officers, nationals of the state by which they are appointed, shall be exempt from arrest except when charged with the commission of offenses locally designated as crimes other than misdemeanors and subjecting the individual guilty thereof to punishment. Such officers shall be exempt from military billetings, and from service of any military or naval, administrative or police character whatsoever.”

The paragraph in this form is included in the Treaties of the United States with Hungary (Article XV) and Estonia (Article XVII) as well as in the Treaty with Germany (Article XVIII).

You are instructed to propose to the Austrian Foreign Office that the above quoted paragraph be substituted for the first paragraph of [Page 945] Article XV of the draft. In the interest of uniformity in the treaties of the United States, this Government would be glad if Austria would accept it in lieu of the suggestion made by that Government. It is believed that it meets the criticisms of the original paragraph made by the Austrian negotiators.

With respect to the second suggestion of the Austrian experts relating to the courts in the United States having jurisdiction over consular officers, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States, to which reference was made in your despatch No. 374 of December 18, 1923, is of course applicable. The Department confirms your explanation to the Austrian experts that the Supreme Court of the United States has original but not exclusive jurisdiction over consular officers and that a consular officer cannot be impleaded in a State court. Section 256 of the Judicial Code which became effective January 1, 1912, (36 Stat. L. 1160) and is still in force reads as follows:

“The jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States in the cases and proceedings hereinafter mentioned, shall be exclusive of the courts of the several states: …

Eighth. Of all suits and proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, or against consuls or vice consuls.”

Your assurance to the Austrian negotiator that the proposed treaty provision will effect no change in existing judicial procedure as respects courts in which Austrian consular officers in the United States may be impleaded was entirely correct.

With respect to the suggestion made by the Austrian negotiators that in criminal cases consular officers may be required to testify only as to matters of fact and not as experts, it may be stated that this Government does not perceive any particular merit in this suggestion. There would be little occasion for a consular officer to testify in criminal proceedings as an expert witness, and since the second paragraph of Article XV of the draft, to which this suggestion relates provides that the demand for the attendance of a consular officer at trials shall be made with all possible regard for the consular dignity and the duties of the office, it would seem that he is adequately safeguarded.

This Government considers that the right to demand the attendance of a consular officer as a witness in criminal cases should relate to cases of misdemeanors as well as of felonies. It has no desire to have its consular officers in Austria exempt from attendance as witnesses in cases of misdemeanors when the ends of justice would be advanced by their attendance; and under the treaties concluded by this country with Germany, Hungary, and Estonia consuls do not enjoy such an exemption. This Government, therefore, does not agree to the substitution of the words “In cases of felonies” for “In criminal cases” at the beginning of the second paragraph [Page 946] of Article XV. It would be agreeable to this Government to consider a suggestion as to the German text which would correspond exactly to the expression “In criminal cases”, the latter being understood to include misdemeanors as well as felonies. The provision as contained in the original draft submitted to Austria was adopted in the treaties of the United States with Germany, (Article XVIII), Hungary (Article XV), and Estonia (Article XVII). In view of the foregoing explanation it is hoped that the Austrian Government will find the paragraph in its original form acceptable.

Article XVI. Exemptions of consular officers and government property from taxation

The first paragraph of this Article provides that consular officers including employees in a consulate nationals of the State by which they are appointed other than those engaged in private occupations for gain within the State where they exercise their functions shall be exempt from taxation with certain exceptions. The provision of the Article establishing exceptions from the exemption, namely the taxation to which a consular officer is subject, reads as follows:

“… except taxes levied on account of the possession or ownership of immovable property situated in, or income derived from property of any kind situated or belonging within the territories of the State within which they exercise their functions.”

The Austrian experts proposed that this provision be amended to read as follows:

“… except taxes levied on account of income derived from any property situated within the territories of the State within which they exercise their functions, according to the laws of that State, upon all foreigners, who have no domicile or residence within that State.”

It is noted (1) that taxes levied on account of the possession or ownership of immovable property situated in the country of the official residence of the consular officer, which constituted one of the exceptions to the exemptions from taxation as contained in the American draft, and which consular officers therefore, would be liable to pay thereunder, are omitted from the exceptions as stated in the Austrian counter proposal and (2) that in the Austrian draft the taxability of the income of a consular officer from property is made to depend on a test of domicile or residence applied to all foreigners instead of merely on the situs of the property from which the income is derived as was provided in the American draft.

The effect of the omission of the exception in respect of immovable property would be to accord consular officers exemption from the payment [Page 947] of taxes levied on account of the possession or ownership of such property situated in the country of their official residence, an exemption which this Government does not believe there is sufficient reason for according. From the point of view of this Government it is undesirable to introduce into the treaty in the matter of exemption of income from taxation, the test of domicile or residence involved in the provision of the Austrian draft. Confusion might arise in the application of such a provision in the United States because under the American doctrine consular officers of a foreign country in the United States are considered to have their residence here, although they may retain their domicile in another country.

As indicated above, among the exceptions to the exemption from taxation included in the American draft was income derived from property of any kind situated or belonging within the territories of the State in which the consular officer exercises his functions. The Austrian experts referred to this provision as being too general and vague.

This Government is prepared to admit that the expression “belonging within” as used to describe property, may be somewhat vague. It is not believed, however, that the use of the expression will give rise to any difficulties of interpretation in the United States and this Government would be glad if Austria would accept it. If, however, the Austrian negotiators insist on a more precise expression, you are authorized to suggest that the words “from sources within” be substituted for the words “from property of any kind situated or belonging within”. For the reasons already stated, this Government does not desire to accept the counter-draft of the first paragraph of Article XVI submitted by Austria. The provision in regard to the taxation of consuls in the language of the draft which was submitted to Austria was accepted in the treaties concluded by the United States with Germany (Article XIX), Hungary (Article XVI) and Estonia (Article XVIII). This Government would be glad if Austria would accept this paragraph of the original draft without change, or at least without other modification than the substitution of the words “from sources within” in place of “from property of any kind situated or belonging within”.

The second paragraph of Article XVI of the draft submitted to Austria provides that lands and buildings situated in the territories of either Party of which the other Party is the legal or equitable owner and which are used exclusively for governmental purposes by the owner shall be exempt from taxation. The Austrian negotiators desired to have the word “governmental” omitted and the term “diplomatic or consular” substituted therefor. They fear that the term “governmental” is too broad in that the Government might use a building for purely commercial or industrial purposes and vet be entitled to exemption [Page 948] from taxation thereon because those purposes might be regarded as governmental. While this Government does not understand the word “governmental” as used in the second paragraph of Article XVI of the draft as embracing the meaning suggested by the Austrian negotiators, it is willing to accept the suggestion that the words “diplomatic or consular” be substituted therefor.

Article XVI as rewritten pursuant to the foregoing discussion is as follows:

“Consular officers, including employees in a consulate, nationals of the State by which they are appointed other than those engaged in private occupations for gain within the State where they exercise their functions shall be exempt from all taxes, National, State, Provincial and Municipal, levied upon their persons or upon their property, except taxes levied on account of the possession or ownership of immovable property situated in, or income derived from sources within the territories of the State within which they exercise their functions. All consular officers and employees, nationals of the State appointing them shall be exempt from the payment of taxes on the salary, fees or wages received by them in compensation for their consular services.

“Lands and buildings situated in the territories of either High Contracting Party, of which the other High Contracting Party is the legal or equitable owner and which are used exclusively for diplomatic or consular purposes by that owner, shall be exempt from taxation of every kind, National, State, Provincial and Municipal, other than assessments levied for services or local public improvements by which the premises are benefited.”

Article XVII. Privileges of consular officers

The Austrian negotiators desire that there be included in this Article a provision protecting consular titles, arms, and flags against illegal use, stating that foreign consular officers in the United States have frequently been obliged to apply to local authorities for assistance in preventing the unauthorized use of consular insignia and that in some of the States there are no laws under which assistance could be obtained.

This same suggestion was made by the German negotiators in the course of the negotiation of the Treaty with Germany and the Department deemed it inadvisable to accede to the wishes of the German Government because of the inadequacy of existing legislative authority of the Federal Government to meet the obligation which would be undertaken by such a provision. The Department appears not to be in possession of information to confirm the statement of the Austrian negotiators that the unauthorized use of foreign consular emblems in the United States has been frequent. In the absence of information to that effect the Department is not in a position to make the recommendations necessary to obtain remedial legislation in regard to the matter.

[Page 949]

Article XVII of the American draft of the Treaty submitted to Austria conforms precisely to Article XX of the Treaty of the United States with Germany, Article XVII of the Treaty with Hungary, and Article XIX of the Treaty with Estonia, The Department desires that you endeavor to have Article XVII accepted by Austria without change.

Article XX. Competency of consular officer to take charge of property of deceased national, qualify as administrator, etc.

The counter-draft of Article XX submitted by Austria as quoted in your despatch No. 419 of March 4, 1924,79 presents four points of difference from the draft which you submitted to the Austrian Government.

(1)
A paragraph is inserted between the first and second paragraphs requiring local authorities of one country to inform the nearest consular officer of the other of the mental incompetency or insanity of nationals of his country when mental incompetency or insanity is declared.
(2)
The provision “so far as the laws of the country permit” in the second paragraph of the American draft is omitted from the Austrian counter-draft.
(3)
The final sentence of the second paragraph of the American draft is revised so as to confer on consular officers the paramount and exclusive right to be appointed administrator in case of the death of a national without will or testament, unless the laws of the place where the estate is administered provide for administration by a public officer; and the sentence as revised is made a separate paragraph.
(4)
Two new paragraphs are added to the Article, the first of which would require any tribunal or other agency of either country before which an estate is pending in which absent, unknown, incompetent or minor nationals of the other country are among the heirs, next of kin, legatees or devisees, to inform the nearest consular officer of that country of such fact and the second of which would give to such consular officer the right to represent such nationals of his country personally or by delegate, in all proceedings relating to the estate.

The German negotiators of the Treaty of the United States with that country raised the same question that the Austrians have raised in regard to notifying consular officers of mental incompetency and insanity of their countrymen. The Department took the position with the German negotiators that this Government would not be warranted in imposing the additional obligation on the local authorities. The request was not pressed by Germany and no such provision was included in the Treaty. Compliance with the requirements of the provision proposed by Austria would necessarily rest with the local State authorities in the United States and it would be difficult for the Federal Government to see that such an obligation, [Page 950] if placed upon them by Treaty, was carried out. Such a provision is not contained in any treaty to which the United States is a party, and this Government deems it inadvisable to enter into more extensive commitments with foreign governments than have already been undertaken entailing duties on State authorities. For these reasons the Department does not desire to accept the Austrian proposal.

With reference to the omission of the clause “so far as the laws of the country permit” from the second paragraph of Article XX of the Austrian draft, the Department would be glad to have you bring to the attention of the Austrian negotiators that in the United States the matter of administration on the estates of deceased persons is subject to control by the State Legislatures, and that a treaty provision qualifying consular officers of a foreign country to take possession of property without regard to the provisions of State laws would be an encroachment upon the recognized jurisdiction of the State, which it is deemed inadvisable to make.

The provision of the last sentence of the second paragraph of Article XX of the American draft relating to the right of consular officers to be appointed as administrators of the estates of their deceased intestate nationals, as modified and made a separate paragraph in the Austrian counter-draft, would confer on consular officers a paramount and exclusive right to be appointed administrators in such cases unless the laws of the place where the estate is administered provide for administration by a public officer. If the paragraph proposed by Austria were adopted, the courts in the United States would be deprived of much of the discretion which they now have and exercise in the appointment of administrators under the laws of the several States, and which would still be permissible to them under the provisions in the American draft. The establishment of such a situation would disturb the procedure in many of the States, where, as has just been mentioned, the appointment of administrators is largely in the discretion of the local courts and where it may also be stated the laws authorize the appointment of such persons as the next of kin and creditors. For these reasons the Department considers it not to be desirable for this Government to accept the proposed modification. The second paragraph of Article XX of the American draft of the Treaty submitted to Austria is identical with the corresponding paragraph of Article XXIV of the Treaty of the United States with Germany, Article XX of the Treaty with Hungary, and Article XXIII of the Treaty with Estonia, In the interest of uniformity in the treaties of the United States and to avoid interference with State laws and judicial procedure this Government is unwilling to agree to the two modifications to paragraph 2 of Article XX proposed by Austria. The Department [Page 951] desires that you endeavor to have the paragraph as in the American draft accepted.

With reference to the provisions of the first of the two paragraphs which Austria proposed to add to Article XX the same objections apply on the part of this Government as apply to the proposal for the giving of notice in regard to cases of mental incompetency or insanity, as stated above. With reference to the provision of the final paragraph of the Austrian counter-draft of the Article, the same objections apply as apply to the proposed omission of the provision “so far as the laws of the country permit” from the second paragraph.

Under the second paragraph of the American draft of Article XX Austrian consular officers in the United States will be qualified insofar as it is permitted under State laws and pending the appointment of an administrator to take charge of the property left by intestate nationals of their country for its preservation and protection. They will also have the right to be appointed as administrators of such estates within the discretion of the tribunal or other agency controlling the administration of estates provided the laws of the place where the estate is administered so permit,—namely, the State laws. It would seem that estates affected by these provisions would include most of those in which absent, unknown, incompetent or minor nationals of Austria are among the heirs, next of kin, legatees or devisees. This Government would avoid entering into any treaty stipulation which would enlarge the scope of these provisions so as to qualify foreign consular officers irrespective of State laws to act as representative of the distributees of estates in the United States or would restrict the freedom of the States in respect of recognizing other persons than consular officers in such capacities.

The Department desires that you endeavor to have Article XX of the American draft accepted by Austria without modification. It is identical with the corresponding Articles of the Treaties of the United States with Germany (Article XXIV), Hungary (Article XX) and Estonia (Article XXIII), and of drafts which this Government has submitted to other Governments. In the interest of uniformity in the treaties of the United States and to avoid intruding any further than is warranted by precedent into the realm of affairs over which the States exercise jurisdiction, the Department considers it impracticable to accept the modifications of Article XX proposed by Austria.

Article XXI. Competency of consular officer to receive funds, etc.

Article XXI of the American draft provides that a consular officer, may, in behalf of his non-resident countrymen, receipt for their [Page 952] distributive shares of estates in process of probate, or of amounts accruing under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Laws or other like statutes, provided he remit any funds so received through the appropriate agencies of his Government to the proper distributees, and provided further that he furnish to the authority or agency making distribution through him, evidence of remission of such funds. The Austrian negotiators suggested that the proviso requiring the consular officer to furnish evidence of remission be omitted, and that there be substituted therefor a provision to the effect that a receipt given by a consular officer under his official seal and signature shall be accepted as a release in the country where he is accredited. They also suggested that the words “collect and” be inserted in line 4 between the words “countrymen” and “receipt”.

The Department recognizes that the principal suggestion is not without merit. It can understand that the Austrian Government might consider it to be unnecessary that the agency distributing proceeds of an estate in the United States, and paying a portion thereof to an Austrian consular officer as representative of his non-resident countrymen, should follow funds beyond the hands of the consular officer, on the principle that the matter of the funds reaching the proper distributee is one between such officer and his Government. This Governmen assumes that it would be the official duty of the foreign consular officer to make proper disposition of funds received by him for the purposes mentioned in the Article, and that it would be the function of his Government to see that he performed his duty in this regard.

The Department considers that the question of retaining or omitting the proviso is not of great importance. The article with the proviso is identical with Article XXV of the Treaty of the United States with Germany, Article XXI of the Treaty with Hungary, and Article XXIV of the Treaty with Estonia. In order to avoid a departure from these treaties the Department desires that you endeavor to prevail upon the Austrian authorities to accept Article XXI of the American draft without modification. You may inform them that while this Government appreciates their viewpoint with respect to the proviso, it would be glad if Austria would accept the article without change in order that it may be uniform with the corresponding article of the Treaties which are in force between the United States and Germany, Hungary, and Estonia, respectively. You are authorized, however, to consent to the omission of the proviso, if the Austrian authorities attach great importance to their suggestion. This Government does not desire, however, to substitute therefor the provision that a receipt of the consular officer under his official seal and signature shall be accepted as a release. The Department has no objection to the acceptance of the words “collect and” after “countrymen” in the fourth line of the draft.

[Page 953]

Article XXII. Exemptions from duty of importations of consular supplies and belongings of consuls

The Department has considered the proposals made by the Austrian negotiators for the modification of the first paragraph of Article XXII of the draft and the counter-proposal made by you, as follows, which it is understood is acceptable to the Austrian negotiators:

“Each of the High Contracting Parties agrees to permit the entry free of all duty and without examination of any kind, of all furniture, equipment and supplies intended for official use in the consular offices of the other, and to extend to such consular officers of the other and their families and suites as are its nationals, the privilege of entry free of duty of their personal or household effects actually in use which accompany such consular officers, their families or suites, or which arrive shortly thereafter, provided, nevertheless, that no article, the importation of which is prohibited by the law of either of the High Contracting Parties, may be brought into its territories.”

The Department understands that the effect of the proposed modification would be to reduce the exemption from import duties accorded to consular officers below the proposals of the American draft, in that under the provisions of the American draft consular officers of each country in the other would be entitled to free entry for their families and suites of their baggage and all other personal property, either accompanying them to their posts or imported at any time during the officer’s incumbency, while under the provision as revised they would be entitled to free entry only of their personal or household effects accompanying them, their families or suites, or arriving shortly thereafter.

The draft of the treaty sent to you bore a notation opposite Article XXII that under the customs regulations of the United States foreign consuls, their families and servants are granted on a basis of reciprocity free entry of all baggage and household goods which accompany them to the United States, or which arrive shortly thereafter, that they are required to pay regular duty on subsequent importations of personal property, and that official supplies for consular offices are admitted free of duty. As the first paragraph of Article XXII as modified by you and as acceptable to the Austrian negotiators is in substantial conformity to the provisions of the customs regulations of the United States, this Government has no serious objection to accepting the modified draft. It was believed, however, that the broader exceptions provided in the original draft would be of advantage to consular officers of foreign countries in the United States as well as of American consular officers in foreign countries, and that as the resulting loss of revenue to Governments would be small, foreign Governments would willingly accept the [Page 954] provision. It was accepted by Germany (Article XXVII), and Hungary (Article XXII).

If the provision as revised by you is adopted in the Treaty with Austria, consular officers of Austria in the United States will be required to pay duties on the importation of all personal property not accompanying them or arriving in the United States shortly after their arrival, whereas consular officers of Germany and Hungary, their families and suites will receive free of duty all personal property imported during the incumbency of the officer. While this Government prefers that the first paragraph of Article XXII of the original draft be accepted by Austria without change, yet if, after further consideration in the light of the foregoing statement, the paragraph as originally drawn is unacceptable to Austria, this Government will accept the modified form drawn by you and quoted above from your despatch No. 374 of December 18, 1923. The Department understands that the second paragraph of Article XXII of the original draft is acceptable to Austria whether the first paragraph be modified or not.

Article XXIII. Definition of territories and nationals

This Government desires to withdraw the second paragraph of Article XXIII of its draft. It would appear that cases might arise in which each party to the Treaty would deem that the same person owed permanent allegiance to it. The provision in the second paragraph would seem to contribute nothing to the solution of such a question when it might arise and would be unnecessary in other circumstances. This paragraph does not appear in the treaties signed with Germany, Hungary or Estonia.

Article XXIV. Treaty of August 24, 1921, establishing friendly relations 80

You are authorized to suggest that the words “or to Austria or its nationals” be inserted after “nationals” at the end of the fifth line of Article XXIV of the original draft. The Article then will read as follows:

“Nothing in the present Treaty shall be construed to limit or restrict in any way the rights, privileges and advantages accorded to the United States or its nationals or to Austria or its nationals, by the Treaty between the United States and Austria establishing friendly relations, concluded on August 24, 1921.”

A corresponding provision is contained in the Treaty with Germany (Article XXX) and in the Treaty with Hungary (Article XXIV).

[Page 955]

Article XXV. Duration and termination of treaty

Article XXV deals with the duration of the treaty and modes of terminating it. It is deemed wise to fix the initial period of operation at ten years in regard to all matters with respect to which the Contracting Parties have a permanent policy and to require one year’s notice of termination.

The reservation made by the Senate when giving its advice and consent to the ratification of the Treaty with Germany that the fifth paragraph of Article VII and Articles IX and XI of that Treaty should be terminable at the end of one year was referred to in instruction No. 527 of December 1, 1926. It is necessary that provisions in treaties which this Government may conclude with other countries corresponding to that paragraph and those Articles of the Treaty with Germany shall likewise be made terminable at the end of one year. No provisions similar to the fifth paragraph of Article VII or Articles IX and XI of the Treaty with Germany were contained in the draft originally submitted to Austria. The new paragraph of Article VII suggested on page 3 of instruction No. 527 is, as pointed out in that instruction, the same as the fifth paragraph of Article VII of the Treaty with Germany and the sixth paragraph of Article VII of the treaty with Hungary, enlarged so as to relate to exportations as well as importations. In its enlarged form it is contained in the Treaties with Estonia and Salvador as the fifth paragraph of Article VII. In all of these treaties the provision is terminable at the end of one year.

If the paragraph quoted on page 3 of instruction No. 527 be accepted by Austria and included in Article VII, it should be made terminable at the end of one year.

Article XXV of the draft under negotiation should then be replaced by the following:

Article xxv

“Except as provided in the third paragraph of this Article the present Treaty shall remain in full force for the term of ten years from the date of the exchange of ratifications, on which date it shall begin to take effect in all of its provisions.

“If within one year before the expiration of the aforesaid period of ten years neither High Contracting Party notifies to the other an intention of modifying by change or omission, any of the provisions of any of the articles in this Treaty or of terminating it upon the expiration of the aforesaid period, the Treaty shall remain in full force and effect after the aforesaid period and until one year from such a time as either of the High Contracting Parties shall have notified to the other an intention of modifying or terminating the Treaty.

[Page 956]

“The ——* paragraph of Article VII shall remain in force for twelve months from the date of exchange of ratifications, and if not then terminated on ninety days’ previous notice shall remain in force until either of the High Contracting Parties shall enact legislation inconsistent therewith when the same shall automatically lapse at the end of sixty days from such enactment, and on such lapse each High Contracting Party shall enjoy all the rights which it would have possessed had such paragraphs or articles not been embraced in the Treaty.”

You will observe that the second paragraph of this Article is the same as the second paragraph of Article XXV of the original draft and that the new Article differs from the Article in the original draft by the addition of the words “Except as provided in the third paragraph of this Article” at the beginning of the first paragraph and by the addition of the third paragraph. The third paragraph makes provision for the duration and termination of the proposed new paragraph of Article VII on the conditions which, pursuant to the reservation made by the Senate of the United States, apply to the fifth paragraph of Article VII of the Treaty with Germany, and which also have been made to apply to the corresponding provision in the Treaties with Hungary, Estonia and Salvador.

If further questions arising in the course of the negotiations are not too numerous or complicated the Department will with a view to expediting the completion of the negotiations be glad to have you report by telegram in regard to such points as you may desire further instructions.

I am [etc.]

Frank B. Kellogg
  1. Not printed.
  2. Foreign Relations, 1921, vol. i, p. 274.
  3. Note: Insert fifth or sixth according to the position given the paragraph if it is included in Article VII. [Footnote in the original.]