851.502/25
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Herrick)
Sir: The Department refers to your despatch No. 8379 of February 28, 1928, and previous despatches32 concerning the apparent violations of Article 7 of the Consular Convention of 1853 between the United States and France33 by the decisions of various French courts in landlord and tenant cases, and now desires you to bring this matter personally to the attention of the appropriate official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The statement in the last paragraph of Article 7 of the Convention, to the effect that “the Government of France accords the citizens of the United States the same rights within its territory in respect to real and personal property and to inheritance as are enjoyed there by its own citizens” would seem to admit of no exception except that of reciprocity provided for in the first part of the paragraph. The Court of Cassation, on January 26, 1928, in the case of Conner versus Thouret held as follows:
“… But whereas, on the one hand, this Convention, whose subject is to regulate in a general way the situation of French citizens in the United States and that of American citizens in France, does not apply to very special legislation such as the French legislation on leased property which, not being affected by international law, is made up of a number of derogations to the common law which are necessitated by the results of the war; …
“Whereas, on the other hand, there exists no treaty between France and the United States concerning special legislation on leased property; and whereas Article 1101 of the Civil Code of the State of New York, cited in the appeal, according to which in a city of one million inhabitants or over, or in a town situated in a country next to such a city, a delay is granted until June 1, 1927, to the registered owner of a building, who, as an individual, attempts as the result of a grave public event to recover possession of his property in whole or in part in order to live therein with his family, cannot take the place of diplomatic reciprocity: …”
This Government is not prepared to agree with the conclusions reached by the Court of Cassation in the above quoted decision. In this relation it should be observed that a State complaining of the [Page 833] infraction of a treaty is believed to be justified in declining to admit that its rights under the agreement can be ultimately determined by a foreign local court without the consent of each party to the agreement. While it is doubtless true that French courts are bound to give effect to laws enacted by the French parliament regardless of whether such laws do in effect violate existing treaty engagements of France, it is, of course, open to this Government to hold that the legislation is in violation of existing treaty provisions and to demand that remedial action be taken to protect the violated rights of its nationals.
In this connection, attention is invited to an article entitled “La Législation des loyers d’habitation et les Éltrangers” in which Professor J. Perroud, discussing the law of April 1, 1926,34 makes the following interesting statements (Journal du Droit International, 1927, page 295):
“Propriétaire étranger.—Au moment où s’est élaborée la loi du 1er avril 1926, la jurisprudence reconnaissait au propriétaire étranger la faculté d’exercer le droit de reprise. Cette solution a été volontairement écartée par Particle 5 de la loi du 1er avril 1926, qui vise à deux reprises différentes ‘le propriétaire de nationalité française’.
“Il est à remarquer que ce texte ne contient aucune réserve relative aux traités diplomatiques, alors qu’une réserve expresse est formulée dans l’article immédiatement précédent à propos de la situation du locataire étranger. L’intention du législateur est done trés nette; aucun proprietaire étranger, quels que soient les termes des traités passes entre la France et le pays auquel il appartient, ne peut se soustraire à Particle 5.
“On serait peut-être tenté d’objecter que la loi de 1926, expression unilatérale de la volonté du seul législateur français, ne peut déroger à un traité, convention synallygmatique. Cette objection, dont la valeur est indiscutable, pourrait être présentée par voie de représentations diplomatiques addressées par les États étrangers au Gouvernement français. Mais les tribunaux n’ont pas à en tenir compte. La question de droit international public est distincte de la question de droit privé. De même que les tribunaux français ne peuvent écarter l’application d’une loi française sous prétexte qu’elle serait contraire à la constitution, de même ils ne pourraient se refuser à appliquer la loi du 1er avril 1926 comme contraire au droit international public.”
It will be observed that the author considers that the legislation in question may violate the treaty but that the courts are bound by the municipal law and that the only existing redress is through diplomatic channels.
The Department is unable to concur in the position that any reservation can be read in the last paragraph of Article 7 of the Treaty of 1853 and considers, therefore, that American nationals should be entitled to the benefits of Article 5 of the law of April 1, 1926. The fact [Page 834] that that law confined to French nationals the right to secure the possession of their property does not, in the estimation of the Department, necessarily preclude such a right being enjoyed equally by American nationals. While it would seem necessarily to exclude all aliens whose countries have not concluded treaty provisions of the nature of those contained in Article 7 of the Convention of 1853, it is not perceived why it should be considered as stopping the application of the treaty. Had such been the intention of the legislature, it would seem that it would have clearly specified that the right should be accorded to French nationals only, irrespective of treaty provisions in force between France and foreign Powers.
It is believed that the only reservation which can be read in the treaty provision in question is that of reciprocity and that if it can be established to the satisfaction of the appropriate judicial and administrative authorities that French nationals are not discriminated against in legislation of the same nature in this country, American nationals should be entitled to enjoy the benefits of the law of April 1, 1926. In view of the fact that in the United States rent legislation is one for the determination of the several States, reciprocity in this matter should be determined by reference to the laws of the State of which the American citizen desiring to enjoy the privileges of the French law of April 1, 1926, is a resident. The Department cannot agree with the contention of the Court of Cassation that reciprocity in this matter can only be accomplished by a treaty between the two countries concerning special legislation and that legal reciprocity as such does not ipso facto entitle American citizens in France to the benefits of Article 5 of the law. It is the contention of this Government that the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention is perfectly clear and that American citizens in France should be placed on the same footing as French citizens in matters relating to the ownership and possession of real estate whenever it can be shown that the State in this country of which such American nationals are residents does not discriminate against French citizens in matters pertaining to the ownership and possession of real property.
You may, in your discretion, advert to certain considerations recited by the lower court in the same case of Conner versus Thouret, and which, in the Department’s estimation, must have strongly influenced the Tribunal de Paix of Agenteuil in its decision that Mrs. Conner was not entitled to obtain the repossession of her property:
“Considérant que, si ces motifs juridiques suffisent à justifier la décision que nous allons prendre, celle-ci ne s’en justifie pas moins par certaines considérations que commande la situation économique actuelle; qu’il est, en effet, de notoriété publique que, grâce à la prime que leur procure le change de leur monnaie nationale sur la nôtre, beaucoup de citoyens américains ont acquis en France, au cours de ces [Page 835] dernières annèes, de nombreux et importants immeubles; que l’attention du Parlement français a déjà été appelée sur les dangers qu’une telle situation peut faire courir à l’État; mais qu’il est tout à fait invraisemblable que des Français puissent, avec leur monnaie dépréciée, aller réaliser aux États-Unis des acquisitions de ce genre et de cette importance; qu’à ce point de vue encore, la règle de la réciprocité se trouve ainsi rompue; et qu’il n’est nullement à redouter que des mesures de rétorsion puissent effectivement être exercées contre nos nationaux en Amérique, sous le prétexte que la France refuserait aux citoyens américains un bénéfice que la loi du 1er avril 1926 a voulu réserver aux seuls propriétaires de nationalité française; …” (Quoted from Journal du Droit International, 1927, page 428.)
In conclusion you will state that the French authorities will doubtless agree that the presence in France of numerous American citizens residing therein cannot fail to constitute an important factor in the relations between the two countries and that any discrimination against them which in this Government’s estimation constitutes a violation of treaty provisions between the United States and France cannot fail to cause irritation and bad feeling which this Department does not doubt the French authorities would be the first to deprecate.
You will express the earnest hope of this Department that the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs will consider sympathetically the considerations advanced above and find it possible to devise some means whereby American owners of real property in France may enjoy the benefits of Article 5 of the law of April 1, 1926.
I am [etc.]