711.542/18
The Minister in Switzerland ( Wilson ) to the Secretary of State 15
Sir: I have the honor to refer to my Strictly Confidential despatch No. 335 of March 8th and other correspondence relative to the negotiation of a new treaty with Switzerland and to state that, in accordance with Mr. Motta’s suggestion, I called upon him after my return from Geneva where I attended the session of the Preparatory Commission for Disarmament. I had previously given careful consideration to the Swiss counterdraft of a treaty, transmitted in my despatch No. 358 of March 18th.
At the beginning of the interview, we arranged that I should have a more detailed discussion with other members of the Foreign Office subsequently, in order to be enabled to give to the Department such elucidation as is possible of the Swiss viewpoint on such clauses of [Page 909] the draft as contained views divergent from those entertained by the American Government. I will, of course, report subsequently after having made such a detailed examination of the draft with the Swiss authorities.
Mr. Motta asked me whether in general I felt that the Swiss draft offered a basis on which we could reach an accord. I stated that until I had heard from my Government I could not of course speak authoritatively in this connection but that it seemed to me that my Government might feel reluctant to sign an agreement which so radically curtailed the privileges of consular officers. Such an undertaking on our part might, as he could well understand, form a precedent which we would be very reluctant to see especially since we had always maintained a very generous attitude towards foreign consular officers in the United States and had endeavored to obtain the same treatment for our officers abroad. Mr. Motta stated that the divergence of views between the two governments was probably explained by the fact that whereas we had a consular service of career, the Swiss depended almost entirely upon honorary vice consuls who were Swiss citizens earning their livelihood in a foreign country. He further added that whereas in a big country such immunities and privileges as consular officers enjoyed would not be remarked by the public, in small places such as the Swiss cities such immunities were at once remarked and caused adverse criticism in the Swiss public. However, he added that of course the Swiss Government was not wedded to any particular form of phraseology, they had endeavored to set forth their viewpoint in the draft and would welcome any counter suggestion or further endeavor to harmonize our views. It was suggested in the conversation that if there were certain points on which we could not come to an agreement, the debatable questions might be left out of the treaty and the treaty could at least indicate those points on which our two governments were in harmony.
Since I have been at this post I have been struck by the fact that nearly all the difficulties which we have with the Swiss Government arise from two causes, first, from the difference of interpretation of nationality which brings about cases where persons who are American citizens under our law are Swiss citizens under Swiss law and therefore claimed for military service. The second category of cases are those of taxation of American citizens residing for greater or less periods within Switzerland. The various cantons subject our citizens to taxation, both income tax and inheritance dues, in accordance with their own, and diversified, interpretation of whether such citizens are or are not “domiciled” in Switzerland.
With the foregoing thoughts in mind I told Mr. Motta that I wished to consult him quite unofficially regarding two matters which [Page 910] were not definitely covered by the treaty but which gave rise to practically the only cases of dispute between this Legation and the Federal Government. I had not consulted my own Government as to whether they thought such matters might be covered but I would appreciate an expression of his views as to whether such a draft of treaty as was now in discussion might not be enlarged in such a way as to take care of these two debatable points.
Relative to nationality, Mr. Motta was inclined to think that the divergent conceptions of “jus sanguis” and “jus solis” were so deep between us that it might be difficult to reach a formula mutually satisfactory. However, since the draft of treaty was the first that had been undertaken since 1850 and offered an opportunity for “general housecleaning” he would willingly go into this matter with us if we so desired and endeavor with us to see whether the point could be regulated.
Regarding the question of domicile, Mr. Motta was more optimistic. He understood thoroughly the hardship to American citizens of not having a single criterion of what constituted domicile. He stated that the Federal Government had recently carefully investigated its competence in matters of this kind and had decided that it was competent to make a treaty governing domicile and taxation matters which would be binding upon the individual cantons. He asked me whether I had drafted my suggestion. I told him that I had not since I did not know how my Government would view it but that something might perhaps be considered along the line of domicile in accordance with the intent of the person there to remain or eventually to return to his home land.
Should the Department look with favor upon these two suggestions, I should appreciate instructions to this effect and also a suggested phraseology to cover either or both of the two points as the Department may desire. Both my own experience and that of the consular officers in Switzerland indicates that a solution of these two matters would be of high value to our citizens and do away with these contentious points between our two governments.
We did not discuss further the question of an acceptance of the obligation to respect Swiss neutrality raised in my despatch 335 of March 8th. I consider it advisable that we should not go further into this until I have some indication of the Department’s attitude toward the general principle. In any case as I suggested in my No. 335 if the Department is willing to consider this principle such acquiescence on our part should, I believe, be withheld as a bargaining asset on the other treaties.
I have [etc.]
- Date of receipt in the Department not indicated.↩