711.542/24

The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State

No. 582

Sir: Referring to my despatch No. 415, of April 24, 1928, and other correspondence relating to the Swiss draft of a treaty of friendship, commerce, and consular rights between the United States and Switzerland, I have the honor to transmit herewith copy and translation of a letter dated August 22, 1928, addressed to me by Mr. Dinichert, Chief of the Division of Foreign Affairs in the Federal Political Department, in which he informs me, in a purely personal manner, of certain modifications which the Swiss Government would be prepared to make to its draft treaty if judged advisable by the American Government.

I have [etc.]

Hugh R. Wilson
[Page 935]
[Enclosure—Translation]

The Chief of the Division of Foreign Affairs, Swiss Federal Political Department (Dinichert) to the American Minister (Wilson)

Mr. Minister: Following our meeting of the end of April, during which we reviewed together the various clauses of the Swiss draft treaty of friendship, juridical protection, and consular rights between Switzerland and the United States, we promptly examined, together with the other interested Federal Departments, in what way it would be possible to take into consideration the various observations which Your Excellency was good enough to suggest to us personally and unofficially.

This examination, which lasted longer than I foresaw, has led to the following result, and I think it is useful to communicate to you, in a personal way, and as an indication, the amendments which, if judged favorably by the American Government, we should be disposed to make to the draft enclosed with the Political Department’s note of March 14.

1.
Concerning Article 2, you raised the question as to whether the reservation against the practice of the professions of notary or lawyer should be interpreted to exclude American citizens from the practice of these professions. We told you already—and I am in a position to confirm it to you today—that the intention of the Federal authorities was merely to confirm on this point the right of the Cantons to reserve the practice of these professions to Swiss nationals. Various Cantons do not make use of their right in this respect. At the present moment the practice at the bar is free in the Cantons of Glaris, Zoug, Schaffhouse, Appenzell-Ehodes Extérieures, Grisons, and, to a certain extent, Soleure, as it is before the Federal Tribunals. The question, of knowing whether in those Cantons which reserve pleading before the Courts for nationals the same holds true for the profession of consulting lawyer, is not clearly defined and depends upon the Cantonal Courts. In order to make clear that the reservation which appears in Article 2 of the draft treaty of friendship, juridical protection, and consular rights in no way prejudices the solution which is or may be adopted by Cantonal laws, there would be no objection to adding after the words “professions of notary or of lawyer”32 the words “which are not covered by the present treaty”.
2.
You pointed out that in Article 4, paragraph 2, the formula “The nationals of each of the contracting parties shall have, in conformity with local laws, free access to the Courts . . . . .”33 presented [Page 936] a certain ambiguity. This formula could well be replaced by “The nationals of each of the contracting parties shall enjoy in the territory of the other party, in circumstances prescribed by law, free access to the Courts . . . .”.
3.
You pointed out that the second sentence of paragraph 3, of Article 4, would seem to mean that each of the parties reserves the right to make domiciliary visits in houses occupied by nationals of the other party, without observing the forms which the laws and regulations in force specify in similar cases for nationals, if the buildings are not being used for licit purposes. We should be ready to suppress the words “provided that they are not used for licit purposes”.34
4.
With regard to Article 7, you pointed out that there would be considerable interest in permitting a corporation not organized for profit on the territory of one of the contracting parties the possibility of acquiring rights on the territory of the other party. In this respect Swiss practice is exceedingly liberal. Accordingly there would be no difficulty in replacing the first paragraph of Article 7 by the two following paragraphs:

“Provided that they pursue no aims contrary to its laws or to public morals, corporations of any nature, which have been duly organised according to the laws of either contracting party and maintain a central office within the territory thereof, shall have their juridical status recognised in the other country, and they may, in circumstances prescribed by laws in force, acquire and make use of rights therein. They shall, on conforming to the laws and regulations in force, enjoy free and easy access to the Courts of law and equity, as well for the prosecution as for the defense of their rights.

“Commercial, manufacturing, agricultural and financial companies, including transportation and insurance companies, having their central office in the territory of either contracting party and having had their juridical status recognised in the other country, may, subject to observing the formalities required of them for this purpose by the laws and regulations in force, expand their operations on the territory of the other party and fulfill their economic functions.”

I avail myself [etc.]

Paul Dinichert

[Apparently no further progress was made in these treaty negotiations. In instruction No. 773 of January 18, 1930, the Minister in Switzerland was informed that “this Government has temporarily suspended all negotiations for treaties of friendship, commerce and consular rights, except in cases where there is a pressing need for the conclusion of such treaties.” (File No. 711.542/26a.)]

  1. Cf. p. 902.
  2. Cf. p. 903.
  3. Cf. p. 903.