Office of the Historian

711.6712A/30: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Turkey (Grew)

[Paraphrase]
Washington, October 9, 1928—7 p.m.

77. Your 112, October 1, noon. The Turkish Ambassador discussed informally on October 2 the text of the note which his Government had instructed him to communicate to the Department with regard to the meaning of the term “domestic jurisdiction” as it is used in article II of the proposed treaty of arbitration. The Ambassador submitted for informal study and discussion a text of which the pertinent part, in free translation, reads as follows:20

“My Government informs me that in accordance with the explanations furnished by me concerning our conversation of August 16, it understands by the term ‘domestic jurisdiction’ all matters pertaining [Page 950] to the right of sovereignty, to the principles of fundamental laws, to differences the settlement of which is left by international law to the exclusive competence of each state, particularly matters concerning emigration, nationality and the customs regime, as well as all questions predicated upon national jurisdiction. It belongs, of course, to each of the contracting parties to decide in advance whether any particular difference arising between them comes within the category of matters excluded from the competence of the arbitrators.”

Note was given careful consideration and it was pointed out to Mouhtar Bey that proposed text extended scope of assurances far beyond both what Tewfik Rushdi Bey himself had told the American Ambassador would be entirely sufficient from the Turkish point of view and what had been contemplated by the Secretary of State in his conversation with the Turkish Ambassador on August 16.

The following counter-text as a substitution for the objectionable portion of the proposed Turkish note was thereupon submitted to the Ambassador for his consideration and that of the Turkish Government:21

“My Government informs me that in accordance with the explanations furnished by me concerning our conversation of August 16, it understands by the term ‘domestic jurisdiction’ questions of sovereignty and all differences the settlement of which is left by international law to the exclusive competence of each state.”

The foregoing may be informally and orally discussed with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, if and when an occasion presents itself.22

Kellogg
  1. Quotation not paraphrased.↩
  2. Quotation not paraphrased.↩
  3. Further negotiations did not result in the signing of an arbitration or conciliation treaty.↩