Office of the Historian

890g.01/220

The Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes) to the Secretary of State

London, August 15, 1929.
[Received August 24.]
No. 158

Sir: With reference to my despatch No. 101, July 26, 1929, concerning the draft convention between the United States, the United Kingdom and Iraq, I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy, in triplicate, of a letter from the Foreign Office suggesting a small alteration in the text of Article 4 of the Protocol, and asking whether the United States Government would be willing to accept the same.

I have [etc.]

(For the Ambassador)
F. L. Belin

First Secretary of Embassy
[Page 298]
[Enclosure]

The Head of the Eastern Department, British Foreign Office (Monteagle), to the Counselor of the American Embassy (Atherton)

[London,] 14 August, 1929.
No. E 3988/171/93

My Dear Atherton: Would you kindly refer to my letter of July 25th on the subject of the Iraq Convention, as I have one small alteration to suggest in the text of Article 4 of the Protocol which was enclosed as Annex A?16 Jafar Pasha has pointed out that the present wording of the article from the word “under” onwards is not altogether clear. This is mainly because we inadvertently allowed a comma to creep in after the word “application”, but even if this is deleted, the text is perhaps not as clear as it might be. What I would suggest is that the wording should now run:

“under normal expropriation laws of general application, and subject to the previous provision for just and reasonable compensation”.

This, I think, removes any possible doubt as regards the meaning of the assurance which your Government had in mind, and I shall be glad to hear whether you can accept it.

Yours sincerely,

Monteagle
  1. Annex not printed.↩