711.679 Residence and Establishment/33: Telegram
The Ambassador in Turkey ( Grew ) to the Secretary of State
[Received 4 p.m.]
78. Department’s 58, September 29, 7 p.m. While not impossible, the negotiation of the formula quoted in the Department’s 58, paragraph (3), would, I fear, at best involve elaborate explanations to Turkey and at worst a serious obstacle. Would the Department approve the following proposal to the Turks as a substitute: (a) The formula quoted in the Department’s 46, August 30, 2 p.m., but omitting the words “entry and sojourn” in the second line and the word “other” in the final line; and (b) additional to the foregoing, a paragraph in the treaty or, in case of objection from the Turks, a provision in a protocol reproducing the first of the reservations by the United States Senate to the treaty signed December 8, 1923, with Germany.16[Page 862]
I have taken into consideration the following points in framing the suggestions above:
- It is desirable that the original Turkish formula be modified as little as possible.
- Acceptance by Turkey of a formula already accepted by Germany and by Hungary17 is far more likely than acceptance of a new formula.
- A ready explanation can be made to the Turks of the reservation to the German treaty in terms of American susceptibility in the matter of regulating immigration, and no explanation need be volunteered concerning either of the sections, 3 (6) or 4 (c), of the Immigration Act of 1924.
- If the reservation to the German treaty allays the Department’s fears as to section 4 (c), it is presumed that the Department would not any longer object to the view that the words “conditions of residence and establishment” do cover the matter of entry.
- If, as the Department envisages in its No. 58, penultimate sentence, the treaty-merchant status for Turkey can be continued, there seems to be no reason to add the word “entry” to the original formula.