255.11 Diamond, Legs/17

The Ambassador in Germany ( Sackett ) to the Secretary of State

No. 458

Sir: In continuation of my cablegrams Nos. 93 of September 2, 11 a.m. and 94 of September 2, 4 p.m.53 I have the honor to inform the Department that in consequence of a telegram marked urgent received from the American Consul General at Antwerp, a copy of which is enclosed,54 the Embassy informed the German police that one Jack Diamond, who is wanted by the New York police, landed at Antwerp on the morning of September 1, but could not be held for lack of conventional formalities in connection with his extradition. Therefore Diamond was deported to the German border at Herbesthal en route to Cologne on a train arriving there at 10:59 in the evening. In view of these circumstances the German police were requested by the Embassy to hold Diamond pending action by competent American authority.

[Page 130]

Mr. Letcher’s telegram seemed clearly to presuppose a departmental instruction designed to secure Diamond’s detention, addressed either to the Embassy in Brussels or to the Consulate General at Antwerp. I may add that this assumption was necessarily confirmed by the reports appearing in the press over here during the past week concerning the efforts of the American authorities to have Diamond taken into custody in France or in England. In any event, if any action were to be taken on Mr. Letcher’s telegram—which was addressed to my residence and only delivered there by the postal authorities at 8:30 on the evening of Labor Day—it had to be taken immediately, and there was no time—though the attempt was made—to communicate by telephone with the Consulate General at Antwerp in order to find out further facts which might guide the Embassy’s action. Consequently in the ensuing two hours the Embassy succeeded in communicating to the police the information set forth in the preceding paragraph and in causing Diamond’s detention at Aachen on the German-Belgian border.

In communicating the request to the local authorities the Embassy was very careful to point out that no request would be made for Diamond’s extradition inasmuch as the German-American treaty55 had not yet been ratified, but suggested that in view of Diamond’s record he could be regarded by them as an “undesirable alien” and deported to a neighboring country, preferably France.

The following morning the American Consul at Cologne was informed of the facts and, as Aachen is in his district, requested to assume charge of the case, pending instructions from the Department. Then, during the afternoon of the same day the Embassy received a telegram from the American Embassy at Brussels to the effect that the Chief of Police of New York gave out the statement concerning Diamond for the “purpose of warning the Belgian authorities and not with a view to bringing about his arrest” (see copy of telegram enclosed herewith).56 In consequence the Embassy advised the Consul at Cologne as stated in my telegram No. 94 of September 2, 4 p.m. to advise the German police officials that no charge is being formulated against Diamond nor request being made for his continued detention.

September 3, 1930.

Since dictating the foregoing the Embassy has just received the Department’s instruction No. 84 of September 2, 6 p.m.56 which reads in part as follows:

“Is the Department to understand from your request in Diamond’s case and German compliance that notwithstanding treaty not yet in [Page 131] force German Government is disposed to entertain favorably requests for extradition made by the United States?”

It was not my opinion that the German action in this case could have this significance. I thought that if the Embassy had requested Diamond’s provisional arrest as a preliminary to a subsequent formal requisition for surrender to American police officials, probably the German authorities would have pointed out that there was no extradition treaty in force between the United States and Germany. I thought rather that in view of the press publicity of the past week concerning the desire of American police authorities to have Diamond taken into custody, the German police were willing to detain him provisionally until the exact desires of the said authorities could be ascertained with a view then to taking such action—by way perhaps of deportation in the desired direction, as above suggested—as would facilitate the accomplishment of these desires.

However, yesterday afternoon in a telephone conversation with Mr. Brandt at Cologne the latter stated that the competent police official in that city had said to him that he was aware that there was no extradition treaty in force between the United States and Germany but that nevertheless he would be willing to surrender Diamond if formally requested, adding that this had been done in numerous cases during the past few years. The Embassy has requested Mr. Brandt to confirm this in writing and when such confirmation, or any new information in this connection, is received from him, the Embassy will communicate further with the Department. It should still be noted, however, that even in view of this statement of the Cologne official it does not necessarily follow that his view would be accepted by the officials of the Reich.

I am enclosing herewith the translation of a clipping57 from this morning’s issue of the Berliner Tageblatt which is in line with my point of view.

The Embassy will of course continue to be guided, as in the past, by the principle that it should only request provisional arrest under the Department’s instructions; I feel confident that the Department will agree that under the circumstances the telegram from the Consulate General at Antwerp could only be construed as indicating that the Department had issued instructions to this effect to another mission, and, as indicated above, it was on this assumption that the Embassy took the action hereinabove set forth.

In connection with all the unusual elements of the present situation the Embassy has been interested in the cases cited in Moore’s International Law Digest (Volume 4, pp. 253–258, especially perhaps the [Page 132] case of William J. Sharkey cited on page 255. See also ibid. pp. 382–384, and Hyde on International Law, section 325).

Respectfully yours,

Frederic M. Sackett
  1. Neither printed.
  2. Not printed.
  3. Extradition treaty signed July 12, 1930, p. 123.
  4. Not printed.
  5. Not printed.
  6. Not printed.