811.5241/178
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes) to the Secretary of
State
London, January 26, 1931.
[Received
February 4.]
No. 1594
Sir: I have the honor to refer to my despatch
No. 1297 of October 17, 1930,3 regarding the British Colonies and Protectorates
which have not adhered to the Convention concluded between the United
States and Great Britain on March 2, 1899, relative to the disposal of
real and personal property in the respective countries, and to enclose a
copy, in triplicate, of a note which I have just received in reply to my
note addressed to the Foreign Office on October 17, 1930.3
Respectfully yours,
(For the Ambassador)
Ray
Atherton
Counselor of
Embassy[Enclosure]
The British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (Henderson) to the
American Ambassador (Dawes)
London, January 23, 1931.
No. A 324/324/45
Your Excellency: I have the honour to refer
to Your Excellency’s notes No. 881 of October 17th and No. 929 of
November 17th and to previous correspondence regarding the
Convention signed at Washington on March 2nd, 1899 between the
United Kingdom and the United States of America relative to the
disposal of Real and Personal property in which you enquired whether
any special reasons existed for excluding citizens of the United
States resident in certain Colonies and Protectorates referred to in
my note No. A 1973/1001/45 of March 24th4 from the benefits of the Convention and
whether it was the intention of His Majesty’s Government in the
United Kingdom to adhere to the Convention on behalf of any of the
Dependencies in question.
[Page 137]
- 2.
- In reply I have the honour to state, for Your Excellency’s
information, that at the time when the Convention was concluded
the majority of the Dependencies mentioned in my note No. A
1973/1001/45 of March 24th were either in a rudimentary state of
development or were not at that date under His Majesty’s
protection or authority, and that the application of the
Convention to them was subsequently barred by the provisions of
Article IV of the Convention. If however, in spite of the
provisions of this article, the United States Government would
now agree to the Convention being applied to these Dependencies,
His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom would be glad to
consider the question of such application. I should add that His
Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom are unable forthwith
to give a definite undertaking that it would be desired to apply
the Convention to all or any of these Dependencies since it is
their invariable practice to consult the local administrations
concerned before coming to a decision in such a matter.
- 3.
- In this connexion I concur in the suggestion made in your note
No. 929 of November 17th that the procedure to be followed in
making the Convention applicable to those parts of the British
Empire to which it does not now apply might conveniently take
the form of a supplementary convention on the lines of that
signed at Washington on October 21st, 19215
providing for the application to Canada of the provisions of the
Convention. I desire however to invite your attention to the
fact that there is an absence of reciprocity in the provisions
of Article IV of the Convention. You will observe that whereas
notices of the extension of the provisions of the Convention to
British Dependencies were only allowed to be made within a
specified period, there was no corresponding limitation in
regard to the application of the Convention to Dependencies of
the United States. The United States Government were therefore
able in 1921 to give notice of the application of the Convention
to the Hawaiian Islands. Accordingly I have the honour to
suggest that in any supplementary Convention which may be
concluded as a result of this correspondence a provision should
be inserted giving His Majesty’s Government the right to give
notice of the application of the Convention to any British
Colony or Protectorate or to any Mandated Territory in respect
of which the mandate is exercised by His Majesty’s Government in
the United Kingdom without any limitation as to time.
- 4.
- I further observe that the Convention contains no provision
specifically conferring on persons belonging to territories
under His Majesty’s protection, to which the Convention is
applied the benefits conferred on British subjects belonging to
Dependencies to which the Convention is applied. I presume that
in applying the Convention
[Page 138]
the United States Government would not
seek to deny these benefits to British protected persons
belonging to territories to which the Convention has been
applied, as such a course would involve the absence of that
reciprocity which, as is indicated in your note No. 881 of
October 17th is regarded by the United States Government as
being essential to the application of the Convention. His
Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom would however be glad
to receive a formal assurance from the United States Government
that the application of the Convention to a territory under His
Majesty’s Protection or authority ipso
facto confers the benefits of the Convention on British
protected persons belonging to that territory.
- 5.
- I shall be glad to learn whether the United States Government
concur in the preceding observations in order that steps may be
taken to consult the local administrations concerned with a view
to the application of the Convention to the territories under
their jurisdiction.
I have [etc.]
(For the Secretary of State)
R.
L. Craigie
