Office of the Historian
  1. Home
  2. Historical Documents
  3. Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1931, Volume II
  4. Document 270

384.00/4

The Acting Secretary of State to the Minister in Ethiopia ( Southard )

Washington , July 7, 1931.
No. 196

Sir: The receipt is acknowledged of your despatch No. 709 of May 4, 1931, enclosing a list of the countries whose nationals are under the protection of each of the foreign legations and consulates in Ethiopia.30 [Page 235] From the second paragraph of this despatch the Department has obtained the impression that you may consider that you are authorized to accord the facilities of your consular court to nationals of Chile to whom you were authorized to extend your good offices by the Department’s telegraphic instruction of July 1, 1930.30 In order that there may be no misconception of your authority in your judicial capacity to take cognizance of matters in which the sole interests involved are those of Chilean or of other foreign nationals, it is considered desirable to set forth the legal bases upon which rest the extraterritorial jurisdiction of American consular officers in Ethiopia.

The pertinent provision of the Act of Congress which confers judicial authority on American consular officers in certain foreign countries (including Ethiopia by virtue of Section 4129 of the Revised Statutes and the treaty concluded with Ethiopia in 191431) reads as follows:

“Jurisdiction in both criminal and civil matters shall, in all cases, be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, which are hereby, so far as is necessary to execute such treaties, respectively, and so far as they are suitable to carry the same into effect, extended over all citizens of the United States in those countries and over all others to the extent that the terms of the treaties, respectively, justify or require. …” (R. S. Section 4086; Title 22, Section 145, U. S. Code.)

By virtue of the quoted provision of law, American consular officers may exercise jurisdiction over persons other than American citizens to the extent that the terms of the treaties, respectively, justify or require.

The underscored words clearly refer to protégés whom the United States was specifically authorized by certain treaties to protect. It is clear, therefore, that they would not be effective to confer jurisdiction on the American Consul General in Ethiopia over non-nationals unless the United States is entitled by treaty to exercise jurisdiction over other than American citizens. The treaties on which the United States relies for its extra-territorial jurisdiction in Ethiopia are Article VII of the Franco-Ethiopian Treaty of 190832 and Article III of the treaty concluded between the United States and Ethiopia in 1914. By the former treaty France is entitled to exercise jurisdiction in Ethiopia over French nationals and “protégés” but the jurisdictional [Page 236] rights granted to the United States are restricted to citizens of the United States as appears from the text of Article III of the United States-Ethiopian Treaty of 1914 which reads as follows:

“The two contracting Governments shall reciprocally grant to all citizens of the United States of America and to the citizens of Ethiopia, all the advantages which they shall accord to the most favored Power in respect to customs duties, imposts and jurisdiction.”

It appears to be clear, therefore, that the good offices which the Legation and Consulate General at Addis Ababa was authorized to exercise in behalf of Chilean nationals in Ethiopia could not and did not confer any authority on the Minister Resident and Consul General to exercise judicial authority over Chilean citizens.

In view of the foregoing the Department is of the opinion that it would be improper for you to assume jurisdiction in your consular court in any case in which none of the parties involved is a citizen of the United States.

While the Department desires to avoid any discussion of the question with the Ethiopian Government, it considers that the words “all citizens of the United States of America” as used in the treaty provision above quoted should be interpreted to include citizens of the territorial possessions of the United States as well as those having the legal status of “citizens of the United States”.

Very truly yours,

W. R. Castle, Jr.
  1. Not printed.↩
  2. Not printed.↩
  3. Treaty of commerce, signed at Addis Ababa, June 27, 1914, Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. ii, p. 243.↩
  4. Treaty of friendship and commerce, signed at Addis Ababa, January 10, 1908, British and Foreign State Papers, vol. ci, p. 997.↩