811.114 Fisher Lassie/25
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Mellon) to the Secretary of State
No. 168
London, June 20, 1932.
[Received June
30.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to the
Department’s instruction No. 1010 of November 27, 1931, File No.
811.114 Fisher Lassie/9, and to transmit herewith a copy of the
Embassy’s informal communication of December 11 to the Foreign
Office and a copy of the reply of June 18, with enclosures, which
has just been received.
Respectfully yours,
For the Ambassador:
Ray
Atherton
Counselor of Embassy
[Enclosure 1]
The First Secretary of the American Embassy
(Thaw) to Mr. R. G. Howe of the Treaty
Department, British Foreign Office
London, December 11, 1931.
My Dear Howe: May I have recourse to your
assistance in the following matter?
It appears from instructions which the Embassy has just received
from the Department of State that under date of October 10 last
the American Consul at Nassau, Bahamas, was directed to try to
obtain from the appropriate authorities there certified copies
of the entrance and clearance papers of certain vessels
suspected of being engaged in the smuggling of liquor into the
United States, as well as information regarding the cargo
carried, names of shippers and names of masters, during the
period from January 1, 1930, to date. This information was
requested on behalf of the Bureau of Prohibition for use in
connection with proceedings which are contemplated against the
vessels.
The Consul replied to the Department that he had been informed by
the Acting Colonial Secretary of the Bahamas that the furnishing
of such information was forbidden under instructions from the
Secretary of State for the Colonies. Specifically the Consul was
informed by the Acting Colonial Secretary that “… this
Government is required to supply you with information in general
terms only respecting vessels clearing from ports of this Colony
with substantial cargoes of liquor destined for ports outside
the Colony on or adjacent to the East Coast of America between
Panama and the St. Lawrence.” The Acting
Colonial Secretary referred to certain correspondence from his
office on September 18, 1925, and January 28, 1926, and went on
to say that there had hitherto been no departure from the
existing rule excepting where further information had been
required for adjudication on seizure of vessels by United States
Authorities and that having regard to the fact that the present
practice is the outcome of negotiation between the Government of
the United States of America and Great Britain his Government
would not take upon itself to alter the rule.
The Department of State now points out to the Embassy that the
Acting Colonial Secretary at Nassau bases his refusal apparently
on instructions received prior to the agreement reached at the
conference held in London in July, 1926, between representatives
of Great Britain and the United States, as the result of which
certain methods of cooperation were formulated, and that Section
4 of this agreement entitled “Prosecutions” provides that
proceedings shall be
[Page 50]
instituted for infringement of British or United States law, the
last sentence reading, “In this connection, an attempt should at
once be made to secure, if possible, the necessary evidence to
enable proceedings to be instituted in the case of vessels known
to be engaged in the traffic.”
I should be greatly obliged if you can let me know whether the
understanding of the Acting Colonial Secretary at Nassau is
correct.
Sincerely yours,
[Enclosure 2]
The Head of the American Department, British
Foreign Office (Craigie),
to the First Secretary of the American Embassy (Thaw)
No. A 3274/130/45
[London,] 18 June,
1932.
My Dear Thaw: I am very sorry that we have been
so long in giving you a considered reply to your letter of 11th
December to Howe
enquiring whether the action taken by the Acting Colonial
Secretary at Nassau in the circumstances described in your
letter was, in our opinion, correct. As you will no doubt have
realized, we had to refer this matter to the Bahamas Government,
a procedure which was bound to take time. I hope however that
you will agree that the present letter, which is based on a very
full report received from the Governor, clears up this question
satisfactorily.
In the first place I enclose full copies of letters from the
United States Consul to the Acting Colonial Secretary and the
latter’s reply,49 parts of which you
quoted in your letter under reference. From the United States
Consul’s letter you will see that, while he asks for extensive
information about twenty one vessels over a period of ten
months, he does not suggest that this information was wanted in
connexion with proceedings which were contemplated against the
vessels. Moreover, you will see that amongst the particulars
with which the United States Consul asked to be supplied were
details regarding the cargoes carried and the names of shippers.
While in the light of the 1926 Agreement, the authorities of His
Majesty’s Government would of course arrange for the production
of such records or certified copies thereof as might be
considered necessary for the purpose of instituting criminal
proceedings, it was explained to the United States authorities
at the Conference in 1926 and has been brought to their notice
on several occasions since that the British authorities would
not be prepared to give the United States authorities copies of
papers which show the names of individual consignors
[Page 51]
or consignees or gave
detailed particulars of individual consignments. As a case in
point I enclose a copy of a letter of the 27th November,
192950 from
Mr. Bertenshaw of the
Customs Office to the United States Consul General in London
about certain shipments of liquor to St.
Pierre and Montreal. Moreover, our
reluctance to supply particulars of individual consignments was
responsible, as you will no doubt recollect, for the arrangement
about “interesting cargoes”,51
and from the Acting Colonial Secretary’s reply you will observe
that if any of the vessels about which particulars were
requested had cleared foreign with cargoes of liquor from one of
the ports of Nassau, the usual information regarding the date of
clearing of vessels carrying “interesting cargoes” would have
already been supplied to the United States Consulate. Although
we agree that the reference in the Acting Colonial Secretary’s
letter to instructions issued prior to the 1926 Agreement was
misleading, it would nevertheless appear that he was
substantially correct in the line which he took. If finally the
United States Consul had returned to the charge as he was
practically invited to do in the last paragraph of the Acting
Colonial Secretary’s letter with an explanation that the
information was for the purpose of instituting criminal
proceedings, the Bahamas Government would of course have
co-operated with a view to affording the United States
authorities all relevant evidence that could properly be
supplied.
The Governor of the Bahamas adds that he has taken an opportunity
of having a friendly conversation with the United States Consul,
during which the question of co-operation between the Bahamas
Government and the United States Consulate in regard to the
liquor traffic was frankly discussed. The Governor then
explained to the United States Consul the reasons, as set forth
above, which had prompted the Acting Colonial Secretary’s
letter, and at the same time assured him that the Bahamas
Government was anxious fully to live up to the spirit of the
1926 report. In so doing he also expressed the wish that on any
future occasion the United States Consul should come to see him
personally and informally in the first instance if he had any
reason to believe that he was not being supplied
[Page 52]
with information he was entitled to
receive. We understand, therefore, that this matter is now
satisfactorily settled.
Yours ever,
