Office of the Historian

765.84/1048: Telegram (part air)

The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
Geneva, September 4, 1935—10 p.m.
[Received September 6—4:13 a.m.]

292. Consulate’s No. 291 September 4, 9 p.m., respecting the Commission’s procedures in drawing up its award. I learn in strict confidence from Potter as follows:

1.
The Commission after Politis became a member was unequivocally an arbitral body and its findings have the status of an award.
2.
The sole witnesses were called by the Italian agent. Jèze did not feel that Abyssinian witnesses would be useful; Potter does not concur in this view.
3.
Upon Politis becoming a member of the Commission he presented a draft award which he had apparently been formulating for some time. From that draft the final terms were negotiated. Unanimity in the award was effected by compromise, de la Pradelle and Potter receding from certain positions. In particular they withdrew their position that while responsibility could not be fixed for the Wal Wal incident itself their interpretation of the record was that there existed a general background of Italian responsibility.
4.
The pivotal point in the question of responsibility was, however, Politis’ thesis that the determination of an aggressor does not derive from the status of sovereignty of an area in question but rather that [Page 643] an aggressor is a disturber of de facto possession. In this connection, Politis’ draft recited that the local Italian authorities believed they possessed sovereignty while de la Pradelle insisted that this should be changed to the present reading to the effect that the Italians believed that they possessed authority.

Gilbert