711.4121/283
The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Atherton) to the Secretary of State
No. 1933
London, January 27,
1936.
[Received February 6.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to the
Embassy’s despatch No. 1888 of December 27, 1935, enclosing a copy
of a note to the Foreign Office, No. 145 of August 31, 1933,81 concerning the
draft convention to extend to outlying territories of both countries
the application of the Convention between the United States and
Great Britain signed at Washington on March 2, 1899, relating to the
disposal of real and personal property.
The Embassy is now in receipt of a reply from the Foreign Office, No.
A 296/296/45 of January 24, 1936, a copy of which is enclosed
herewith, transmitting a copy in draft form82 of the proposed
Supplementary Convention between the United States and the United
Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New
Zealand, but not the Union of South Africa for the reasons touched
upon in the covering note.
Respectfully yours,
[Page 718]
[Enclosure]
The British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (Eden) to the American
Chargé (Atherton)
No. A 296/296/45
London, 24 January,
1936.
Sir: I have the honour to invite
reference to a note No. 145, which Mr. Bingham was good enough
to address to Sir John Simon on the 31st August, 1933 and
further to his note No. 1512 of the 27th December last83 regarding
the proposed Supplementary Convention to regulate the
application of the Convention between the United States and the
United Kingdom, signed at Washington on the 2nd March, 1899,
relative to the disposal of real and personal property. Mr.
Bingham was good enough to request the views of His Majesty’s
Government in the United Kingdom regarding certain points raised
by the United States Government with respect to the application
of the Draft Convention to the territories administered under
mandate by His Majesty’s Governments in the Commonwealth of
Australia, New Zealand or the Union of South Africa.
- 2.
- His Majesty’s Governments in the Commonwealth of Australia
and New Zealand have now intimated that they are prepared to
become parties to the proposed Convention. His Majesty’s
Government in the Union of South Africa on the other hand
have come to the conclusion that having regard to all the
circumstances, it is not a matter of importance that the
Convention of 1899 should be extended to the mandated
territory of South West Africa; should, however, the United
States Government regard the matter as important, the Union
Government would be prepared, on receipt of a direct request
from them to this effect, to give consideration to the
question of the conclusion of an agreement providing for
this extension.
- 3.
- His Majesty’s Government in the Union of South Africa have
also given consideration to the position of Natal, now part
of the Union of South Africa, to which the 1899 Convention
was not applied, and have intimated that their attitude in
this case is the same as in the case of South West
Africa.
- 4.
- I have the honour to enclose a copy in draft form of the
proposed Supplementary Convention, the wording of which has
now been revised in view of the considerations set out in
the previous paragraphs of this note. You will observe that
in addition to a reference to mandated territories
administered by His Majesty’s Governments in the
Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand, the new Article 4
also contains the words “nor to any other territory
administered under the authority either of His Government in
the United Kingdom of Great
[Page 719]
Britain and Northern Ireland, or of
his Government in the Commonwealth of Australia, or of his
Government in New Zealand”, which have been inserted
directly after The King’s title. This addition is suggested
in order to meet the wish of the United States Government
that provision should be made for the widest possible
extension of the Convention of 1899.
I have [etc.]
(For the Secretary of State)
J. M. Troutbeck
