Office of the Historian

711.662/101: Telegram

The Ambassador in Italy (Phillips) to the Secretary of State

Rome, July 14, 1937—6 p.m.
[Received July 14—3:40 p.m.]

329. In the hope that the negotiations for the treaty of friendship and commerce are nearing the point of successful conclusion, may it not be possible at the present time to give consideration to the two points with respect to which discussion has up to now been reserved for the reasons set forth in my 533, December 16, 6 p.m.,15 namely, the preamble and article 20?

With respect to the first of these it is my understanding that both the United States and Italy signed the multilateral convention concluded at Montreux in May of this year for the abolition of capitulations in Egypt16 and I presume that in this connection no difficulty was raised if the title “King Emperor” was used in the designation of [Page 448] the Italian plenipotentiary.17 Furthermore, would there be any legal distinction between the acceptance by the United States Government of the credentials of the Italian Ambassador in Washington made out in the name of the King Emperor and the signature of a treaty which the American representative signs on behalf of the President and the Italian representative on behalf of his?

Should it be considered that article 20 which extends the provisions of the treaty to include all territories over which the parties respectively claim and exercise dominion as sovereign may give rise to questions involving recognition; might it not be possible to omit this article from the present treaty and at some subsequent date conclude a separate agreement relating to the colonies and dominions?

I should appreciate the Department’s preliminary views on the foregoing point for possible use in the event that the Foreign Office brings them up for discussion.

Phillips
  1. Foreign Relations, 1936, vol. ii, p. 358.↩
  2. See pp. 615 ff.; for text of convention signed May 8, 1937, see Department of State Treaty Series No. 939, or 53 Stat. 1645.↩
  3. For correspondence with regard to the matter of the title “King Emperor”, see Foreign Relations, 1936, vol. iii, pp. 219 ff.↩