711.922/109: Telegram
The Minister in Siam (Neville) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 10—10:53 a.m.]
38. Department’s 34, November 9, 6 p.m. The Minister for Foreign Affairs today handed me the following memorandum:
“Counter-proposal 1. Immovable property. The Siamese Government accept the insertion of the words ‘in return’ between the word ‘shall’ and the word ‘be’.
Instead of the specific mention of the words ‘most favored nation’ at the end of the paragraph, however, the Siamese Government would propose the following wording: ‘of any other country, upon the principle of nondiscriminatory treatment’.
If ‘most favored nation’ is mentioned specifically, the members of the Assembly would expect the word ‘reciprocity’ to be mentioned specifically also. That is why the words ‘any other country’ are proposed instead. On the other hand, if ‘nondiscriminatory treatment’ is mentioned as well, the formula will be easily understood by the members of the Assembly. In this new context, nondiscriminatory treatment can only refer to nondiscrimination among foreigners and cannot refer to nondiscrimination between nationals and foreigners.
[Page 886]In case the Department of State would prefer a stronger word than ‘principle’, the Siamese Government would accept the word ‘basis’ in its place.
The paragraph will now read as follows:
‘It is expressly agreed that nationals of the United States of America, including corporations, partnerships and associations, who are legal residents of or are organized under the laws of any state, territory or possession of the United States of America which accords to nationals of Siam the right to acquire, possess and dispose of immovable property, shall, in return, be accorded all the rights respecting immovable property in Siam which are or may hereafter be accorded to the nationals, including corporations, partnerships or associations of any other country, upon the basis of nondiscriminatory treatment’.
Counter-proposal 2. Letter on monopolies. If the term ‘integral part of the treaty’ is used, the exchange of letters would have to be submitted to the Assembly as part of the treaty, but according to the Constitution of Siam, an international engagement binding only the Executive Power need not be submitted to the Assembly in order to be valid. The Siamese Government therefore propose the addition after the words ‘following agreement’ the words ‘which is to remain in force during the life of the treaty’: This is calculated to give satisfaction in substance to the Department of State, as overcoming at the same time the constitutional difficulty mentioned above”.
The introductory sentence of the exchange of notes on monopolies would then read “in regard to subparagraph 3 of paragraph 4 of article 3 of the treaty signed by us today, we have reached the following agreement which is to remain in force during the life of the treaty:”