The Minister in Siam (Neville) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 26—6:50 a.m.]
30. Department’s 22, October 23, 3 p.m.
Article 1. 1. I am assured orally by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that it is the intention of the Siamese Government to assure both national and most-favored-nation treatment in the treaty and that placing the commitment in the final protocol will make no difference in the result. The word “treaty” should be inserted after “this” in the first and third paragraphs of the protocol.
To take care of certain points raised in the Department’s telegram the Minister for Foreign Affairs proposes additional paragraphs in the final protocol to follow.
Paragraph 3. The Siamese accept “just” before “compensation” but wish compensation to be settled by means of legal tribunals rather than by diplomatic negotiations. The latter proposes following additional paragraph 1 (a) to protocol. “It is understood that the payment of just compensation provided for in article 1, paragraph 3, shall be determined by due process of law”.
Paragraph 8. The Siamese mean “iron, phosphate”.
Article 3, paragraph 6. The Siamese prefer to place Department’s new language in following new paragraph 1 (b) in protocol. “It is understood that the most-favored-nation treatment provided for in the last paragraph article 3 in respect of the control of the means of international payment shall be applied unconditionally, and that such control shall be administered so as not to influence to the disadvantage of the other High Contracting Party the competitive relationships between articles originating in the territories of such party and similar articles originating in third countries, and so as not to impair the operation of any other provisions of this treaty.”
Article 4. In regard to monopoly the Siamese prefer their own wording, principally because they do not like the word “agencies”, the legal implications of which they say would be difficult to explain to the Assembly in Siamese. They would be willing to accept the word “farm” which appeared in a former treaty, but appear to be frightened of a new word.
Article 8. Siamese proposed following additional paragraph 2 (a) to protocol. “It is understood that in the application of the provisions [Page 869] of article 8, Siam reserves the right to apply, in the matter of compulsory pilotage, the provisions of the convention and statute in the international regime of maritime ports, signed at Geneva, December 9th, 1923”.24 Siam is a party to this convention and does not wish to make an exception in the case of the United States, but is willing to accept the word “pilotage” if her adherence to this convention is recognized in the treaty (article 11 of the statute is the item concerned).
Article 9. Siamese accept Department’s proposals.
Article 11. The Japanese have agreed to a fisheries article in the final protocol of their treaty, as have other countries, according to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Siamese would like some mention of it in our treaty. I have suggested that they make a reservation on their own account, but the Minister asked whether we could not accept it in the final protocol and proposed following wording as paragraph 2 (b). “It is understood that Siam reserves her national fisheries, which shall continue to be regulated by her national laws”.
In regard to land titles, the Siamese propose the wording of the exchange of notes accompanying the present treaty, with appropriate altering of the introductory paragraph and the omission of item 3 which is no longer applicable.
The final protocol and exchanges of notes are to be integral parts of the treaty.
- League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. lviii, p. 285.↩