811.203/419: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 13—5:35 p.m.]
2021. Following informal communication dated March 13 has been received from the Foreign Office:
“I understand that in recent discussions between the British and United States Claims Commissions, a number of points have been raised in connection with paragraph 7 of Mr. Eden’s note of the 29th February to your Ambassador,53 about the question of civil claims against members of the United States forces. We are most anxious that there should be no misunderstanding of our intentions in this matter and I think it would be useful to explain our position in detail.
You will remember that a great many of the complaints which have been caused by the present position, both in Parliament and outside it, have arisen from cases in which the United States Claims Commission, having refused to admit any liability, has equally refused to afford the claimants any effective right of recourse to the courts of this country. Unless, therefore, we can reopen cases in which no payment has been made we shall not remove either the cause of the complaint or the criticisms which are being directed both against the British and the United States authorities. A number of Members of Parliament have urged that any settlement which is reached should be retroactive, and consequently paragraph 7 is from our point of view of fundamental importance. Indeed, we are convinced that if we were to refuse to reopen these claims, and we shall certainly be pressed to do so in Parliament, we should very seriously prejudice the success of the entire arrangements which we are now attempting to conclude.
We certainly do not wish to review all the decisions of the United States Claims Commission, and we are fully satisfied that in the great majority of cases the United States Commission has dealt generously with claimants. It is, however, inevitable that the principles adopted by the United States Commission should differ in some respect from those adopted by the British Commission, and I think it [Page 137] is generally accepted that the rules of contributory negligence are much more rigorously applied under United States law than under British. The principle underlying the proposals made in Mr. Eden’s note is that there should be equality of treatment for all persons who have a claim against members of either the British or United States forces, and we shall therefore find it necessary to apply British principles in all such cases. It is our present intention to reopen a case only if a claimant has received nothing from the United States Commission, and we, on examination, feel that some payment would have been made if British principles had been applied. In addition, if a claimant presses his claim, he will be afforded facilities for proceeding in the courts, and we shall honour any judgment he may obtain. It seems most unlikely that there will be many such cases, but as I have said it is our considered view that unless we adopt this procedure we shall fail entirely to remove one of the most important sources of complaint which now exist.
I understand that the point has also been made that this paragraph 7 does not appear in the annex to Mr. Eden’s note. This is, of course, the case but we hope that it has not given the impression that the paragraph is any the less important. For the reasons I have given above it is, in fact, fundamental.
I understand the United States Commission also expressed the hope that we would not advertise the fact that past cases would be reopened. I can assure you on this point that the interested departments of His Majesty’s Government are less anxious than anyone to be faced with large numbers of requests for the reopening of cases, and that we shall give as little publicity as possible to the matter. But it seems inevitable that this aspect of the matter will be raised in Parliament and indeed Mr. Eden was specifically questioned on the point on Wednesday.54 I am sure you will realise that it will not be possible for him to avoid stating what course we propose to adopt.
I hope that this explanation will show exactly where we stand upon the various points which have been raised.”