SWEDEN DISCONTINUANCE OF THE REPRESENTATION OF AMERICAN INTERESTS IN TURKEY BY SWEDISH DIPLOMATIC OFFICERS Date and number Subject Page 1925 Jan. 12 (5) June 24 (134) July 20 (528) July 16 From the High Commissioner in Turkey Information from the Swedish Minister that Sweden desires to discontinue the official representation of the United States in Turkey, and his desire for assurance of a favorable reply. Recommendation that notes be exchanged with him as indi cated. To the Chargé in Sweden Instructions to address a note to the Foreign Minister (text printed) requesting discontinuance of Swedish representation of American interests in Turkey, and expressing U. S. appreciation for the friendly courtesy of the Government of Sweden. From the Chargé in Sweden Receipt of note from the Foreign Office to the effect that the Swedish Minister at Constantinople has been instructed to discontinue representation of American interests in Turkey. "Procès-Verbal" For the transfer of American Embassy and consular property in Turkey from the Swedish Legation to the American High Commission. 728 728 729 729 SWITZERLAND COMPLAINT BY SWITZERLAND AGAINST ACTIVITIES OF AMERICAN CUSTOMS REPRESENTATIVES IN THAT COUNTRY 1924 Oct. 29 (112) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.) 731 Report of complaints received by Federal Councilor Nov. 28 (120) From the Chargé in Switzerland (tel.) 731 Request for telegraphic expression of Department's views for guidance in replying to Schulthess in connection with a specified complaint. 732 Dec. 10 (99) 1925 Feb. 17 (15) Feb. 19 (7) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.) Hope that general instructions outlining a procedure governing customs representatives' activities in foreign countries can be issued shortly. From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.) Minister's request to George R. Coxe, assistant customs representative at Zürich, that he refrain from using the title of "assistant customs attaché," pending accomplishment of the customary formalities under instructions from the Department. To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.) Information that an act approved January 13 provides for customs attachés, and that they shall be "regularly and officially attached to diplomatic missions." Approval of Minister's action in requesting Coxe to withhold use of the new title temporarily. 732 733 TURKEY DISCLAIMER BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF AMERICAN INTEREST IN TURKISH GOLD DEPOSITS SURRENDERED BY GERMANY TO THE REPARATION COMMISSION Date and number 1925 Feb. 5 Feb. 21 Subject From the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations To the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations YUGOSLAVIA Page 734 735 OBJECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO FURTHER LOANS BY AMERICAN BANKERS TO YUGOSLAVIA PENDING SETTLEMENT OF YUGOSLAV DEBTS TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 1925 Mar. 18 From Blair & Company, Incorporated 738 Inquiry if the Department has any objection to the flotation in the United States of an issue of $3,000,000 of notes of the Yugoslav Government, to be dated as of March 31. Mar. 20 To Blair & Company, Incorporated 738 Information that the Department offers no objection to the flotation of the bond issue in the American market. Sept. 12 From Blair & Company, Incorporated 739 Inquiry if the Department has any objection to the flotation in the United States of an issue of $3,000,000 of notes of the Yugoslav Government, to be dated as of September 30. Sept. 17 From Blair & Company, Incorporated 739 Supplementary information regarding the proposed issue to be dated as of September 30, and request for prompt advice as to the Department's attitude in regard to this issue. Sept. 18 To Blair & Company, Incorporated 740 Sept. 23 Sept. 25 (2815) Statement, in reply to the company's note of September 12, that the U. S. Government does not view with favor Yugoslav financing at the present time. To Blair & Company, Incorporated Department's decision, in view of information that the From the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Report of discussion with Blair & Co.'s representative in 740 741 YUGOSLAVIA OBJECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO FURTHER LOANS BY AMERICAN BANKERS TO YUGOSLAVIA PENDING SETTLEMENT OF YUGOSLAV DEBTS TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT-Continued Date and number 1925 Oct. 9 Oct. 17 Subject From Blair & Company, Incorporated Explanation of certain points with respect to the contemplated financing; information that the company has written to the Yugoslav Government regarding the advisability of that Government's making an early effort to reach an understanding with the World War Foreign Debt Commission as to the refunding of its debt to the United States. To Blair & Company, Incorporated Assertion that the Department's position remains as stated in its letter of September 23. Page 743 746 CUBA RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY OF MARCH 2, 1904, BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CUBA FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF TITLE TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ISLE OF PINES 837.014P/324 Senator Joe T. Robinson to the Secretary of State [WASHINGTON,] December 31, 1924. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: In making a study of the proposed treaty between the United States and Cuba relating to the Isle of Pines,1 which treaty it appears to me should be ratified, I find that one Senator takes the position that the treaty making power cannot dispose of property belonging to the United States, or divest our Government of sovereignty over any part of its territory. I understand that about December, 1904, Secretary Hay addressed a communication to Representative Jenkins, of Wisconsin, bearing upon this phase of the subject, and I would like to be furnished with a copy of this communication for use in preparing to advocate the ratification of the treaty. With personal regards [etc.] 887.014P/324 JOE T. ROBINSON The Secretary of State to Senator Joe T. Robinson WASHINGTON, January 2, 1925. MY DEAR SENATOR ROBINSON: I have received your letter of December 31, 1924, regarding the proposed treaty between the United States and Cuba relating to the Isle of Pines in which you state you understand that about December 1904 Secretary Hay addressed a communication to Representative Jenkins bearing upon the question whether by this treaty the treaty-making power of the United States is disposing of property belonging to the United States or is divesting the Government of sovereignty over any part of its territory. In reply I take pleasure in enclosing herewith a copy of a letter addressed to Representative J. J. Jenkins on December 15, 1903, which is I think the letter to which you refer. I am also enclosing a memorandum regarding the status of the Isle of Pines. 1 1 Treaty of Mar. 2, 1904, p. 11. 1 In this connection I should like to draw your attention to the following: The opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Pearcy v. Stranahan, 205 U. S. 257, is significant, not only as a judicial decision disposing of the question before the Court, but as expressing the views of Mr. Justice William R. Day who concurred in that opinion. Judge Day, then Secretary of State, signed the protocol of August 12, 1898, embodying the basis for the establishment of peace and he was the head of the United States delegation which signed the Treaty of Peace with Spain on December 10, 1898.2 No one who had the privilege of knowing Judge Day would doubt for a moment that when he concurred in the opinion of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice Fuller in Pearcy v. Stranahan, he believed that opinion to be a correct statement of the status of the Isle of Pines. You thus have in the opinion of the Supreme Court the deliberate judgment of the distinguished jurist who negotiated the treaty as to what it meant in this particular. You will readily understand how careful Judge Day would have been, in view of his connection with the negotiation of the Treaty, that no error should be made in anything that the Court might say about it. It is in this view that the following paragraph in the opinion is of especial importance, (p. 266): "In short, all the world knew that it was an integral part of Cuba, and in view of the language of the joint resolution of April 20, 1898, it seems clear that the Isle of Pines was not supposed to be one of the 'other islands' ceded by Article II. Those were islands not constituting an integral part of Cuba, such as Vieques, Culebra and Mona Islands adjacent to Porto Rico." I think, therefore, that the argument that the Isle of Pines was ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Peace is without foundation. The Island belonged to Cuba, and, as the Supreme Court said (p. 272) while the sixth clause of the Platt Amendment "gave opportunity for an examination of the question of ownership and its settlement through a treaty with Cuba", Congress "has taken no action to the contrary of Cuba's title as superior to ours." The Treaty, as you are doubtless aware, contemplates the relinquishment by the United States in favor of Cuba of all claim of title to the island, thus providing, in the opinion of this and preceding administrations, an equitable solution of a problem of many years' standing. The present undetermined status of the Isle of Pines constitutes one of the few remaining questions capable of prejudicing the intimate relations between the United States and Cuba, and it is my earnest hope that the Senate in its present session will give its consent to the ratification of the Treaty. 2 For texts of protocol and treaty, see Foreign Relations, 1898, pp. 828 and 831. |