SWEDEN DISCONTINUANCE OF THE REPRESENTATION OF AMERICAN INTERESTS IN TURKEY BY SWEDISH DIPLOMATIC OFFICERS Date and number Subject Pago 1925 Jan. 12 (5) 728 June 24 (134) From the High Commissioner in Turkey Information from the Swedish Minister that Sweden desires Instructions to address a note to the Foreign Minister (text Chargé in Sweden 728 July 729 152530 Forreceipt of note rreme dhe Foreign Office to the effect that the July 16 Swedish Minister at Constantinople has been instructed to For the transfer of American Embassy and consular prop- 729 SWITZERLAND COMPLAINT BY SWITZERLAND AGAINST ACTIVITIES OF AMERICAN Customs REPRE SENTATIVES IN THAT COUNTRY 1924 Oct. 29 (112) 731 731 Nov. 28 (120) 732 Dec. 10 (99) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.) Report of complaints received by Federal Councilor Request for telegraphic expression of Department's views for Hope that general instructions outlining a procedure govern- Minister's request to George R. Coxe, assistant customs 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. 1925 Feb. 17 (15) 732 733 Feb. 19 (7) TURKEY DISCLAIMER BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF AMERICAN INTEREST IN TURKISH Gold DEPOSITS SURRENDERED BY GERMANY TO THE REPARATION COMMISSION Date and number Subject Page 1925 Feb. 5 734 From the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Senate Resolution No. 319, introduced January 26 (text Department's conclusion, after consideration of the question Feb. 21 735 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 1925 Mar, 18 738 Mar. 20 738 Sept. 12 739 Sept. 17 739 Sept. 18 740 From Blair & Company, Incorporated Inquiry if the Department has any objection to the flotation Information that the Department offers no objection to the Inquiry if the Department has any objection to the flotation Supplementary information regarding the proposed issue to Statement, in reply to the company's note of September 12, Department's decision, in view of information that the Slovenes Sept. 23 740 741 Sept. 25 (2815) 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 Subject Page 1925 Oct. 9 743 From Blair & Company, Incorporated Explanation of certain points with respect to the contem- Assertion that the Department's position remains as stated Oct. 17 746 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 1 [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, 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.] JOE T. ROBINSON 887.014P/324 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. * Treaty of Mar. 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. For texts of protocol and treaty, see Foreign Relations, 1898, pp. 828 and 831. |
0 Atsauksmes Atsauksmes netiek pārbaudītas, taču Google meklē viltus saturu un noņem to, ja tāds tiek identificēts. Rakstīt atsauksmi |