« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:
Subject to the provisions of the present convention, the United States consents to the administration by His Britannic Majesty, pursuant to the aforesaid mandate, of the former German territory described in article 1 of the mandate, hereinafter called the mandated territory.
The United States and its nationals shall have and enjoy all the rights and benefits secured under the terms of articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the mandate to Members of the League of Nations and their nationals, notwithstanding the fact that the United States is not a Member of the League of Nations.
Vested United States property rights in the mandated territory shall be respected and in no way impaired.
ARTICLE 4 A duplicate of the annual report to be made by the Mandatory under article 10 of the mandate shall be furnished to the United States.
ARTICLE 5 Nothing contained in the present convention shall be affected by any modification which may be made in the terms of the mandate as recited above, unless such modification shall have been assented by the United States.
ARTICLE 6 The Extradition treaties and conventions in force between the United States and the United Kingdom shall apply to the mandated territory.
ARTICLE 7 The present convention shall be ratified in accordance with the respective constitutional methods of the High Contracting Parties. The ratifications shall be exchanged at London as soon as practicable. It shall take effect on the date of the exchange of ratifications.
In witness whereof, the undersigned have signed the present convention, and have thereunto affixed their seals. Done in duplicate at London, this 10th day of February, 1925.
(SEAL] FRANK B. KELLOGG
STATEMENT BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT REGARDING TREAT. MENT OF AMERICAN NATIONALS AND GOODS IN TERRITORIES UNDER BRITISH “C” MANDATES
800.01 M 31/213
The Chargé in Great Britain (Sterling) to the Secretary of State
LONDON, March 16, 1925.
[Received March 26.] SIR: Referring to my despatch No. 1096 dated March 5, 1925, concerning the proposed “C” mandate treaties, I have the honor to enclose a copy, in triplicate, of the formal reply of the British Government addressed to me under date of March 14, which has just been received.
It will be seen from the reply that the Governments of the Dominions are unwilling to comply in full with some of the claims advanced by the United States Government, but are willing to enter into a binding engagement “that so long as the terms of the mandates
a remain unaltered, United States nationals and goods will be treated in all respects on a footing equal to that enjoyed by the nationals and goods of any state member of the League of Nations, with the exception of those within the British Empire, subject only to the proviso that this shall not involve the violation of any existing treaty engagements towards third parties.” I have [etc.]
F. A. STERLING
The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain)
to the American Chargé (Sterling)
No. W 1946/5/98
[LONDON,] 14 March, 1925. SIR: His Majesty's Government have been in consultation with the governments of the self-governing dominions in the matter of the wishes of the Government of the United States of America in regard to the treatment of United States nationals and goods in the territories administered under the British “C” mandates.
2. As the United States Government were assured in the notes from the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston to Mr. Harvey of the 22nd and 29th December, 1921, dealing with Palestine and with the territories in Africa administered under “B” mandates, His Majesty's Government had never desired to deprive the United States of the fruits of a victory to which they had so generously
Foreign Relations, 1921, vol. II, pp. 111 and 115; the note of Dec. 29, 1921, was signed by the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir Eyre A. Crowe.
contributed, and were willing to meet the wishes of the United States as regards the treatment of their nationals in those territories subject to the obligations imposed upon them by their existing treaty engagements. In this spirit His Majesty's Government entered upon the negotiation of treaties to regulate the position of the United States in the territories in question and have, as you are aware, concluded such treaties in terms satisfactory to your government.
3. The contents of Mr. Harvey's several notes, the last of which was dated the 25th October, 1923,10 dealing with the territories administered under "C" mandates have been carefully examined with the object of determining how far it is possible to adopt in these territories a procedure similar to that followed in the case of the territories referred to in the preceding paragraph. This examination has led both His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Dominions to the conclusion that it will not be possible to treat the “C” mandated territories on the same footing as those administered under the “A” and “B” mandates for the following reasons:
4. The terms of the different types of mandate vary fundamentally and this variation has its basis in the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. 11 It is true that the United States have not ratified that treaty, but that does not alter the fact that, as between Germany and those powers which have ratified it, those provisions are binding. Under article 119 of the treaty Germany renounced "in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and titles over her oversea possessions.” Under article 22 those possessions situated in South West Africa and the Southern Pacific were assigned to the mandatory with provision for their administration “under the laws of the mandatory as integral portions of its territory." This provision was incorporated in the terms of the “C” mandates which, as your Government are aware, have been approved and confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations.
5. The Government of the United States will remember that the plenipotentiaries representing the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa refrained from pressing the question of the annexation of these particular territories at the earnest request of the United States Government or president at the time, but only on the express understanding that in return for accepting, instead, mandates over these territories, they would be free to administer them as integral parts of the mandatory dominions. It is impossible now to admit any departure from this express understanding.
See Department's telegram No. 287, Oct. 18, 1923, 6 p. m., to the Ambassador in Great Britain, ibid., 1923, vol. II, p. 235.
Malloy, Treaties, 1910-1923, vol. III, p. 3329.
6. Apart from these considerations, the governments of the dominions would be unable, for reasons of a practical and physical nature, to comply in full with some of the claims advanced by the United States Government. With the object nevertheless of testifying to their friendly sentiments towards the United States, they are willing that an assurance should be given, embodied, if desired, in the form of a binding engagement, that so long as the terms of the mandates remain unaltered, United States nationals and goods will be treated in all respects on a footing equal to that enjoyed by the nationals and goods of any state member of the League of Nations, with the exception of those within the British Empire, subject only to the proviso that this shall not involve the violation of any existing treaty engagements towards third parties. I have [etc.] (In the absence of the Secretary of State)
G. H. VILLIERS
800.01 M 31/213 : Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Great Britain (Sterling)
WASHINGTON, April 25, 1925–5 p. m. 133. Your despatch 1111, March 16. (1) Please reply as follows:
"I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Villiers' note of March 14, 1925, with respect to the British “C” mandates.
I note the assurance given that 'so long as the terms of the mandates remain unaltered, United States nationals and goods will be treated in all respects on a footing equal to that enjoyed by the nationals and goods of any state member of the League of Nations, with the exception of those within the British Empire, subject only to the proviso that this shall not involve the violation of any existing treaty engagements towards third parties.'
In due course I shall communicate to you the views of my Gov. ernment with respect to the points raised in your communication under acknowledgment.
(2) Please informally request information with respect to the nature of “any existing treaty engagements toward third parties” of the nature referred to in the passage quoted above, and telegraph brief report.
12 Apparently the further communication contemplated was not made.
800.01 M 31/215 : Telegram
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) to the Secretary of
LONDON, June 12, 1925—noon.
[Received June 12–8:23 a. m.] 172. Your 133, April 25, 5 p. m. I am informally advised by the Foreign Office that so far as it is aware there are no existing treaty engagements towards third parties affecting the territories in question and that the proviso was inserted merely as a precaution of a general nature.
DELAY IN EXCHANGE OF RATIFICATIONS OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE CONVENTION PENDING ADJUSTMENT OF CASES INVOLVING THE CAPITULATORY RIGHTS OF AMERICANS 13
867n.01/421 : Telegram
The Chargé in Great Britain (Sterling) to the Secretary of State
LONDON, March 7, 1925—11 a. m.
[Received March 7–10:45 a. m.] 94. The Foreign Office having heard from Sir Esme Howard 14 that the Palestine mandate treaty 15 has been ratified by the Senate, asks me by an informal communication whether we are ready to proceed to the exchange of ratifications.
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Great Britain (Sterling)
WASHINGTON, April 21, 1925. Sir: The Department has received your telegram No. 94 of March 7, 1925, wherein you report that the Foreign Office has been informed by the British Ambassador in Washington that the United States Senate has advised and given its consent to the ratification of the Convention between the United States and Great Britain, signed at London on December 3, 1924, with respect to the rights of the two Governments and their nationals in Palestine. It is noted that, in an informal communication, the Foreign Office has asked whether this
*For previous correspondence concerning efforts to maintain American capitulatory rights in Palestine, see Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. II, pp. 197 ff. * British Ambassador at Washington.
*Convention of Dec. 3, 1924, between the United States and Great Britain, Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. 11, p. 212.