« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
matches should be entered at the duty obtaining at the time the purchase was made, it does consider that it is under the necessity of protecting Mr. Sachs against loss. This, it is believed, might be accomplished were the Palestine authorities who are now detaining Mr. Sachs' matches to take over the shipment in toto and pay to him an amount which would reimburse him for his outlay and allow a reasonable profit, or were they to release the goods to him under such circumstances as will make such result possible. Should this second course be followed the Department is of the opinion that (1) accrued storage dues on the shipment of matches to Mr. Sachs should be remitted, (2) he should be indemnified for the difference between the market value in Palestine of the shipment and its original cost plus the present customs duty thereon, (3) he should be relieved of any loss of accrued interest he may have sustained, and (4) he should receive an amount equal to such reasonable profit as might have accrued on the sale of this shipment had the new duty not been put into effect.
The foregoing discussion of the case of Mr. Elimelech Sachs is communicated to you to the end that, providing the British Government is prepared to give the desired assurances with regard to the judicial questions which were the subject of the Department's instruction No. 631 of April 21, 1925, you may be able to discuss informally with the British Foreign Office the further assurances desired by this Government in connection with the exchange of ratifications of the Palestine Mandate Convention. In discussing the case of Mr. Sachs with the British Foreign Office, you should point out that the Department, in again raising this question at this time, does not desire in any way to place any unnecessary difficulties in the way of the coming into effect of the Convention at the earliest possible moment, and that it is not disposed to make an issue of the omission of the British Government to seek and obtain the assent of this Government to the increase of the Palestine tariff affecting the shipment of Mr. Sachs. It is, however, the Department's opinion, an opinion in which it is believed the British Government will readily concur, that, in the circumstances of the case of Mr. Sachs, adequate provision should be made to obviate the possibility of his sustaining any loss as a result of the application to his shipment of matches of the increased tariff of August 15, 1924.
In conclusion, you may, in your discretion, inform the Foreign Office that, should the British Government be prepared to give the desired assurances in connection with the case of Mr. Sachs, this Government will raise no further objection to the action of the British authorities, in providing for an increase in the Palestine tariff and in applying such tariff to the merchandise of American nationals,
without first ascertaining that such increase was acceptable to this Government.
Enclosed with this instruction is this Government's signed original of the Palestine Mandate Convention,30 ratified by the President under date of March 2, 1925. You will, of course, retain this document in your possession until the Department, after the receipt and consideration of your reports pursuant to its instruction No. 631 of April 21, 1925, and to this instruction, shall have authorized you to effect the exchange of ratifications.
I am [etc.]
FRANK B. KELLOGG
The Counselor of Embassy in Great Britain (Sterling) to the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Dulles)
LONDON, September 29, 1925.
DEAR ALLEN: Oliphant, of the Foreign Office,31 handed me the enclosed today which I am sending you in great haste and without much comment as the pouch leaves almost immediately. The document is a suggested reply to the Department's representations against the decisions rendered by the Palestine Courts against American citizens and the increased customs dues imposed on Mr. Sachs, and is an attempt to bring to a friendly conclusion the whole vexatious question. He tells me that the Foreign Office has labored very hard with the Colonial Office in order to get as much as is contained in the reply and that he believes it will be difficult to secure any further concessions from the latter. He prefers, however, to get your views as to whether the proposed settlement will be satisfactory to the State Department before sending an official answer which might not be acceptable to you, and consequently again postpone an arrangement.
I think that Oliphant is quite sincere in his statement that he has worked very hard on this matter, realizing the justice of the American point of view, but at the same time feeling that it is impracticable to nullify and reverse action already taken by the Palestine Government. He assures me that the Foreign Office will do everything in its power to prevent further complications after the exchange of ratifications.
If you will telegraph me briefly after considering the proposed reply whether it is satisfactory or not, I will so inform Oliphant. If
30 Printed in Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. II, p. 212.
31 Lancelot Oliphant, head of the Eastern Department, British Foreign Office. "The enclosed document is identical with the note from the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the American Ambassador, Oct. 13, 1925, p. 226.
your telegram states that such a reply would be acceptable Oliphant promises to write officially to the Embassy at once.
Yours very sincerely,
F. A. STERLING
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain
WASHINGTON, October 13, 1925. SIR: The Department desires to confirm its telegram of even date " informing you that it would be prepared to authorize you to proceed to the exchange of ratifications of the Palestine Mandate Convention upon receipt, in official form, of the suggested reply from the Foreign Office to the questions raised in the Department's instructions Nos. 631 and 68 of April 21 and June 23, 1925, respectively, regarding the rights of the United States and its nationals in Palestine pending the entering into force of the Convention signed December 3, 1924.
If, therefore, the Foreign Office addresses you a note in the form indicated in the enclosure to Mr. Sterling's letter of September 29, 1925, as a reply to the Embassy's memoranda of May 4 and July 3, 1925, based respectively on the Department's instructions above mentioned, you may address an acknowledgment to the British Foreign Office in the following sense:
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's note of . . . 1925, in reply to the Embassy's note of December 19, 1924, and memoranda of May 4 and July 3, last, relative to the position of American nationals in Palestine prior to the entering into force of the Palestine Mandate Convention signed December 3, 1924. In reply I am directed to inform Your Excellency of the satisfaction with which my Government has noted the sympathetic consideration which has been accorded the communications which I had the honor to address to you on this subject, with a view to finding a mutually satisfactory basis for the settlement of the questions at issue. I take pleasure in informing you that my Government has authorized me to convey to Your Excellency its acquiescence in the suggestion that as regards the questions of principle which have arisen with respect to the status of the capitulatory rights of American citizens in the mandated territory of Palestine pending the coming into force of the Convention each government should take note of the view held by the other. Further consideration of this question is rendered unnecessary, as far as Palestine is concerned, in view of the practical steps
"Evidently refers to telegram No. 308, Oct. 12, 6 p. m., not printed.
"Not printed; see telegram No. 473, Dec. 17, 1924, 4 p. m., to the Ambassador in Great Britain, Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. II, p. 202.
which His Majesty's Government, on behalf of the Palestine Government, has indicated its readiness to take in the individual cases which the Embassy has had the honor to bring to Your Excellency's attention. Upon the exchange of ratifications of the Convention the situation. will be automatically regularized.
In conclusion, I am directed by my Government to inform Your Excellency that, as a result of the present exchange of notes, I shall be pleased, at your convenience, to proceed to the exchange of ratifications of the Palestine Mandate Convention of December 3, 1924.
I am [etc.]
FRANK B. KELLOGG
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) to the Secretary of
LONDON, October 14, 1925.
SIR: Referring to my telegram No. 318 of October 14, 12 noon, 1925, I have the honor to enclose a copy, in triplicate, of a note from the Foreign Office, dated October 13, 1925, relative to the Palestine Mandate Convention.
I have [etc.]
For the Ambassador:
F. A. STERLING Counselor of Embassy
The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Chamberlain) to the American Ambassador (Houghton) 7
No. E 4182/214/65
[LONDON,] 13 October, 1925.
YOUR EXCELLENCY: I have the honour to inform you that His Majesty's Government have considered sympathetically the various questions dealt with in Your Excellency's note of December 19th 1924,** and memoranda of May 4th 39 and July 3rd last,40 relative to the position of United States citizens in Palestine prior to and pending the entry into force of the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention of December 3rd 1924. His Majesty's Government understand that the United States Government desire to reach a friendly settlement of
36 Not printed.
37 For the American Ambassador's reply to this note, see Department's instruc tion No. 224 to the Ambassador in Great Britain, supra.
38 See telegram No. 473, Dec. 17, 1924, 4 p. m., to the Ambassador in Great Britain, Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. I, p. 202.
30 See instruction No. 631, Apr. 21, 1925, to the Chargé in Great Britain, p. 217. See instruction No. 68, June 23, 1925, to the Ambassador in Great Britain, p. 220.
the outstanding cases that have arisen in connection with this subject, before the Convention concerned is actually brought into force by the formal exchange of the ratifications which have already taken place. As from the date of this exchange the position will of course be fully regularised, and no further cases of this type can arise. It is therefore desirable from every point of view that the exchange of ratifications should take place with the least possible delay.
2. The particular cases of which a settlement is desired fall into two main categories-administrative and legal. As regards the former, His Majesty's Government fully understand the position taken up by the Government of the United States, that their prior assent is indispensable to the imposition of any dues or taxes upon United States citizens in Palestine pending the entry into force of the Convention. His Majesty's Government realize, moreover, that this position has not been changed by the mere signature of the Convention. It appears, however, that only one case in this category-that of Mr. Sachs has formed the subject of protest by the United States authorities. I understand from your memorandum of July 3rd last that the views of your government in this matter could be satisfactorily met by the remittance of the accrued storage dues on the shipment of matches to Mr. Sachs; by his indemnification for the difference between the market value in Palestine of the shipment and its original cost, together with the present Customs duty thereon; by Mr. Sachs being relieved of any loss of accrued interest which he may have sustained as a result of the action of the Palestine authorities in this matter; and by his receiving an amount equal to such reasonable profit as might have accrued on the sale of this shipment had the new duty not been put into effect. His Majesty's Government while adhering to their own views in regard to the questions of principle involved, which, as you are aware, are in conflict with those held by your government, are willing to undertake, on behalf of the Palestine Government, that the steps suggested above as regards the particular case of Mr. Sachs' shipment of matches will be taken by the Palestine Government immediately after the entry into force of the Convention. As regards the question of principle, His Majesty's Government consider now that adequate provision has been made for the future, the situation will be adequately met if each government takes formal note of the view held by the other, while at the same time expressing its regret that it is unable on grounds of principle to conform thereto.
3. With regard to the Skora case "1 and other cases involving the question of jurisdiction over American citizens prior to the entry
41 See telegram No. 365, Oct. 18, 1924, 2 p. m., to the Ambassador in Great Britain, Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. II, p. 201.