into force of the Palestine Mandate Convention, His Majesty's Government notice with satisfaction that the United States Government have no objection to the retrial by the Palestinian Courts of the cases concerned, but regret that it is not possible for them to take the measures suggested in your notes under reply. Such measures would involve ex post facto legislation of the kind which is as contrary to British as to United States constitutional practice. Here again it appears that the only solution is that suggested above: that is, for each government to take formal note of the view held by the other, while expressing its regret that it is unable on principle to conform to it. 4. If there is any civil case, however, in which a United States citizen has refused to appear in the Palestinian courts, relying upon his rights under the former capitulatory system, and where he alleges that he had a good defence and that, had he appeared, the judgment would therefore not have been entered against him, the Palestinian Government will be prepared to request the Chief Justice, or some other responsible officer, to investigate the case. Should this officer, as a result of his investigations, form the opinion that the defence, which would have been put forward by the American citizen had he appeared, would have succeeded, His Majesty's Government will undertake that the Palestine Government will offer fair compensation to the United States citizen concerned as an act of diplomatic courtesy not affecting the question of principle involved. 5. It does not appear to His Majesty's Government that any useful purpose would be served by a further discussion of the complicated legal position arising out of the abolition of the capitulations prior to the entry into force of the Convention. It is apparent that the views held by His Majesty's Government, as Mandatories for Palestine, and those held by the United States Government on this matter cannot be reconciled, and, in view of the conclusion of the Mandate Convention, further attempts to reconcile these views appear unnecessary. His Majesty's Government have, however, no desire to obtain from the Government of the United States any formal abandonment of the capitulatory rights of United States citizens in Palestine prior to the entry into force of the Convention. On the contrary, they readily take formal note of the fact that the claim to these rights was not abandoned by the United States Government. At the same time they feel convinced that the United States Government will equally appreciate the position of His Majesty's Government, and will as a friendly act refrain from pressing them to recede therefrom. I have [etc.] (In the absence of the Secretary of State) LANCELOT OLIPHANT 867n.01/446: Telegram The Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) to the Secretary of State LONDON, November 24, 1925-10 a. m. [Received November 24-7 :09 a. m.] 356. Department's 344, November 23, 3 p. m.2 Informally advised by Foreign Office that I may expect reply to Embassy's note based on Department's instruction number 224, October 13th, to be somewhat further delayed due to inundation of work on Treaty Department caused by recent royal death. HOUGHTON 867n.01/446: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) WASHINGTON, November 28, 1925—6 p. m. 349. Your 356, November 24, 10 a. m. Department is at loss to understand the reason for delay in exchange of ratifications of Palestine Convention. Embassy's note, based on Department's instruction of October 13, was a reply to the Foreign Office communication of that date and does not necessitate further correspondence or require any other action than formal exchange of ratifications. In note of October 13 Foreign Office stated "It is desirable from every point of view that the exchange of ratifications should take place with the least possible delay". To meet this desire, and because the Department appreciated the difficulty of attempting final determination of the conflicting legal viewpoints advanced, the assurances in British note were accepted as a basis for exchange of ratifications. With existing troubled situation in the mandate territories, it is important for the Department to know promptly whether it can depend upon treaty arrangements for the determination of its rights. Orally present these considerations to Foreign Office and endeavor to arrange prompt exchange of ratifications. Telegraph result of your representations. KELLOGG *Not printed. 867n.01/448: Telegram The Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) to the Secretary of State LONDON, December 3, 1925-4 p. m. 48 370. My 366, November 30, 6 p. m. Ratifications exchanged this afternoon. HOUGHTON DISSATISFACTION OF THE UNITED STATES WITH THE DECISION RELATING TO THE IRAQ MANDATE TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AT THE INSTANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN 890g.01/101a: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Kellogg) [Paraphrase] 44 WASHINGTON, October 21, 1924-7 p. m. 369. Department's 368, October 21, 6 p. m. In connection with matters presented in that telegram you may find opportunity also to take up with the Foreign Office informally the situation which has developed because of the British procedure regarding the mandate for Mesopotamia. There is reported in the minutes of the Council of the League for the 30th session, held on September 27, the adoption of the draft decision which the British submitted to the League with the object of defining British responsibilities and rights in Iraq.“ The American Government was not consulted regarding this decision nor was informed of the proposed action. You will recall the exchange of communications regarding Palestine and the view which we have held consistently that this Government has a right to be consulted regarding dispositions made with respect to territories under mandate. The resolution adopted by the League on the initiative of the British Government purports to deal with the capitulatory rights of foreigners in Iraq. It fails apparently to include provisions which might help to guard against improper monopolies and protect the principle of equality of opportunity in Iraq. I am at a loss to understand the action of the British Government in proceeding in this matter as outlined above without conferring with our Government, in view of our long correspondence with their Gov 43 Not printed. "Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. I, p. 64. For text of draft mandate for Mesopotamia, see ibid., 1921, vol. I, p. 105. 15 League of Nations, Official Journal, 5th year, No. 10, p. 1346. ernment regarding principles applicable to territories under mandate and of the statement made in the fourth paragraph of the British note of December 29, 1921, transmitted to the Department in Embassy's No. 831 of December 30, 1921.40 As the Department has just received the documents in the case and has not yet had opportunity for a thorough study of the matter, it is not desired that you make representations in writing at this time. It would be helpful, however, to have any information which you can secure through oral inquiry. Possibly you may find it advisable to mention this matter in the conversation which you will have in connection with Department's telegram 368. HUGHES 890g.01/107: Telegram The Ambassador in Great Britain (Kellogg) to the Secretary of State LONDON, November 3, 1924-4 p. m. 47 449. Your 369, October 21, 7 p. m.,*7 and penultimate paragraph of my 442, October 28, 5 p. m.48 In further conversation at the Foreign Office I am informed that the mandate for Mesopotamia was never submitted to the League of Nations by the British Government because of the susceptibilities of Iraq, but in its place the treaty of King Feisal was concluded,1o embodying the essential provisions of the mandate. The decision of the Council of the League at its 14th meeting of the 30th session was a declaration to approve the British communication defining British rights and responsibilities in Iraq. The decision of the Council and the dependent treaty, the Foreign Office states, together constitute the mandate and therefore the question of discrimination is provided for. KELLOGG 890g.01/125b The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Great Britain (Sterling) No. 627 WASHINGTON, April 20, 1925. SIR: Referring to the Department's telegraphic instruction No. 369 of October 21, 1924, and to your telegraphic replies Nos. 442 and 449 of October 28 and November 3, 1924, respectively," the Depart Foreign Relations, 1921, vol. п, p. 115. 47 Supra. 48 Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. II. p. 68. Treaty of alliance and protocol between Great Britain and Iraq, signed Oct. 10, 1922, and Apr. 30, 1923, League of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 35, p. 13; and four subsidiary agreements signed Mar. 25, 1924, ibid., pp. 35, 103, 131, and 145. 20 Telegrams Nos. 369 and 499 printed supra; telegram No. 442 printed in Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. I, p. 68. ment desires to furnish you with the following résumé of its position with respect to the Decision relative to Iraq taken by the Council of the League of Nations, at the fourteenth meeting of its thirtieth session, held at Geneva on September 27, 1924. Reference is made also to your despatch No. 1037 of February 3, 1925,51 transmitting copies. of a British Government publication entitled "Papers Relating to the Application to Iraq of the Principles of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations." 52 53 The evident effect of this action of the Council, apparently taken at the instance of the British Government, is the substitution of the Decision of September 27, 1924, (see copy annexed and hereinafter referred to as the Decision) together with the Anglo-Iraq Treaty of October 10, 1922, the Protocol of April 30, 1923, and the Subsidiary Agreements of March 25, 1924, for the earlier Draft Mandate for Mesopotamia. In accordance with the Council's policy with reference to "A" Mandates, this earlier Draft Mandate for Mesopotamia followed the general lines of the Mandates adopted in the cases of Palestine and Syria. You are already familiar with the correspondence which was carried on by this Government with the British Government and with. the Council of the League of Nations between 1920 and 1922, with reference to the right of this Government to be consulted with respect to the form of the Mandatory arrangements for territories detached from Germany and her Allies as a result of the war. This Government in this correspondence further indicated its views with regard to the principles which it considered applicable to Mandated territories. A part of this correspondence, as you will recall, was pub. lished in British Parliamentary Paper, Cmd. 1226, Miscellaneous No. 10 (1921) entitled "Correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the United States Ambassador Respecting Economic Rights in Mandated Territories." More recent correspondence is contained in the Senate Document 54 enclosed with the Department's instruction No. 268, July 9, 1924.55 Your attention is particularly directed to the portion of this document, pages 47 to 57, relating to Mesopotamia. Reference may be made also to the Monthly Political Report for January, 1924, in which is given, on pages 27 to 29, a brief survey of developments in Mesopotamia during the period April 1920 to January 1924. 55 The Department's files indicate that the Anglo-Iraq Treaty, Protocol and Subsidiary Agreements were approved by the Iraq Con 53 Ibid., p. 6. "Oil Concessions in Foreign Countries, S. Doc. 97, 68th Cong., 1st sess. 55 Not printed. |