Lapas attēli

made extraditable by said paragraph. I therefore request that the Department disregard so much of the previous correspondence as refers to that point, and of course the references thereto in Dr. Céspedes' note No. 1027 of October 7, 1925, which forms enclosure No. 2 of this despatch.

In considering this question Dr. Céspedes stated he felt it might be necessary for him to submit a note to the Embassy with reference to the Protocol Amending the Spanish Text of the Extradition Treaty of April 6, 1904,28 in order that there might be no possibility of any doubt arising in Cuba of the inclusion of "estafa" as an extraditable offense. "Estafa” is a broader term than our words “embezzlement” or "arceny" and broader also than the phrase "obtaining money, etc. under false pretenses", and he expressed his agreement that it would be difficult to find an exact English equivalent for the qualified estafa which he wished to make an extraditable offense. He further said that he was of the opinion that the crime of qualified estafa could be made to appear as extraditable by changing the punctuation of paragraph 6 of Article II of the Protocol, where he apparently felt that the first two commas should be semicolons, as they are in the English text of the original treaty, and perhaps by changing other obscurities of the Spanish text arising out of improper punctuation.

I transmit herewith, as enclosure No. 3, a draft of the proposed Additional Extradition Treaty 29 in a form which according to the oral understanding arrived at with Dr. Céspedes is agreeable to his Government and which appears to me to be closely in accord with the views expressed by the Department. I should be pleased to receive the Department's comment on this draft. I have [etc.]



The Ambassador in Cuba (Crowder) to the Secretary of State No. 1225

HABANA, November 3, 1925.

[Received November 9.] Sir: I have the honor to refer to my despatch No. 1220 of October 30, 1925,29 transmitting a translation of the Cuban counter draft entitled “Convention between the Republic of Cuba and the United States of America for the Suppression of Smuggling”.

In order that the Department may be in a position to compare this draft with the two previous American drafts, which it combines into a single counter proposal, there is transmitted herewith a comparison in parallel columns of the corresponding articles of these drafts.29

[ocr errors][merged small]

The Department will observe that in general the tendency of the Cuban Government has been to amplify and to attempt to render more specific certain of the articles in question. In general I think that the Cuban Government has shown a sincere spirit of good-will in the negotiations, but I am not certain that all of their proposals will be entirely suitable to conditions prevailing in the United States. It should be observed that the first twelve articles of the Cuban draft convention have provisions corresponding to all of the provisions of the American draft entitled "Convention between the United States and Cuba to Suppress Smuggling Operations Between Their Respective Territories”, with the exception of the provisions in Article V of the American draft to the effect that the High Contracting Parties would agree to refuse admission to aliens seeking entry into their territory when there was reason to suspect that such aliens were endeavoring to enter said territory for the purpose of subsequently effecting unlawful entry into the territory of the other High Contracting Party.

Articles XIII to XX, inclusive, of the Cuban counter draft correspond to the articles of the American draft entitled “Convention for the Prevention of Smuggling of Intoxicating Liquors into the United States". Here it will be noted that Article XIV of the Cuban counter draft departs substantially from the American draft in that it makes the right of search of vessels, et cetera, a reciprocal privilege instead of confining the same to a unilateral declaration on the part of Cuba as was suggested in the American draft, which in turn was based on the convention between the United States and Great Britain on this subject, signed at Washington on January 23, 1924. It should further be noted that Article XV of the Cuban counter draft provides for the submission of a report of the boarding or search of a vessel to the diplomatic and consular representatives of the nation under the flag of which the ship sails. Article XVIII of the Cuban counter draft, it will be noted, substitutes the Permanent Court of International Justice of The Hague, in the event that the United States should adhere to the protocol of December 16, 1920,30 for the Permanent Arbitration Tribunal mentioned in the American draft.

I shall defer discussing with the Cuban Government Article I of the American draft as instructed in the Department's instruction No. 566 of October 24, 1925,31 and I shall await with interest the Department's comments on the Cuban counter proposals. I venture to express the hope that I may receive instructions on this subject at as early a date as possible, in order that I may be able to complete the negotiations so that the treaty will be ready to submit to the Senate of the United

Foreign Relations, 1920, vol, 1, p. 17. * Not printed.

States at the next session of Congress, as proposed in the Department's instruction No. 458 of April 9, 1925.33

The Department will observe that the text of the English translation used in the parallel column statement enclosed herewith is slightly different from that transmitted with my despatch No. 1220 of October 30. These slight changes have been made with a view to rendering the translation into more idiomatic and accurate English.

There is also enclosed herewith, for the Department's consideration, a copy of the Spanish text of the Cuban counter draft.83 I have [etc.]




The Ambassador in Cuba (Crowder) to the Secretary of State No. 1227

HABANA, November 3, 1925.

[Received November 9.1 SIR: I have the honor to refer to my telegrams Nos. 120 of September 30, 2 P. M., and 122 of October 13, 10 A. M., and to the Department's telegram No. 113 of October 16, 1 P. M.,84 with reference to the desire of the Cuban Government to receive at an early date the reply of the American Government to the Cuban counter-draft of the proposed Consular Convention.

I now have the honor to transmit herewith a translation of a note, No. 1103, dated October 30, 1925, from Dr. Céspedes 33 in which he makes formal inquiry concerning the status of this matter and points out that it has been pending without reply for more than two months.

I am sure the Department will appreciate that under these circumstances it is somewhat embarrassing for me to attempt to urge expedition upon the Cuban Government in its consideration of the Smuggling and Extradition Treaties, and I trust the Department will assist me in my negotiations by giving the Consular Convention as prompt consideration as possible. I have [etc.]


211.37/30 : Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Cuba (Crowder)

WASHINGTON, November 4, 1925–5 p.m. 120. Draft extradition treaty enclosed in your No. 1217, October 22, is satisfactory ... Department will send you full powers. 35


[ocr errors]

Not printed.
34 None printed.
Full powers were sent the Ambassador on Nov. 7, 1925.


711.3721/5: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Cuba (Crowder)

WASHINGTON, November 14, 1925–9 p. m. 124. Your despatch No. 1227, November 3, 1925. You may, in your discretion, reply formally to note from Minister of Foreign Affairs as follows:

"My Government has instructed me to inform your Excellency that it regrets that it was unable to complete the examination of the counter proposals made by the Cuban Government in time to meet the desire of your Excellency to sign the Convention before the present session of the Cuban Congress convened. I am, moreover, authorized to inform your Excellency that the Department of State will endeavor to expedite the consideration which is being given to the Cuban counter draft and to place its views in regard to the Cuban proposals in my hands at an early date for communication to your Excellency.”






The Acting Secretary of State to the Minister in Czechoslovakia


No. 73

WASHINGTON, September 5, 1922. Sir: Referring to your Legation's despatch No. 15 of January 14, 1922, in relation to the possible conclusion of several treaties between the United States and the Republic of Czechoslovakia, the Department encloses a draft of an extradition treaty which you will please bring to the attention of the Foreign Office as being similar in form to the extradition treaties which the United States has with most of the countries of the world. You will add that this Government would be pleased to enter into a treaty with Czechoslovakia, based upon this draft. I am [etc.]

For the Acting Secretary of State:


211.600/1 The Chargé in Czechoslovakia (Pearson) to the Secretary of State


No. 429

PRAGUE, April 24, 1923.

[Received May 18.] SIR: Replying to the Department's Instruction No. 121 of March 30th directing the Legation to report on the results of representations made pursuant to Instruction No. 73 of September 5, 1922, transmitting the draft of a proposed extradition treaty with Czechoslovakia, I have the honor to report that on September 30, 1922, Mr. Magruder, then Chargé d'Affaires, submitted a draft of the proposed treaty to the Minister for Foreign Affairs; that on October 26th Dr. Emil Spira, a chief of Section in the Ministry of Justice, called at the Legation and discussed the possibility of cer

2 Not printed.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »