such a step, and on what basis is the Substitute of the local Parquet accused of having committed a forgery in his procès-verbal? On the basis, it is said, of a report presented by attorney Merzbach to the American consul. I wonder since when has a Substitute of the local Parquet been under the jurisdiction of American authorities for them to oppose their decisions, whatever they may be?

And I submit, Mr. President, that this indicates an anti-American attitude on the part of Judge Faik, at least an anti-foreign attitude.

Judge Faik continued:

Show us, we are told, the procedure to follow to cancel this procèsverbal which we claim to be forged. It seems to me that the request is bizarre, coming from Georges Salem, to his former judge who charges him, at least, with partiality.

(Here, the President called attention to the fact that according to the original French of this statement, Judge Faik had said that the request is bizarre coming from George Salem to his former judge, whom he (George Salem) charges with, at least, partiality.)

Mr. HUNT: The translation I have must be inaccurate at this point.

President SIMONS: In the French text, there is a mistake: it is not the judge who accuses George Salem, but it is George Salem who accuses the judge.

Mr. HUNT: He had already accused George Salem of being a forger.

President SIMONS: Yes.

Mr. HUNT: And now, Mr. President, let us examine another part of the record, which throws some light upon the character of this former Judge Faik, now Chief of Parquet, defending the Egyptian Government before the Mixed Courts in this case. On page 520 of the Counter Case of the United States, we find the record of a letter written by the Chief of Parquet to the Attorney General, in which he complains of the attitude of Attorney Ayoub Bey. This letter, addressed to the Attorney General, reads as follows:

MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL:

I have the honor to submit the following incidents which took place at the audience of June 11, 1925, in Case No. 1281, 49th Judicial Year, between George Salem and the Egyptian Government.

(1) The President of the Court, at the moment of the appeal question, pointed out to me the expressions that were out of place contained in the appeal documents, both against the Mixed Judge and against the Egyptian Government. I took note of the observation and replied that it would have the attention that it deserved. (2) After the pleading of the parties in the action I spoke in conclusion.

The lawyer who represented the appellant, Mr. Ayoub, under the pretext that in my capacity of Native Judge I was familiar with the criminal matter which the appellant had made the base of his suit against the Ministry of Justice, interrupted me in my conclusion to make this observation which I wish to repel at the present time. Now besides the principle that the members of the Public Ministry are not subject to recrimination being merely instrumentalities in the court proceeding, I consider that such an insinuation constitutes, as far as I am concerned, a grave offense from the point of view of my impartiality. I hasten, moreover, to say that my conclusions only refer to the allegation of the irreceivability raised by the Egyptian Government in First Instance and considered as valid by the judges in the court below. Thereupon I replied to the lawyer in question in challenging him to produce a single important complaint against the procedure I have followed in my capacity as Native Judge, a complaint which would be of the nature to reflect upon my impartiality. I moreover explained this procedure which I had taken in the native criminal matter where jurisdiction was taken in the face of insufficient proof then produced of the foreign nationality of the accused.

This interruption on the part of Mr. Ayoub was accompanied by offensive gestures.

Mr. Ayoub, reverting to the charge, interrupted me a second time, in speaking of the deeds with which the Judges of the Native Parquet are vested, I said that the Ministry of Justice could not validly be held responsible for their procedure in the affair which they are handling and that it is not against the Ministry of Justice that he must bring his suit.

Then against whom shall we proceed, speaking again, said Mr. Ayoub.

I do not have to indicate to you the methods you are to follow was my reply.

It is because you do not know it, said Mr. Ayoub.

I believe Mr. Attorney General, that I cannot allow to pass in silence this attitude of an attorney at the bar towards a member of the Parquet taking part in the audience.

I have the honor, Mr. Attorney General, to relate to you these facts for such purpose as you may see appropriate.

Please accept, Mr. Attorney General, the assurance of my high consideration.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Mixed Tribunal,

Alexandria.

[SEAL]

CHIEF OF THE PARQUET.

That's Judge Faik for you! That indicates two or three qualities of character which I prefer not to designate, but to leave for the Court to appraise.

And then (p. 522) follows the letter of June 25, 1925, from Ayoub Bey to the President of the Order of Egyptian Barristers, to whom it appears the Attorney General had turned over the letter of June 11 from Judge Faik for consideration:

To the President of the

Order of Egyptian Barristers.

Mr. PRESIDENT:

Having taken cognizance of the complaint of the Chief of the Parquet with regard to me, under date of the 11th instant, I have the honor of herewith giving you a résumé of the explanations which I did not fail to furnish you verbally.

1. The observation which was made during the audience by the President on the subject of the expressions contained in the instrument of appeal does not concern me at all for the good reason that I was a stranger to the drafting of the instrument and to its notification.

Not having anything to do with it personally I do not have to reply to it.

2. From the procès-verbal of the hearing, a copy of which I allow myself to enclose, it appears that the parties limited the debate to the simple question of the "irrecevabilité" of the action of the appellant which has been decided in favor of the "irrecevabilité" in the judgment below.

As soon as he got up to speak, the Chief of the Parquet did not content himself with supporting the contention of the Government, but, to my surprise, he made a point of his personal knowledge, of

the merits of the case of which he declared he had had to occupy himself and give me orders while he was Judge in the Native Criminal Court of Mehalla el Kobra.

President SIMONS: On page 523, the third paragraph, fifth line, the Chief of Parquet declared "give me orders"-"me" is nonsense there.

(Mr. Hunt continues reading :)

In the face of the revelations of this circumstance of fact, of which I had been ignorant, I could not prevent myself from expressing to the Court my personal sentiment to the effect that in the place of coming to make a point of his prior personal knowledge in the matter and discussing the merits which should have been excluded from the debate, the Chief of the Parquet would have done better to withdraw from this affair and have himself replaced by another member of the Parquet.

I believe that there is not in this either an insinuation or offense on my part but only the desire to respect the principle of the absolute calmness of justice from the moment that it was revealed that the Chief of the Parquet had previously given his views on the merits of the question.

Moreover, although there was not in this matter any exception taken of me I am of the opinion that the Chief of the Parquet made a mistake in stating that "the members of the Public Ministry are not subject to exception being mere instruments in the suit", since it is taught, on the contrary," that the Public Ministry is exceptionable whenever it is a joint party in the action, but it ceases to be so whenever it is involved as a principal." (Carpentier Rép. du Droit.-V Récusation, page 308, No. 59).

With regard to my alleged very offensive gestures I dispute them formally and I add that if there was anything on my part that was reprehensible the President, to whom belonged the matter of discipline during the hearing, would not have failed to indicate it to me.

As for the rest it is sufficiently significant to record that the President did entertain the demand of the Chief of the Parquet, tending to show that I had taxed him with ignorance.

It may finally be permitted me to remark in passing that in citing my name upon several occasions in his complaint the Chief of the Parquet pretended to be ignorant of my personal title which figures in the procès-verbal even of the hearing itself, as well as in the various letters addressed to me by the Parquet.

To recapitulate, in disputing the validity of the complaint directed against me, I affirm that I never intended to offend the Chief

of the Parquet in any matter whatsoever and that I did not have any other concern than to defend to the utmost of the law the interests

confided to me.

Please accept, Mr. President, the assurance of my very distinguished consideration.

ALEXANDRIA, June 25, 1925.

N. AYOUB

I submit that this reply shows a great contrast in character between these two men; that it is calm and dignified and shows that, once again, Judge Faik has become excited over something of very minor importance.

So far as the record discloses, the President of the Order of Egyptian Barristers paid no attention to the charges of the Chief of Parquet, and the matter appears to have been dropped.

President SIMONS: The Arbitral Tribunal will now adjourn until Friday morning, November 27, at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, the meeting of the Tribunal adjourned until Friday, November 27, at 10 o'clock a.m.)

177406-34--23