463.00 R 29/177: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Herrick) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, June 30, 1925-7 p. m. 245. Embassy's 326, June 12, 2 p. m., final paragraph. Question of disposition of the liberation bonds is one between the Governments of the United States of America, the British Empire, France, and Italy, named in agreements of September 10 and December 8, 1919; these agreements are separate and distinct from the treaties of peace both in purpose and in subject matter, and, unlike the treaties, they do not require ratification. They impose certain duties and confer certain rights upon the Government of the United States, and the latter can neither be relieved of its duties nor deprived of its rights without its consent. Question at issue is not one to be determined among Allied Governments alone. It is specifically one for determination between Governments named in articles 4 and 5 of the agreements. Conference of Ambassadors as such has no competency to deal with question unless specifically authorized by the interested Governments, of which the Government of the United States is one. In event that Conference of Ambassadors should be so authorized, it may be looked upon as a Conference ad hoc of representatives of the Governments concerned. Moreover, as the decision rests with the four Governments named in the agreements, the Government of Japan, although it has a permanent representation on the Conference of Ambassadors, has no voice in the decision. The fact that you sit as an observer on the Conference and do not vote on matters which are of no direct interest to this Government is wholly immaterial. When questions such as the present one arise in which the Government of the United States has a definite and direct interest, you, as the representative of this Government, have every right to be heard, to record views of your Government, and, if necessary, to vote. You may make use of the foregoing statements when question of liberation bonds again is brought before Conference, and you should repeat with emphasis statement contained in Department's No. 99, February 24, 4 p. m., adding that if agreement cannot be reached by you with representatives of the British, French, and Italian Governments in Paris, the Government of the United States requests that any further discussion of matter be deferred until it has had opportunity to take up question directly with Governments of France, Great Britain, and Italy. 75289-40- -21 While the Department does not believe that there is any occasion for you to embark upon any discussion of scope of authority accorded Conference of Ambassadors as such, you will observe from minutes of various discussions in Supreme Council which finally resulted in setting up of Conference of Ambassadors that Conference is one of representatives of Governments sitting in interim between meetings of Supreme Council; that Governments concerned are left entirely free to determine who shall represent them on the Conference; and that authority of the Conference extends only so far as those Governments shall specifically authorize. Since the Government of the United States in this matter enjoys certain rights irrespective of its ratification or nonratification of the treaties of peace, the decision is one to be determined solely by the four Governments concerned. Form and manner of reaching decision is for them alone to decide; and while this Government may not have any objection, if matter is discussed between representatives of the four Governments who sit on Conference of Ambassadors, it must be understood clearly that it is not Conference of Ambassadors as such which takes decision but Governments concerned acting through their duly authorized representatives. You will also recall that the Government of the United States in May 1921 was invited to be represented on Supreme Council, and accepted the invitation; and that Mr. Harvey, the American Ambassador in Great Britain, was designated to represent this Government on Supreme Council whenever questions in which the Government of the United States was directly concerned should arise for discussion.16 Inasmuch as Conference of Ambassadors is dependent upon Supreme Council and holds its authority from the Governments, the right of Government of the United States to participate fully whenever a matter should come up for discussion in which this Government has a direct interest is not open to question. KELLOGG 463.00 R 29/180 The Unofficial Representative on the Reparation Commission (Hill) to the Secretary of State PARIS, 30 October, 1925. SIR: Referring to the Department's telegram No. 245 of June 30, 1925, 7 p. m., to the American Embassy at Paris, and to other correspondence concerning the question of Liberation Bonds, I have the honor to enclose for the Department's information, two copies of a communication dated October 27, 1925, just received from the Finance Section," together with two copies of the letter transmitted therewith from the French Delegation to the Reparation Commission, dated October 26, 1925,17 in which it is stated that the French Government considers it preferable in the present circumstances not to provoke any demand for the issue of bonds referred to in the agreement of 1919 with respect to the Liberation Debt. A copy of these documents has been transmitted to the Embassy here for its information. I am [etc.] RALPH W. S. HILL 463.00 R 29/181 The Unofficial Representative on the Reparation Commission (Hill) to the Secretary of State PARIS, 7 December, 1925. SIR: Supplementing my letter to the Department of October 30th last concerning the question of Liberation Bonds, (share of the cessionary States of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy), I have the honor to enclose for the Department's information, two copies of a communication dated December 5, 1925,1 transmitting a letter from the British Delegation to the Reparation Commission, dated December 3, 1925, in which it is stated that the British Government takes the view that it would be preferable not to call for the issue of the bonds in the present circumstances (F. S. Document 60-a). 17 A copy of these documents has been transmitted to the Embassy here for its information. I am [etc.] RALPH W. S. HILL REFUSAL BY THE UNITED STATES TO CONSENT TO THE ADHERENCE 857H.01/36 The French Ambassador (Daeschner) to the Secretary of State [Translation 19] WASHINGTON, April 7, 1925. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: Article 10 of the treaty of February 9, 1920, relative to Spitzbergen 20 makes it a condition for the adherence "Not printed. "For previous correspondence concerning the adherence of the Soviet Union to the treaty, see Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. 1, pp. 1 ff. "File translation revised. "Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. 1, p. 78. of Russia that a Russian Government shall be recognized by the High Contracting Parties: "Until the recognition by the High Contracting Parties of a Russian Government shall permit Russia to adhere to the present Treaty, Russian nationals and companies shall enjoy the same rights as nationals of the High Contracting Parties." The Soviet Government having since informed the Norwegian Government that it acknowledged the sovereignty of Norway in Spitzbergen and made no objection to the treaty of February 9, 1920, being put into operation, it seemed to the French Government that it would be advantageous to secure the formal adherence of the Soviet Government without giving the said Government any ground upon which to claim recognition by all the signatory powers on the strength of article 10. To that end under instructions from the French Government my predecessor laid before the American Secretary of State a draft protocol stating that the powers signatory to the treaty of February 9, 1920, had agreed that "notwithstanding the stipulation in article 10, Russia be permitted to give its adherence even though all the High Contracting Parties have not yet recognized the existence of a Russian Government." While concurring in the French Government's suggestion to let Russia adhere to the treaty concerning Spitzbergen without waiting for the recognition of the Government of the Union by all the signatory powers, the Honorable Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Jusserand in behalf of the American Government that instead of the protocol originally contemplated there be substituted an agreement calling for ratification. He also expressed a desire that it be clearly specified that the signature of the United States, if eventually placed on that agreement, could in no wise be regarded as implying its recognition of the Soviet Government. I have the honor to inform Your Excellency that my Government, so far as it is concerned, sees no objection to concurring in the views of the American Government. Nevertheless the language of the draft agreement handed by Mr. Grew to Mr. de Laboulaye on July 15 last,21 and forwarded to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, calls in its turn for a reservation which is considered to be essential. It bears on the style of designation of the Government of the Union. The American draft speaks of the regime "now functioning in Russia and known as the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics". This designation is open to two objections: 1. One of a judicial nature: A regime cannot be party to a treaty; 2. A more serious objection of political character: The American 21 Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. 1, p. 5. designation carries a somewhat disparaging sense, and it is to be feared that under those conditions some of the signatory powers that have recognized the Government of the Union may hesitate to affix their signatures to a document which they might believe likely to wound the susceptibilities of the Soviets. The French Government therefore suggests, subject to any other minor change without, however, bearing on the substance, that there be substituted for the sentence "that some of them recognize the regime now functioning in Russia and known as the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics" the sentence "now acknowledging the existence in Russia of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics". I therefore have the honor to submit to Your Excellency the enclosed draft arrangement 22 which takes into account as far as possible the wishes of the Government of the United States and seems to my Government to contain a formula that will be acceptable to all the powers. Be pleased [etc.] 857H.01/36 E. DAESCHNER The Acting Secretary of State to the French Ambassador (Daeschner) WASHINGTON, May 12, 1925. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of April 7, 1925, in further relation to the question of the adherence of Russia to the Treaty of February 9, 1920, concerning Spitzbergen. You state that your Government concurs in the views of this Government that the adherence of Russia to the Treaty should be effected through an agreement calling for ratification, but that it perceives objection to the designation "the regime now functioning in Russia and known as the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics" which is used in the draft agreement handed to Mr. de Laboulaye by Mr. Grew on July 15, 1924. This Government has given careful consideration to the views of the French Government in the matter as expressed in your note of April 7, 1925, and I now enclose a draft of the proposed agreement which it is believed is in harmony with the views of the French Government as set forth in your note. Accept [etc.] "Not printed JOSEPH C. GREW |