Treaty Series No. 759 Convention Between the United States of America and Belgium, Signed at Washington, December 9, 1925 The President of the United States of America and His Majesty the King of the Belgians, being desirous of avoiding any difficulties which might arise between them in connection with the laws in force in the United States on the subject of alcoholic beverages have decided to conclude a Convention for that purpose, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries: The President of the United States of America: Mr. Frank B. Kellogg, Secretary of State of the United States; and His Majesty the King of the Belgians: Baron de Cartier de Marchienne, His Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United States of America. Who, having communicated their full powers found in good and due form, have agreed as follows: ARTICLE I The High Contracting Parties respectively retain their rights and claims, without prejudice by reason of this agreement, with respect to the extent of their territorial jurisdiction. ARTICLE II (1) His Majesty the King of the Belgians agrees that Belgium will raise no objection to the boarding of private vessels under the Belgian flag outside the limits of territorial waters by the authorities of the United States, its territories or possessions in order that enquiries may be addressed to those on board and an examination be made of the ship's papers for the purpose of ascertaining whether the vessel or those on board are endeavoring to import or have imported alcoholic beverages into the United States, its territories or possessions in violation of the laws there in force. When such enquiries and examination show a reasonable ground for suspicion, a search of the vessel may be effected. (2) If there is reasonable cause for belief that the vessel has committed or is committing or attempting to commit an offense against the laws of the United States, its territories or possessions prohibiting the importation of alcoholic beverages, the vessel may be seized and taken into a port of the United States, its territories or possessions for adjudication in accordance with such laws. In English and French; French text not printed. Ratification advised by the Senate, Mar. 3, 1926; ratified by the President, Mar. 30, 1926; ratified by Belgium, Dec. 5, 1927; ratifications exchanged at Washington, Jan. 11, 1928; proclaimed by the President, Jan. 11, 1928. 75289-40--41 (3) The rights conferred by this article shall not be exercised at a greater distance from the coast of the United States, its territories or possessions than can be traversed in one hour by the vessel suspected of endeavoring to commit the offense. In cases, however, in which the liquor is intended to be conveyed to the United States, its territories or possessions by a vessel other than the one boarded and searched, it shall be the speed of such other vessel and not the speed of the vessel boarded, which shall determine the distance from the coast at which the right under this article can be exercised. ARTICLE III No penalty or forfeiture under the laws of the United States shall be applicable or attach to alcoholic liquors or to vessels or persons by reason of the carriage of such liquors, when such liquors are listed as sea stores or cargo destined for a port foreign to the United States, its territories or possessions on board Belgian vessels voyaging to or from ports of the United States, or its territories or possessions or passing through the territorial waters thereof, and such carriage shall be as now provided by law with respect to the transit of such liquors through the Panama Canal, provided that such liquors shall be kept under seal continuously while the vessel on which they are carried remains within said territorial waters and that no part of such liquors shall at any time or place be unladen within the United States, its territories or possessions. ARTICLE IV Any claim by a Belgian vessel for compensation on the grounds that it has suffered loss or injury through the improper or unreasonable exercise of the rights conferred by Article II of this Convention or on the ground that it has not been given the benefit of Article III shall be referred for the joint consideration of two persons, one of whom shall be nominated by each of the High Contracting Parties. Effect shall be given to the recommendations contained in any such joint report. If no joint report can be agreed upon, the claim shall be referred to an umpire selected by the two Governments; should they fail to agree on the choice of that umpire, it shall be referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague described in the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, concluded at The Hague October 18, 1907. The Arbitral Tribunal shall be constituted in accordance with Article 87 (Chapter IV) and with Article 59 (Chapter III) of the said Convention. The proceedings shall be regulated by so much of Chapter IV of the said Convention and of Chapter III thereof (special regard being had for Articles 70 and 74, but excepting Articles 53 and 54) as the Tribunal may consider to be applicable and to be consistent with the provisions of this agreement. All sums of money which may be awarded by the Tribunal on account of any claim shall be paid within eighteen months after the date of the final award without interest and without deduction, save as hereafter specified. Each Government shall bear its own expenses. The expenses of the Tribunal shall be defrayed by a ratable deduction of the amount of the sums awarded by it, at a rate of five per cent. on such sums, or at such lower rate as may be agreed upon between the two Governments; the deficiency, if any, shall be defrayed in equal moieties by the two Governments. ARTICLE V This Convention shall be subject to ratification and shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications. Three months before the expiration of the said period of one year, either of the High Contracting Parties may give notice of its desire to propose modifications in the terms of the Convention. If such modifications have not been agreed upon before the expiration of the term of one year mentioned above, the Convention shall lapse. If no notice is given on either side of the desire to propose modifications, the convention shall remain in force for another year, and so on automatically, but subject always in respect of each such period of a year to the right on either side to propose as provided above three months before its expiration modifications in the Convention, and to the provision that if such modifications are not agreed upon before the close of the period of one year, the Convention shall lapse. ARTICLE VI In the event that either of the High Contracting Parties shall be prevented either by judicial decision or legislative action from giving full effect to the provisions of the present Convention the said Convention shall automatically lapse, and, on such lapse or whenever this Convention shall cease to be in force, each High Contracting Party shall enjoy all the rights which it would have possessed had this Convention not been concluded. The present Convention shall be duly ratified by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by His Majesty the King of the Belgians in accordance with the constitutional laws of Belgium; and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible. In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention in duplicate in the English and French languages and have thereunto affixed their seals. Done at the city of Washington this ninth day of December, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five. INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IN GERMAN REPARATION PAYMENTS TO BELGIUM' 462.00 R 296/746: Telegram The Ambassador in Belgium (Phillips) to the Secretary of State [Paraphrase] BRUSSELS, December 4, 1924-12 noon. [Received 3:48 p. m.] 118. Yesterday I called on the Minister for Foreign Affairs at his request and he explained that Belgian Government was greatly concerned over attitude of the British Treasury experts in Paris. According to the Minister it is feared that British delegates are seeking to do away with Belgian priority to German payments held by the Comptabilité Centrale de Gages at Coblenz. Allied Powers had always admitted [payment?] of army costs out of these funds. British experts now assert that Belgium is not entitled to receive priority payments from these funds held at Coblenz and must hereafter accept her proportion of payments in kind instead of in cash. Belgian Government is anxious to be protected from extreme view of British Treasury and asks intervention of delegate of the United States in support of the Belgian equities. The Minister reminded me that the Government of the United States had from the first favored idea of Belgian priorities; that Belgium had been very sympathetic to recent American claim to right of participation in Dawes annuities to cover claims of American citizens in addition to army costs; and that Belgian Government had taken initiative in turning over to the United States 25 percent of any sums paid to Belgium even before ratification of Army Costs Agreement of May 25, 1923. The Minister said that he referred to these three points in the hope that the Department would at present time find it possible to come to Belgium's assistance and to protect her from British Treasury's ultra rigid attitude. He also referred to critical situation which For related correspondence, see pp. 107 ff. and vol. п, pp. 133 ff. 6 See Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. II, pp. 1 ff. ་ For correspondence concerning payment by Belgium, see ibid., pp. 140 ff.; for text of agreement, see ibid., 1923, vol. II, p. 180. would be created here in political circles were the Government forced to abandon its just claim to priority payments; it is evident that both he and the Prime Minister are alarmed at course events have taken in Paris and foresee that there will be decided reaction against the Government in the forthcoming elections should Belgium be forced to abandon her present priorities. Copy of this telegram sent to Logan. PHILLIPS 462.00 R 296/746: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Herrick) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, January 3, 1925–9 p. m. 11. L-186 for Logan. You are referred to Ambassador Phillips' telegram of December 4, 1924, on Belgium's request for American support of her priority. (1) The Department appreciates greatly the attitude of Belgium toward American participation in German payments and desires, of course, continued Belgian support. In principle, also, this Government desires that Belgium receive equitable treatment. (2) The Department understands from Ambassador Phillips' telegram that Belgium desires our support of her priority. The principle of Belgian priority has already been viewed with sympathy by this Government, and, in principle, the Department is entirely willing that Belgian priority should be realized. The points on which Belgian priority has been contested, however, have not been made clear. Ambassador Phillips' telegram refers to German payments held at Coblenz. Department's view is unchanged that this Government would not wish to be considered as expressing any opinion on these funds. If Belgium desires American support on some specific point please telegraph particulars to Department. (3) Referring to Belgian debt question raised in your L-285, December 19, 1924, 7 p. m.,3 question 5: The Department's general position has already been set forth in its L-142, November 7, 1924, 6 p. m. Obviously it is essential for us to maintain integrity of our position of looking to Belgium for payment. I do not see, therefore, how the United States could assert a claim to participate in German payments without implying change in Department's position. The Department appreciates, however, that as we continue to look to Belgium for payment we have a deep interest in Belgium's strength Ibid., 1924, vol. II, p. 108. 'Ibid., p. 71. |