« AnteriorContinuar »
“ Benefits accruing under the aforesaid article 119 of the treaty of Versailles were confirmed to the United States by the treaty."
French translation of “ confirmed ” is “ reconnus”. There was also some discussion relative to the word “ consents " in article 1 but it was finally agreed to by making French translation “ declare accepter".
Regarding your suggestion as to elimination from article 7 of the mandate of words“ subject to the supervision which would be necessary for the maintenance of good administration " French Government does not consider that they duplicate the opening clause. The opening clause relates to public order and public morals but not to particular conditions which it is necessary to provide for such as the acquisition of property or the opening of schools. Thus any acquisition of property must be registered; while as to schools certain standards in regard to teaching must be demanded, for example that teachers must be properly qualified as such in their own countries. Further it may be necessary to impose certain restrictions at least temporarily on the teaching of the German language. None of these conditions affect either public order or morals. Foreign Office points out also that these conditions are applicable to all residents, French as well as others. French Government is unable therefore to accept your suggestion and hopes you will not insist upon it.
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Herrick) 35
WASHINGTON, July 13, 1922—6 p.m. 222. Your 283, July 12, 7 P.M.
When the Memorandum of July 8, relating to the French mandates for Togoland and the Cameroons was handed to the French Ambassador at Washington, the Department had not received full revised text of mandates, which were enclosed with your despatches No. 2084 38 and 2086 of June 30, 1922. You will make this clear to M. Poincaré when handing him Memorandum in the sense of the following:
My Government has now received a full text of the note from the Foreign Office to the Embassy dated June 28, 1922,37 regarding the mandate for the Cameroons, together with the text in full of the draft treaties for the Cameroons and Togoland and the text of the mandates as now proposed by the French Government for those territories.
* This telegram has been corrected in accordance with instructions in tele gram no. 227, July 15, to the Ambassador in France, not printed.
With respect to the suggestion of the French Government that the phrase "subject to the supervision which would be necessary for the maintenance of good administration” be included in Article 7 of the mandates, my Government, as heretofore been pointed out, feels that such a limitation would cast a doubt on the efficacy of the entire Article. If the French Government insists on its retention in the mandate, my Government would consider it necessary that there should be inserted in the Convention between the United States and France relative to this mandate the Article which was proposed for insertion into the conventions respecting the mandates for Palestine and for Syria and the Lebanon, namely, the following:
“Subject to the provisions of any local law for the maintenance of public order and public morals, the nationals of the United States will be permitted freely to establish and maintain educational, philanthropic, and religious institutions in the mandate territory, to receive voluntary applicants, and to teach in the English language."
It is gratifying to my Government to note that it is in accord with the French Government with regard to other points relating to the form of the mandate and the convention between the two Governments. There is no objection to the French Government's suggestion with respect to the recital concerning the Treaty between the United States and Germany. It is understood that, in accordance with that suggestion, the recital would read as follows:
Whereas benefits accruing under the aforesaid Article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles were confirmed to the United States by the Treaty between the United States and Germany, signed on August 25, 1921, to restore friendly relations between the two nations.
As has heretofore been stated, my Government considers that there is no substantial difference in the text of Article 1 of the convention as originally proposed by the French Government and the English text proposed by my Government, and the same seems true with reference to the language now proposed by the French Government. Either expression in the French text is acceptable to my Government.
The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to the Secretary of State
PARIs, December 8, 1922.
[Received December 27.] Sir: With reference to the Department's telegraphic instruction No. 283  of July 12 , 7  P.M., relative to the French Mandates for Togoland and the Cameroons, I have the honor to transmit herewith enclosed a copy and translation of a Note dated December 5, 1922,38 from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs on this subject. It will be noted that the Foreign Office states that the proposals of the Government of the United States in regard to the text of Article 7 of these mandates have had the consideration of the French Government, but that the latter does not deem it possible to modify the spirit of the mandates. It is alleged that the text of Article 7 of the Mandates for Togoland and the Cameroons, as approved on July 20, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, is a reproduction of the text which appears in the AmericanJapanese Treaty concerning the Pacific Islands. The Foreign Office claims that, should American missionaries be granted the right to teach in English in their churches and schools in Togoland and the Cameroons, the same privilege would be claimed by missionaries belonging to other nationalities and speaking other languages; that only a common language, which should be that of the Mandatory, can promote a close collaboration of the inhabitants with the authorities. It is held that children receiving education in any other language would be placed in an inferior position toward those who have received instruction in French schools and the Foreign Office gives its reasons for this point of view. The Note concludes with the request that the considerations set forth therein be submitted to the Government of the United States and expresses the hope that it will admit the reasons for which the French Government asks that the text of the Franco-American Treaty, relative to the territories of Mandate B, should diverge as little as possible from the text of the Mandates as they were approved by the Council of the League of Nations. I have [etc.]
* Not printed.
MYRON T. HERRICK
862q.01/17 : Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Herrick)
WASHINGTON, February 1, 1923–6 p.m. 48. French note of December 5, 1922,39 concerning B mandates, transmitted with your despatch No. 2660, December 8, 1922.
Please transmit to M. Poincaré a memorandum as follows:
“ My Government has given careful consideration to the views advanced in your note of December 5, 1922, with regard to the proposed treaties for the Cameroons and Togoland and the French mandates for those territories.
It is noted that since the date of the Embassy's last note on this matter, Article 7 of the mandates for the Cameroons and Togoland has been redrafted and that the final text of this Article, as confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on July 20, 1922, is substantially similar to paragraph 1 of Article II of the treaty between the United States and Japan, regarding the former German Islands north of the equator, signed February 11, 1922. My Government will therefore not object to the text of Article 7 as defined by the Council of the League of Nations. It is understood, however, that such acquiescence in no way affects the position heretofore taken by this Government in regard to American missionary and educational institutions in "A" mandate territories.
* Not printed.
On the above understanding, my Government is willing to proceed immediately to the signature of these conventions. 40
REPRESENTATIONS BY THE UNITED STATES ON BEHALF OF AMER.
ICAN CABLE COMPANIES FOR PERMISSION TO OPEN OFFICES
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Wallace)
WASHINGTON, April 25, 1921. Sir: The Department refers to your despatch No. 1703 of October 13, 1920,41 transmitting a note dated October 12, 1920,41 received from the French Foreign Office relative to the applications of the Western Union and Commercial Cable Companies for permission to open offices in France so that they can deal directly with the public. The note states that “in view of the laws and regulations governing the telegraphic service in France which has been instituted as a State Monopoly, the Under-Secretary of State for Posts and Telegraphs has not deemed it possible to give the Commercial Cable Company satisfaction on that point."
The Department encloses herewith a copy of a letter dated April 7, 1921 41 received from the President of the Commercial Cable Company setting forth the grounds on which it is believed that his company should be allowed to open public offices in France and to deal directly with the public as reciprocal to the right granted to the French Cable Company to open public offices in the United States and to deal directly with the public here.
You are requested to transmit a copy of this letter to the Foreign Office and to invite its attention to the statement that messages collected by the French telegraph offices bearing no routing directions are turned over to the French Cable Company, which of course
•The remainder of the telegram relates to the preparation of the English texts.
makes it necessary for senders desiring to use the lines of the American companies to add routing directions indicating the cable over which it is desired that the messages shall be transmitted. You will point out that the necessity for routing directions would apparently be removed to a large extent if American cable companies were allowed to open offices in the principal cities of France in which they could deal directly with the public.
You will also call attention to the discussion in the Company's letter of the French law of November 29, 1850, referred to in the note of the Foreign Office, dated October 12, 1920, and you will inquire whether this law was not intended solely for the purpose of preventing telegraphic installations without the consent of the Government, as apparently there is nothing in the law to forbid the Government from granting any concession it may decide to grant. You will add that the Department is informed that an examination of the French laws on the subject does not disclose that any law has been enacted that expressly forbids the French Government from granting the applications in question. You will also state that in any event the reference of the French Government to the law of November 29, 1850, as having created a monopoly in favor of the French Government for communication by telegraph, is not considered by this Government as responsive to its representations that American cable companies doing business in France should be given more liberal treatment than they at present enjoy. If the granting of such treatment is prohibited by existing French law, it is the view of this Government that the law should be modified so as to make it possible for the French Government to accord to these American companies a measure of the liberal treatment accorded French companies in the United States. You will remind the Foreign Office that at the present time the French Cable Company has seven offices in New York City at which messages are received from the public and from which messages are delivered to the public; that the French company also leases and owns land lines in the United States between its various telegraph offices and its cable termini at Coney Island, New York, and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and that these privileges in the United States are identical with those enjoyed by American cable companies. The desirability for reciprocity in these matters will doubtless be apparent to the French Government. Presumably, the French Government does not expect that the French Cable Company should continue to enjoy the liberal treatment now accorded it under the laws of the United States, if American cable concerns in France are deprived of the facilities necessary to efficient operation there.