relationships existing between railway and navigation companies, special rates, if any, on exports or imports covered by through bills of lading, or other matters affecting the movement of overseas merchandise to or from the interior. Copies of these reports from inland consulates will be transmitted to the officers in charge of the seaport offices or at the distributing centers through which the foreign trade of each district passes. Several requests have been received by the Department from consular officers for information as to the propriety of displaying advertising matter of American steamship lines in consulates. The Department has no objection to the display on the walls of consular offices of attractively framed pictures or photographs of American steam or sailing vessels. Colored posters, however, and similar advertising matter should not be so displayed as these deface the walls of the office. Applicants for consular services such as certifying invoices, acknowledgments, authentications, and passport visas, unless they enquire specifically for the information, should not be approached on the subject of the facilities of American passenger vessels. Space should be provided in the commercial files of the consulate for pamphlets, folders and cards giving information relating to the facilities offered by American vessels, and consular officers should make this information readily available to interested inquirers in the same manner as is done with catalogues and advertising matter of American exporters. In this, as well as other respects, privately operated American vessels should be given the same consideration as that given to merchant ships owned and/or operated by the United States Government. The Department believes the interests of the American merchant marine will be greatly promoted if consular officers carry out the instructions herein contained and confine their activities in behalf of steamship companies to investigating and reporting upon shipping matters and answering satisfactorily any proper inquiry relating thereto which may be received. The attention of the service is invited to the fact that in complying with proper requests for commercial or shipping information the confidential nature of the information contained in consular invoices and other records, as set forth in existing instructions, must be respected. I am [etc.] 125.655/45 CHARLES E. HUGHES The Chargé in Great Britain (Wheeler) to the Secretary of State No. 1930 LONDON, January 2, 1923. SIR: Referring to your telegraphic Instruction No. 348, of November 8, 5 p. m., 1922, relative to the Newcastle-on-Tyne case, I have the honor to transmit herewith, a copy, in triplicate, of a note which has just been received from the Foreign Office in reply to this Embassy's note of November 9, 1922. I have [etc.] · POST WHEELER [Enclosure] The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Curzon) to the American Chargé (Wheeler) No. A 7598/1133/45 [LONDON,] 27 December, 1922. SIR: I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of Mr. Harvey's note No. 446 of November 9th on the subject of the closing of the United States Consulate at Newcastle-on-Tyne. 47 2. As I had the honour to point out to His Excellency in my note of August 28th last, the note addressed to the Secretary of State of the United States by His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Washington on July 18th," informing Mr. Hughes of the view taken by His Majesty's Government of the action of Mr. Slater and Mr. Brooks in making difficulties over the issue of visas for the United States to passengers not travelling by American lines, was intended as a friendly hint to the United States Government to transfer those officials to other posts since they were no longer personae gratae to His Majesty's Government. Instead of withdrawing the recognition of Mr. Slater and Mr. Brooks at once, as was their undoubted right, His Majesty's Government postponed action for one month in order to give the United States Government an opportunity, if they so desired, to transfer those officers to other posts. The purpose of this action was precisely to avoid that publicity which Mr. Harvey appears to deplore in the second and fourth paragraphs of his note and for which His Majesty's Government must entirely disclaim responsibility. 2[sic]. At the conclusion of the period of delay His Majesty's Government had no alternative but to exercise their sovereign right, as had been done by the United States Government in 1856 in the case of the British Consuls at New York, Philadelphia and Cincinnati, and Mr. Slater's exequatur and the recognition of Mr. Brooks were accordingly withdrawn. 48 3. In furnishing the United States Government with an indication of the reasons for their action and with copies of the statements submitted, the object of His Majesty's Government was to place the United States Government in possession of information which might show that no unfriendly motive underlay the decision of His "Not printed. 48 See John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law, vol. iv, pp. 533–535. Majesty's Government and which might at the same time permit the United States Government to conduct such enquiries as they might think fit, from the point of view of the internal administration of the United States Consular Service, into the charges brought against the two Consular Officers. It was at the same time hoped that a frank exchange of views would enable the two governments, in consultation, to frame whatever new regulations might be necessary on the one side or the other to prevent the occurrence at other places of difficulties of a like character. It was not thought, nor could it be admitted, that there should be any question of reviewing the conclusions to which His Majesty's Government had come after a full consideration of all the facts. 4. I have taken due note of the intelligence conveyed in Mr. Harvey's note that, as a result of separate investigations, the character and scope of which are unknown to me, the United States Government have drawn conclusions different from those drawn by His Majesty's Government, but while regretting this difference of opinion, His Majesty's Government feel bound to adhere to their original position. 5. You will have gathered from what I have already stated in this note that I cannot admit the justification of the statement made in Mr. Harvey's note under reply, to the effect that "innocent officers have been publicly and unwarrantably accused of serious misconduct and the good faith of the foreign service of a friendly nation has been openly brought into question upon inadequate and incorrect information". On the contrary, His Majesty's Government regard the information at their disposal as being entirely accurate in substance and consequently entirely adequate to warrant the cancellation of the officers' recognition. 6. Mr. Harvey's note appears, however, to have been written on the assumption that a legal case had to be made out against the officers in question before the recognition extended to either of them by His Majesty's Government could be properly withdrawn. Such an assumption is at variance with the well-established international practice in these matters and very distinctly at variance with the action of the United States in the precedents already mentioned. above. 7. It may well be admitted that affidavits made by persons who, for good reasons, prefer that their identity should not be publicly disclosed, would not be accepted as competent evidence in a court of justice but it must be pointed out that the statements, with copies of which Mr. Harvey has been furnished, were presented to the Foreign Office by individuals whose truthfulness is not doubted by His Majesty's Government. 8. As a result of those statements the confidence previously reposed by His Majesty's Government in the correct official conduct of Mr. Slater and Mr. Brooks was shaken and, in the circumstances, the continuation of their employment as consular officers in British territory could obviously be of benefit to neither country. I have [etc.] CURZON OF KEDLESTON SUPPLEMENTARY EXTRADITION CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN, MAY 15, 1922 Treaty Series No. 666 Supplementary Extradition Convention between the United States and Great Britain, Signed at London May 15, 1922 1o The President of the United States of America and His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, being desirous of enlarging the list of crimes on account of which extradition may be granted under the Conventions concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the 12th July, 1889, and the 13th December, 1900, and the 12th April, 1905,50 with a view to the better administration of justice and the prevention of crime, have resolved to conclude a Supplementary Convention for this purpose, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, to wit: The President of the United States: the Honourable George Harvey, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States at the Court of His Britannic Majesty; and His Britannic Majesty: the Most Honourable the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, K. G., His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed to and concluded the following Articles:— ARTICLE 1 The following crimes are, subject to the provision contained in Article 2 hereof, added to the list of crimes numbered 1 to 10 in the 1st Article of the said Convention of the 12th July, 1889, and to the list of crimes numbered 11 to 13 in Article 1 of the Supplementary Convention concluded between the United States and Great Britain "Ratification advised by the Senate June 21, 1922; ratified by the President June 27, 1922; ratified by Great Britain July 10, 1922; ratifications exchanged at London July 28, 1922; proclaimed Oct. 24, 1922. 50 Malloy, Treaties, 1776-1909, vol. 1, pp. 740, 780, and 798, respectively. on the 13th December, 1900, and to the list of crimes numbered 14 to 15 in Article 1 of the Supplementary Convention concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the 12th April, 1905, that is to say: 16. Wilful desertion or wilful non-support of minor or dependent children. ARTICLE 2 The operation of the present Convention is confined to cases in which the offences mentioned in the preceding Article having been committed in the United States or in the Dominion of Canada, the person charged with the offence is found in the Dominion of Canada or in the United States respectively. ARTICLE 3 The present Convention shall be considered as an integral part of the said Extradition Conventions of the 12th July, 1889, and the 13th December, 1900, and the 12th April, 1905, and the 1st Article of the said Convention of the 12th July, 1889, shall be read as if the lists of crimes therein contained had originally comprised the additional crimes specified and numbered 16 in the 1st Article of the present Convention, subject to the provision contained in Article 2. The present Convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged either at Washington or London as soon as possible. It shall come into force ten days after its publication in conformity with the laws of the High Contracting Parties, and it shall continue and terminate in the same manner as the said Convention of the 12th July, 1889. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention in duplicate, and have thereunto affixed their seals. DONE at London, this 15th day of May, 1922. [SEAL] GEORGE HARVEY DENUNCIATION BY GREAT BRITAIN OF THE TREATY AND CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE 711.419/ The British Ambassador (Geddes) to the Secretary of State No. 323 |