other proposals likely of consideration, the chances of the adoption at this time of monopolistic legislation are to that extent diminished. It must nevertheless be remembered that it is not the prerogative of the special commission to approve or reject the principle of a monopoly. Its task is to report to Parliament regarding the practical means for a monopoly, the question of a decision lying with the legislative body. In that spirit the commission has now commenced the study of two projects for the organization of a "monopoly" presented by M. Poisson. The first would institute state administration (régie) and the second would group the several importing organizations and the refining organizations into two national companies (sociétés) with state participation. It is said that this state participation would follow the formula employed in connection with the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique and the Compagnie Air-France. That is, the Government would enjoy a 33% control. The attitude of the commission towards the Poisson proposal will not be known until after the next meeting, which is scheduled for Tuesday, December 5. Respectfully yours, THEODORE MARRINER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND FRANCE REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONSULAR CONVENTION CONCLUDED FEBRUARY 23, 1853, EFFECTED BY EXCHANGE OF NOTES SIGNED FEBRUARY 23 AND MARCH 4, 1933 851.502/63 19 The Ambassador in France (Edge) to the Secretary of State No. 3243 [Extract] PARIS, January 10, 1933. [Received January 18.] SIR: I have the honor to report that a few days ago the Counselor of Embassy, Mr. Marriner, was asked to call upon M. Navailles, 20 of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, to discuss developments in the situation as regards the rights of foreigners under the French Rent Laws. As the Department may recall, although the lower courts have almost uniformly denied to foreigners the enjoyment of the privileges of rent legislation, the higher court or Cour de Cassation has, in numerous instances, upheld the rights to such privileges, particularly since the issuance of the circular letter from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs interpreting the treaty rights of foreigners under the Rent Laws, which was published in the Journal Officiel of August 13, 1929. M. Navailles 19 For previous correspondence regarding conflict between the French rent laws and the treaty of February 23, 1853, see Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. 1, pp. 832 ff. 20 M. de Navailles-Labatut, Secretary-General of the Immigration Commission. stated that from information he had received, it appears that the Cour de Cassation is about to reverse itself and that in future rent cases involving foreigners the court will probably refuse to accord to them the same treatment that would be granted French citizens. In order to meet this contingency, M. Navailles suggested that an exchange of notes take place between the Embassy and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs interpreting the rights of American citizens under the French Rent Laws as governed by the Consular Convention of February 23, 1853.21 He seems to feel that such an exchange of notes would materially strengthen the American position and that the binding quality of the notes would be given greater consideration than the interpretative circular of August 13, 1929, alluded to above. He suggested, as the most suitable model, the exchange of notes on the subject of Rent Laws which took place in July, 1929, between the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Swiss Legation in Paris, and which has been satisfactory to the Cour de Cassation in cases involving Swiss citizens. A copy and a translation of the Franco-Swiss notes are attached hereto.22 In the Embassy's despatch No. 9738 of July 31, 1929,22 the interpretative circular of the Foreign Office was mentioned and the text thereof was forwarded with the Embassy's despatch No. 9786 of August 22, 1929.22 It was stated, in effect, in the prior mentioned despatch that, should the interpretative circular not prove effective in assuring the rights of American citizens under the French Rent Laws, it might be well to consider the possibility of an exchange of notes on the subject. To that possible end there was enclosed with the Embassy's despatch the text of analogous notes exchanged between the British and French. Governments in May, 1929. A further copy of these notes is now appended hereto for the convenience of the Department.22 Respectfully yours, 851.502/63 For the Ambassador: THEODORE MARRINER Counselor of Embassy The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Edge) No. 1529 WASHINGTON, February 2, 1933. SIR: Reference is made to a despatch from your Embassy No. 3243 dated January 10, 1933, regarding the rights of American citizens under the French rent laws. 21 Hunter Miller (ed.), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 6, p. 169. 22 Not printed. You are authorized to enter into an exchange of notes in substance as follows: "I have the honor to communicate to Your Excellency my Government's interpretation of Article seven of the Consular Convention between the United States of America and France concluded February 23, 1853, in relation to the rights of American citizens in France in connection with the French rent laws. It is my understanding that the following interpretation is concurred in by your Government. "The effect of the provisions of Article 7 is to establish the right of citizens of the United States in France to enjoy the same treatment as French citizens in matters relating to the ownership, possession and disposal of property. Accordingly, citizens of the United States are entitled, to enjoy in France the benefit of all the provisions, whether applicable to owners or tenants, contained in the French law of April 1, 1926, as amended by the law of June 29, 1929, governing the relations between lessors and lessees of premises used for residential purposes, and in the law of June 30, 1926, as amended by the law of April 22, 1927, governing the relations between tenants and landlords of premises used for commercial or industrial purposes, notwithstanding article 11 of the Civil Code and the exceptions or restrictions applicable to foreigners under the aforesaid laws. "I shall be glad to have your confirmation of the agreement thus reached." For your guidance you will observe that the foregoing text contains no statement, such as appears in the Swiss and British notes, regarding the obligations of the United States under article VII of the convention. This article is construed as according national treatment to French citizens in the United States in respect of the possession and ownership of property only in so far as the then existing laws of the several states permitted and only "so long and to the same extent as the said laws shall remain in force". The records show that the draft of the consular convention used as a basis for the negotiations was drawn up by the French. In its original form it provided for reciprocal national treatment in respect of the possession of property. In submitting the draft the French pointed out that American citizens received national treatment in regard to ownership and possession in France whereas in the United States French nationals encountered difficulties, being subject to a different law in different states. Under our system of government legislation on the subject of ownership and possession was presumably regarded as a matter within the competence of the several states. However, in order to meet so far as possible the French viewpoint, this Government agreed on its part to recommend to the states the passage of such laws as might be necessary to give aliens the right to hold real estate, and the French text was revised accordingly. The President promptly brought the matter to the attention of the Governors of the various states with a view to eliminating the discriminations against aliens. At the present time French citizens enjoy national treatment in practically all of the states. In essence, therefore, the article is regarded as providing for the continued enjoyment of national treatment by American citizens in France in matters pertaining to the ownership, possession, and disposal of property, in consideration of the treatment then accorded or that might thereafter be accorded French citizens in the United States and of the President's recommending legislation to accord national treatment to aliens in those states that did not accord such treatment in regard to the holding of real estate. The French obligation, however, was conditioned on the ulterior right of France to require reciprocity, which is construed to mean that national treatment could be denied to residents of states of the United States which have not followed the President's recommendation. In view, however, of the fact that most of the states of the Union accord national treatment to French nationals and of the further fact that France has not raised the question, it is deemed inadvisable to limit at the outset the rights of American citizens in France to those citizens whose home states reciprocate. In so far as concerns the laws of the several states with respect to the renting or leasing of property, it is the Department's understanding that French citizens are accorded national treatment. In view of this fact, if the French Foreign Office insists on a statement of the rights French citizens enjoy in the United States being inserted in the exchange of notes, the existing situation in the United States could be set forth as the third paragraph in your note. Such a paragraph should be worded in substance as follows: "I may add that, under the laws of the states of the United States and the District of Columbia, French citizens in the United States enjoy the same treatment as American citizens with regard to the leasing and renting of real property." With reference to Navaille's inquiry regarding the word "possession" as used in the convention, the Department construes this word as applicable to any situation in which possession has been acquired as a result of lease, rental or ownership. Very truly yours, For the Secretary of State: 851.502/64 Telegram The Ambassador in France (Edge) to the Secretary of State PARIS, February 14, 1933-1 p. m. [Received February 14-11:30 a. m.] 57. Department's instruction No. 1529, February 2, 1933. Marriner discussed the Department's proposed note today with De Navailles who feels that it would be acceptable if the third paragraph suggested in the Department's instruction were included and with the addition of the words "for the future application of the convention" at the end of paragraph 1. De Navailles feels this phraseology is an improvement on that used in the case of the exchanges of notes with Great Britain and Switzerland since it does not imply that the interpretation is for the future but the application in the future shall be in accord with the given interpretation. EDGE 851.502/64 Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Edge) WASHINGTON, February 16, 1933-6 p. m. 32. Your 57, February 14, 1 p. m. You are authorized to include optional third paragraph text in instruction No. 1529 of February 2. In order to give clear expression to intent of change suggested by De Navailles in paragraph 1 last part last sentence may be amended to read "interpretation which has prevailed in the past is concurred in by your Government for the future application of the convention". STIMSON 851.502/68 The Chargé in France (Marriner) to the Secretary of State No. 3400 PARIS, March 7, 1933. [Received March 14.] SIR: Referring to the Embassy's telegram No. 64 of February 23/5 p. m., 1933,25 I have the honor to transmit herewith for the Department's information and the completion of its files a copy and translation of the Embassy's note of February 23 and of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' note of March 4, 1933,28 in interpretation of the rights of American citizens under the French rent laws as governed by the Consular Convention of 1853. Respectfully yours, THEODORE MARRINER [Enclosure 1] The American Ambassador (Edge) to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs (Paul-Boncour) No. 2246 PARIS, February 23, 1933. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to communicate to Your Excellency my Government's interpretation of Article 7 of the Consular Conven 25 Not printed. 28 These two notes constitute Executive Agreement Series No. 44. |