wegian Government then deems itself from this time responsible only for the obligations in the said joint conventions and agreements which concern Norway. This likewise applies to the international conventions to which Norway and Sweden have jointly adhered. As for the conventions and agreements concluded separately by Sweden during the union and adhered to by Norway the Norwegian Government holds that it can not be considered to be responsible for the fulfillment of obligations thereby placed upon Sweden. On the other hand, the Norwegian Government is of the opinion that all the conventions and international agreements concluded by Norway with one or several other states, either jointly with Sweden, or separately, or as an adhering party, continue in full force and effect, as heretofore, between Norway and the other contracting party or parties without any change in their provisions being effected by the dissolution of the union. The Norwegian Government, however, reserves the right to make, after fuller consideration, a further communication as to whether and to what extent there shall be occasion to take up a revision of the texts of existing treaties between Norway and the United States of America. While bringing the foregoing to your excellency's knowledge, by order of my government, I avail, etc., CH. HAUGE. TURKEY. DISPLAY OF FOREIGN FLAGS OVER PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS. No. 973.] Chargé Jay to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN LEGATION, Constantinople, January 11, 1905. SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I have recently been requested to authorize the numerous American religious, charitable, and educational institutions in the interior to fly the American flag on Sundays and holidays. While there appears to exist no Turkish law prohibiting private individuals and private institutions of foreign nationality from displaying their national flag, yet such action, especially in the interior, meets with the strongest disapproval of the Imperial authorities and generally causes complications. Certain reputable foreign institutions and a few private citizens at Constantinople, especially in the Christian districts of Pera and Galata, are tacitly permitted to fly their national flags, and this is also the case at several of the larger seaports in the Empire. In the interior, however, the presence of a foreign flag denotes the residence of a consular officer or of some quasi government institution, such as the subventioned French schools. Though doubtless in many cases where our missionaries are on good terms with the local authorities, no objection would be raised to their flying the flag, yet in many others I fear that such a step would lead to open complaint and annoyances ostensibly founded on other grounds. I have drawn the attention of those interested to the above, but I am nevertheless requested to state whether the American institutions have the right to fly the flag; and, if so, whether the legation will support them in this right. I have, therefore, the honor to respectfully request instructions from the Department upon this matter, as I am unable to find in the published Foreign Relations or in the legation's archives any decision of the Department covering this particular point other than the right of American citizens to hoist the flag on their property in times of insurrection or riot. I have, etc., No. 757.] PETER AUGUSTUS JAY. The Acting Secretary of State to Chargé Jay. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 973 of the 11th ultimo, asking whether American religious, charitable, and educational institutions in Turkey are authorized to fly the American flag on Sundays and holidays. In reply, I inclose for your information a copy of an instruction addressed to the American minister to Haiti in regard to a similar inquiry which came from that country, and refer you to Foreign Relations for 1903, pages 596 et seq., wherein you will find the Department's views on the subject. I am, etc., F. B. LOOMIS. The flag incident you describe in your No. 593 deserves separate treatment. It appears that the Compagnie Haitienne, in anticipation of the seizure of certain property, raised the flag of the United States above a station of the aerial tramways it has established in the interior of the island. The Haitien Government has requested that this practice cease, on the ground that such display of a foreign flag tends to excite popular feeling. You defend the practice as a right, while, however, requesting the company not to fly the flag pending the receipt by you of instructions on the subject. The request of the Haitien Government appears not to be unreasonable. The right to display a foreign flag over foreign-owned property is by no means established except in the oriental countries where the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the foreign flag is secured by treaty. In some countries it is forbidden so to fly a foreign flag. In Mexico the privilege of showing their national ensign is forbidden even to foreign consuls. The right of Haiti to regulate or forbid by law the display of foreign flags within Haitien territory could not well be questioned. It does not, however, appear that the request of the Haitien Government rests on any domestic law; on the contrary it seems to rest on motives of policy and domestic expediency, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. In Mr. Sandham's letter to you, of June 21, he admits that the flag was raised above a station "owing to a threatened seizure of logwood" stored therein and that "this action was not diplomatic." In this latter statement the Department concurs. The national flag is the symbol of the paramount authority of its government, which authority obviously does not extend, in the case of the United States, over private property situated in a sovereign foreign jurisdiction. In the present case, moreover, the property belongs to a company operating under Haitian charter and possessing no delegated authority to raise the flag as the emblem of any exercisable power of the United States Government in that quarter. As the incident appears to have been terminated by the company's own admission of the irregularity of its action in Mr. Sandham's letter to you, and by its agreement to lower the flag in order to preserve harmonious relations, it does not appear necessary to pursue the subject further. I am, etc., JOHN HAY. PROPOSED INCREASE OF CUSTOMS DUTIES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PETROLEUM DEPOTS. No. 1031.] Minister Leishman to the Secretary of State.. AMERICAN LEGATION, Constantinople, April 6, 1905. SIR: I beg to confirm the telegram sent you this day regarding proposed increase in the Turkish customs rate, as per copy on overleaf. The question of increasing the duties from 8 to 11 per cent has been a matter of negotiations between the Sublime Porte and the European powers for the past two years, and has now reached a point when definite action will probably be taken, but up to the present time the legation has not been approached, notwithstanding the assurance given me by the minister for foreign affairs many months ago that the American Government would of course be consulted. * * * Although resting under the impression that the Department would not under ordinary circumstances be disposed to object to a reasonable increase in the import duties into Turkey, I feel quite certain that you would not feel disposed to accept any increase in the rates in the absence of a proper understanding and agreement. In the negotiations with the European powers they have all demanded concessions of one kind or another as the price of their consent to the 3 per cent increase; for example, the Germans have indicated that they would agree to the increase providing a certain portion of the additional revenue was set aside to help pay the kilometric guarantee on the Bagdad railway, etc.; the French demanded settlement of dispute concerning Syrian railway and the quays at Constantinople, etc.; the English, the settlement of certain mining claims, concession concerning gendarmerie in Macedonia, etc., and my idea was that if the United States Government was willing to accept the increase that, if the matter was left entirely in the hands of the legation, possibly I might be able to facilitate the execution of the school settlement and other pending questions by temporarily withholding consent to the proposed new schedules. Having learned through one of my colleagues that the matter was being actively pushed and that a final settlement was apt to be reached in the near future, I thought wise to cable you as above, fearing that the Sublime Porte might possibly approach you direct through the Ottoman minister at Washington before my dispatch explaining existing conditions could reach you. Awaiting your advices and instructions, I have, etc., No. 810.] JOHN G. A. LEISHMAN. The Acting Secretary of State to Minister Leishman. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: The Department has received your very interesting dispatch, No. 1031, of the 6th instant, touching the proposed increase in the Turkish customs rate from 8 to 11 per cent. You are correct in your impression that the Department would not under ordinary circumstances object to a reasonable increase in the import duties into Turkey. In view, however, of the fact which you report that in the negotiations with the European powers they have all demanded concessions of one kind or another as the price of their consent to the proposed increase, it would seem that the United States may also properly demand adequate compensation for its assent to the measure in question. In response to your suggestion that you might possibly be able to facilitate the execution of the school settlement and other pending questions by temporarily withholding consent to the proposed measure if this government were willing to accept the increase and if the matter were left entirely in the hands of the legation, the Department authorizes you to give your consent thereto upon condition of the adjustment along the lines indicated, and in the largest measure that may be found practicable, of the pending just claims of the United States against the Ottoman Government. The Department has not been approached upon this subject by the Turkish minister at this capital. I am, etc., No. 1074.] ALVEY A. ADEE. Minister Leishman to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN LEGATION, SIR: I beg to inclose herewith for the Department's information copy of a circular note issued by the Sublime Porte concerning the establishment of petroleum depots in the populous centers, together with a copy of the legation's reply, which I trust will meet with your approval. While the Sublime Porte's note bears on its face the establishment of what would naturally be viewed as a very proper municipal regulation, the rates for storage mentioned are out of all proportion for the services to be rendered, and I learn privately that the new act was drawn up by the financial commission with a view of establishing a new source of revenue. In any event I deemed it wise to guard against any infringement upon certain principles, such as the establishment of a new monopoly which might be far-reaching, and indirectly increasing the customs tax upon an article which intimately concerns American trade. Even allowing that the government would not be disposed to offer any serious objections to a slightly increased tax, I viewed the matter that whatever the government might be disposed to grant as a favor it could not afford to allow the Sublime Porte to usurp as a right, consequently I thought it just and proper to protest against the introduction of the new law in the absence of a proper understanding and agreement. A similar protest was filed by the legation in 1882 against the granting of a monopoly to a certain Sami Bey for the establishment of a central petroleum depot at Constantinople, but the matter was afterwards dropped, as the correspondence between the legation and the Department at that time will show. Unless otherwise instructed by the Department, my idea is to treat the matter pretty much upon the same lines as the question of a 3 per cent increase in the customs dues. See legation's dispatch No. 1031, April 6, 1905, and the Department's reply thereto, No. 810, April 27, 1905. JOHN G. A. LEISHMAN. I have, etc., [Inclosure 1.-Translation.] The Minister for Foreign Affairs to Minister Leishman. NOTE VERBALE. SUBLIME PORTE, In order to prevent the danger to the public security resulting from the storage in populous centers of large quantities of pertoleum, alcohol, and other inflammable materials, the imperial government has decided to have warehouses constructed for the storage of said 1 |