consuls only when we shall extend similar privileges to Austrian consuls in this country. In other words we are to be favored as France has been and on the same conditions, that of giving reciprocal privileges." (44 Despatches to Consuls, Volume 13, page 253.) The Legation's attention is further invited to an instruction sent to the American Minister at Riga, Latvia, as late as July 10, 1928,20 in which the Department interpreted the most-favored-nation clause in regard to customs privileges and exemptions in Article XXVII of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights between the United States and Latvia, signed on April 20, 1928.27 In this instruction the Department made the following statement: "I desire to point out that it is and has long been the policy of this Government to construe the most favored nation clause in respect to consular privileges and immunities and in particular in respect of fiscal concessions to consular officers as conditioned on reciprocity. "The condition of reciprocity has been insisted upon by this Government in instances in which foreign Governments have relied upon a most-favored-nation provision to obtain in behalf of their consular officers in the United States the benefit of the particular privilege of free entry in the treaty between the United States and Germany. If you will inform the Swiss authorities of the views of the Department as contained in its instruction No. 1239 of January 15, 1931, and can obtain from the Swiss Government assurances that it will accord to American consular officers the right to receive funds from estates in Switzerland, for transmission in the same manner that the right is accorded to American consular officers in Germany by Article XXV of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights between the United States and Germany of 1923, if American consular officers should at any time be authorized by their Government to exercise such right, the Department will consider that consular officers of Switzerland in the United States are entitled to the same right. If the Swiss Government will give such assurances it will be considered that reciprocity has in fact been established under Article VII of the treaty with Switzerland of 1850, and the Department will not in that event insist upon reaching a definite agreement with the Swiss Government at this time in regard to a general interpretation of the most-favored-nation clause in Article VII. On April 4 last Mr. Etienne Lardy, Counselor of the Swiss Legation, called at the Department to discuss the note in regard to the interpretation of Article VII which was addressed to your Legation by the Swiss Federal Political Department on March 4, 1930. A copy of a memorandum of the conference with Mr. Lardy is enclosed for your information.2 28 Very truly yours, For the Secretary of State: 711.5421/25 The Chargé in Switzerland (Greene) to the Secretary of State No. 2270 BERNE, October 6, 1931. [Received October 14.] SIR: I have the honor to refer to the Department's instruction No. 1898 of May 9, 1931, and to previous correspondence in regard to the interpretation of the most favored nation clause in Article VII of the Convention of Friendship, Commerce and Extradition between the United States and Switzerland, signed November 25, 1850. On June 19, 1931, the Legation addressed to the Federal Political Department an inquiry in the sense of the Department's instruction No. 1398, and appended thereto a memorandum outlining the views held by the American Government in this connection. Copies of the note and the memorandum are enclosed herewith.28 The Legation is now in receipt of a reply from the Federal Political Department, dated September 9, 1931, a copy and translation of which are enclosed.28 The Political Department's reply is to the effect that Swiss law does not prevent American consular officers, if authorized to do so, from receiving funds for transmission to their nationals, as provided in Article XXV of the Treaty of 1923 between the United States and Germany, and assumes that under these conditions Swiss consular officers in the United States will be permitted to exercise similar rights. The Political Department therefore requests that this be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities in the United States, and asks that it be furnished with a copy of the official journal containing the announcement to that effect. I also invite attention to the last paragraph of the Political Department's note in which it maintains its view of the unconditional character of the most favored nation treatment in Article VII of the Treaty of 1850. Respectfully yours, 28 Not printed. WINTHROP S. GREENE TURKEY TREATY OF ESTABLISHMENT AND SOJOURN BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND TURKEY, SIGNED OCTOBER 28, 19311 711.679 Residence and Establishment/68 The Ambassador in Turkey (Grew) to the Secretary of State No. 1268 ANKARA, May 12, 1931. [Received June 3.] SIR: In conformity with the Department's instruction No. 320 of February 26, 1931, (file number 711.679 Residence and Establishment/58 [65]),2 I took up with the Minister for Foreign Affairs on May 7 the proposal which he himself had made to me in January, to the effect that if I would address to him a note or letter containing the statement made by me to Ismet Pasha at the time of the interruption of our negotiation for a Treaty of Residence and Establishment on November 27, 1930, he would endeavor to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet to authorize the initialling of the text of a convention incorporating substantially the provisions which had been agreed to by both delegations prior to the suspension of the negotiations. I told the Minister that I had been authorized to furnish him with such a written statement and to initial such a text upon the distinct understanding that no publicity would be given to my action and upon the further understanding that at an opportune moment, probably early in the coming autumn, the Turkish Government would be prepared to proceed to final signature. The Minister expressed satisfaction at this conditional acceptance of his proposal and said that he would favorably support the proposal in taking it up with his colleagues. Last evening I had a moment's talk with him at the railroad station as he was on the point of departure from Ankara to attend at Geneva the meeting of the Commission of Study for the Pan-European Union. He said that he had taken up the treaty question with Ismet Pasha, Zekai Bey and Mustapha Cherif Bey and that on his return. from Geneva he would suggest one or two minor changes in the text of the letter to be furnished him at the time of initialling. 1 Continued from Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. 1, pp. 852-872. "Not printed. See telegram No. 15, November 25, 1930, from the Ambassador in Turkey, and Department's No. 7, November 26, 1930, Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. 1, pp. 870. 872. 591381-46-VOL. II-73 This may mean that his intransigent colleagues, Zekai Bey and Mustapha Cherif Bey, will insist upon incorporating in the letter some such provision concerning the alleged non-existence of treaty relations between the two countries with respect to establishment, residence and judicial competence as they endeavored to have included in the preamble of the convention during our past negotiations, perhaps along the lines of the formula proposed to me by Zekai Bey in our conversation on November 24, reported to the Department in my Ankara telegram No. 15 of November 25, noon. On the other hand, the desired changes mentioned by the Minister may possibly be merely minor modifications in the phraseology of the statement involving no substantial alteration. I believe it would be unwise for me to display any signs of eagerness by discussing the matter with the other officials during the absence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I shall therefore await further word from Tevfik Rüştü Bey after his return, presumably in a few weeks, reporting to the Department in due course such observations as he then may make. Respectfully yours, JOSEPH C. GREW 711.679 Residence and Establishment/69: Telegram The Ambassador in Turkey (Grew) to the Acting Secretary of State [Paraphrase] ISTANBUL, July 10, 1931—10 a. m. [Received 5: 40 p. m.] 24. Department's No. 320, February 26.5 (1) On July 6 the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs informed me that he had succeeded finally in persuading his Cabinet colleagues to accept what he considered a mutually fair solution respecting the text of the letter which I am to address to him upon signature of the convention of establishment and residence between the United States and Turkey. He says this solution consists of leaving the points of controversy between the two countries in abeyance. Although not mentioned specifically in our conversation, these points obviously are the theoretical continuation in force of the 1830 treaty and the date for the abolition of the capitulations. The Foreign Minister pointed out that the inclusion of the words "since the establishment of the Republic" in the first sentence of the letter tended to prejudice the Turkish thesis adversely, since the phrase involved the implication of a definite date. Therefore, he proposed the phrase be omitted, so that the first sentence *Treaty of May 7, 1830, Miller, Treaties, vol. 3, p. 541. would be as follows: "The Government of the United States of America is fully alive to the changes which have taken place in Turkey". This new phraseology, the Minister maintained, would leave the position of the two parties completely unprejudiced insofar as the dates were concerned; and he pointed out furthermore that in any case the letter is not legally binding but merely expresses the United States Government's "disposition". The other modifications proposed by him, including omitting the final sentence, do not seem to alter materially the sense of the original text. Tevfik Rüştü Bey averred that his present proposal represented a very material concession in departing from the original position taken by the Turkish delegation and he had only with difficulty and for the express purpose of facilitating the United States Senate's ratification of the treaty obtained this concession from his colleagues. (2) The modified text of the letter which the Foreign Minister proposed reads as follows: " 7 "The Government of the United States of America is fully alive to the changes which have taken place in Turkey. Its sole desire is that the development of the relations between the two countries should proceed upon basis of these changed conditions. It was with such considerations in mind that the Government of the United States of America negotiated the exchange of notes of February 17, 1927 and the treaty of Commerce and Navigation of October 1, 1929; it is on this same basis that it has negotiated the Treaty of Residence and Establishment which its representative is signing today and that it is always ready to negotiate treaties of arbitration and conciliation." 9 (3) If the foregoing text of the letter should be acceptable to the Department, the Foreign Minister proposed initialing of the treaty text approved by the Department ("Annex A" to instruction No. 320, February 26, but using the preamble in "Annex B") and signature at the same time of an exchange of notes by which the treaty provisions would be given immediate effect in the form of a modus vivendi which would last 6 months, a year, or for so long as may be required to bridge the interval before ratification of the treaty. The actual signing of the treaty and of the letter, which then would become purely a pro forma act, could take place at the United States Government's entire convenience. He assures me that the act of initialing will receive no publicity whatever. (4) The Department stated in its 7, November 26, 1930, 6 p. m.,11 that it "would prefer" including in the letter the phrase "since the establish |