brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for the County of New York against Thomas W. Lamont and others, and the United Mexican States. I have returned the documents enclosed with your note to the Governor of New York with a statement that your Government does not consent to be sued and that neither you nor the Consul General of Mexico have any right to accept service on behalf of your Govern ment. Accept [etc.] 812.51/1721 HENRY L. STIMSON The Acting Governor of New York (Lehman) to the Secretary of State ALBANY, May 15, 1931. SIR: With reference to your letter of April 27, 1931, with the above file number, I am enclosing a photostatic copy of a communication from the Attorney General of the State of New York, relative to the contents of your letter, which is self-explanatory. I also have the honor of returning to you the enclosures forwarded by you to this office. I have [etc.] [Enclosure] HERBERT L. LEHMAN The First Assistant Attorney General of the State of New York (Epstein) to the Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York (Rosenman) ALBANY, May 12, 1931. MY DEAR MR. ROSENMAN: In response to your communication of April 29th to the Attorney General, with the enclosures from the Secretary of State at Washington, which are being returned to you herewith, it would appear that as to property within the jurisdiction of the court the said court may adjudicate as to the parties before it, all however without being binding upon the Government of Mexico, but with results as to the fund or property within the jurisdiction which the Mexican Government may never be able to overcome unless it becomes a party of its own volition. The fact that the Mexican Government is a foreign sovereign would not prevent this court from adjudicating as to those parties within its jurisdiction the rights with regard to property within its jurisdiction. If the Mexican Government intervenes it may assert its own rights, if any. The Mexican Government of course is not in the case unless it consents to be brought in and it would seem that the court and the attorneys recognize this by virtue of the order which provides: "Plaintiff be and he hereby is directed to obtain the appearance of that the plaintiff be directed to obtain the appearance of the Mexican Government in the action, following which order the plaintiff caused a summons to be delivered to the Mexican Consul General in the city of New York, but it seems that this service was not followed by the appearance of the Mexican Government in the action. Newspaper reports indicate that on June 22, 1931, Justice Valente of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, appointed receivers in the indicated action for part of the fund held by the Committee mentioned, ruling that pending the trial of the action, the plaintiff is entitled to have a part of the fund set aside corresponding with the amount of bonds held by the non-depositing owners as compared with the total amount. The Department is now informed by the Mexican Ambassador to the United States in a note dated June 26, 1931, that the Committee in question has appealed from the order of Justice Valente and that this appeal will be heard before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on Friday, July 3 at 10:30 o'clock in the morning. Translation of that note is enclosed, from which you will observe that the Ambassador requests that the Supreme Court of the State of New York be informed: "First: That the Government of Mexico declines to appear in the suit instituted by Mr. Gustavo Gallopin against Thomas Lamont and others; "Second: That the funds which are in the possession of the Lamont firm and in connection with which Mr. Gallopin filed suit, are property of the Government of Mexico and therefore not subject to seizure since they belong to a foreign Government." I should appreciate it very much if you would instruct the appropriate United States attorney as promptly as possible, to appear before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York at the time mentioned for the hearing of the appeal and to present to that Court the position of the Mexican Government as above indicated. Of course you are familiar with the fact that there are numerous precedents for compliance with the request made by me, but it is perhaps appropriate to refer to a few instances in the recent past of similar requests which this Department has made upon your Department. In this relation references may be made to a letter which Secretary Hughes wrote to the Attorney General January 17, 1923, asking that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York be instructed to appear before United States District Court and make a certain statement bearing upon the litigation instituted by the Oliver Trading Company, an American corporation, against the Cen 25 tral Administration, then functioning in Mexico; 24 to a letter addressed by this Department to the Attorney General September 23, 1929, asking that steps be taken to advise the Supreme Court in connection with litigation pending therein of the status of the Swedish State Railroads and of the Swedish Government's claim to exemption; and to a letter addressed by this Department to the Attorney General, September 11, 1899,26 asking that the appropriate United States attorney be directed to take appropriate action with respect to a suit instituted in the Courts of the State of New York by one John G. Hassard against the United States of Mexico.27 Very truly yours, 812.51/1734 W. R. CASTLE, JR. The Acting Secretary of State to the Mexican Ambassador (Téllez) WASHINGTON, June 29, 1931. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Note No. 0268 [02628] of June 26, 1931, in relation to litigation pending in the courts in the State of New York which Gustavo Gallopin instituted against Thomas W. Lamont and others constituting the so-called International Committee of Bankers on Mexico. You state that you are informed that an appeal taken by the defendants from an order issued by a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York will be heard before the Appellate division of that Court on Friday, July 3, at 10:30 o'clock in the morning, and you ask that the Supreme Court of the State of New York be informed: "First: That the government of Mexico declines to appear in the suit instituted by Mr. Gustavo Gallopin against Thomas Lamont and others: "Second: That the funds which are in the possession of the Lamont firm and in connection with which Mr. Gallopin filed suit, are property of the Government of Mexico and therefore not subject to seizure since they belong to a foreign Government." I have requested the Attorney General to instruct the appropriate United States attorney to appear before the Appellate division at the time mentioned and state to that Court the position of this Government as above outlined. Accept [etc.] W. R. CASTLE, JR. 24 Letter of Secretary Hughes, January 17, 1923, not printed; for previous correspondence printed concerning the Oliver Trading Company, see Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. 11, pp. 574 fr. See also ibid., vol. III, pp. 260 ff. 25 Letter to the Attorney General, September 23, 1929, not printed; for correspondence concerning the litigation of the Swedish State Railroads, see pp. 1009 ff. 20 Not printed. 729 Misc. 511. 812.51/1738 The Attorney General (Mitchell) to the Acting Secretary of State WASHINGTON, July 1, 1931. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have a letter from your department, dated June 29, 1931 (your reference: SO 812.51/1734), relating to the above suit pending in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, and requesting that we cause steps to be taken to formally advise the Supreme Court that the Government of Mexico declines to appear in that suit and that the funds which are involved in the litigation are property of the Government of Mexico and immune from seizure. The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has been directed to appear before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on Friday, July 3, at 10:30 in the morning and present the suggestions of the Mexican Government. Respectfully, WILLIAM D. MITCHELL 812.51/1746 The Attorney General (Mitchell) to the Acting Secretary of State WASHINGTON, July 15, 1931. SIR: We quote below for your information the decision of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court, First Department, New York, reversing the receivership order entered by the Lower Court in this case: "We consider that the Government of Mexico is a necessary party in interest in the fund proposed to be impounded by this receivership order; and since it is a sovereign state and cannot be made a party without its consent, there was no jurisdiction to appoint receivers of its funds or to issue an injunction against the disposition thereof. We think the order was improvident and should be reversed with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion denied with $10. costs." Respectfully, For the Attorney General J. FRANK STALEY Acting Head Admiralty Division MOROCCO RESERVATION OF RIGHTS BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE APPLICATION OF DECREES AND TAXES TO AMERICAN CITIZENS IN THE FRENCH ZONE1 681.11212/9 The American Diplomatic Agent and Consul General at Tangier (Blake) to the French Resident General in Morocco (Saint): 2 TANGIER, January 17, 1930. MR. RESIDENT-GENERAL: I have the honor to inform Your Excellency that, as the result of representations made to the American Consul in Casablanca by various importers of American Canned Foodstuffs in the Zone of the French Protectorate in Morocco, my attention has been drawn to a Vizirial Decree dated July 6th, 1929, which purports to prohibit, as from January 23rd, 1930, the importation or sale of imported canned foodstuffs into the French Protectorate unless the name of the country of origin is stamped upon the metal containers. The Vizirial Decree above referred to is stated to be issued in consideration of the provisions of a Dahir dated October 14th, 1914, and I would recall to Your Excellency that, on August 16th, 1927, I pointed out to your Residency-General that no request for the application of this Dahir to American commerce had been made to this Diplomatic Agency, and consequently, with a view to submitting its provisions to my Government for its consideration, I suggested that I be supplied with several copies of the text thereof. To this suggestion, the Residency-General, by Note No. 281-D of September 12th, 1927, replied that no copies of the Dahir were available, and that this text was in any case but of relative value in view of the numerous subsequent modifications thereof. However, a new pamphlet on the subject of the legislation in the French Protectorate regarding the repression of commercial frauds, then in preparation, was expected to be published by the end of the year 1927, and it was stated that the Residency-General would forward copies of this pamphlet to this Diplomatic Agency 1For previous correspondence on the subject of taxes in the French Zone, see Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. 111, pp. 482 ff. Copy transmitted to the Department by the Diplomatic Agent and Consul General in his despatch No. 467, January 17, 1930; received February 10. 737 |