NORWAY REFUSAL OF A CONSUL TO RECOGNIZE JURISDICTION OF A NORWEGIAN COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE DELIVERY OF A PASSPORT 702.05/137 The Chargé in Norway (Bevan) to the Secretary of State No. 92 OSLO, June 2, 1931. [Received June 15.] SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith for the Department's information copies of an exchange of correspondence1 between the Legation, the Norwegian Foreign Office, and the American Consulate at Stavanger, in regard to a Norwegian court decree ordering the American Consul at Stavanger to withhold the delivery of a passport and other papers belonging to an American citizen by the name of I. S. Rasmussen, pending the settlement of a case concerning an alleged debt. I called on the Secretary-General of the Foreign Office 2 in regard to the matter and he advised me off hand that he thought the action of the Consul in refusing to recognize the jurisdiction of the court in the case was proper, but requested a little time to study the case. At my suggestion he agreed to speak to the judge at Stavanger on the telephone and request him to withdraw the court order addressed to the Consulate, and ask as a courtesy, that Mr. Rasmussen's passport be retained until the case was settled. The judge, however, refused to withdraw the order. Mr. Esmarch thereupon wrote me an informal note (see enclosure No. 3 with translation), asking me to request the Consul to respect the court order as an act of courtesy, and not bring to an issue the point of international law involved therein. During the interim, the case was settled through Mr. Rasmussen's payment of the debt. The court then cancelled the order sent to the Consulate. I wrote informally to Mr. Esmarch (see enclosure No. 4) requesting his opinion as to whether the Consul at Stavanger had properly interpreted Article XIII of the Treaty of 1827. In reply he stated (see 1 Not printed. 2 August Esmarch. Commercial treaty with Sweden and Norway, signed at Stockholm, July 4, 1827. Miller, Treaties, vol. 3, p. 283. enclosure No. 5) that the point at issue is whether the inviolability of a document could be considered to exclude the competence of the courts from issuing an order to the Consulate calling for the non-delivery of the document. I would be obliged for the Department's opinion in the premises, as it is probable that similar cases of this kind will arise in the future. Respectfully yours, THOMAS H. BEVAN 702.05/137 The Acting Secretary of State to the Minister in Norway (Phillip) No. 45 WASHINGTON, July 15, 1931. SIR: The Department has received the Legation's No. 92, of June 2, 1931, with enclosures, in regard to a Norwegian court decree ordering the American Consul at Stavanger to withhold the delivery of a passport and other papers belonging to I. S. Rasmussen, an American citizen, pending the settlement of a case concerning his alleged indebtedness. The Legation requests an expression of the Department's opinion in relation to the Consul's answer to the court, that he was unable to recognize the jurisdiction of the court in matters pertaining to the issuance and delivery of American passports, in view of the stipulations of article XIII of the Treaty of 1827 between the United States and Sweden and Norway with respect to the inviolability of archives and documents relative to the affairs of consulates. In reply you are informed that the Department approves the action of the Chargé d'Affaires and that of the Consul. In general it may be stated that the rule has commended itself to universal acceptance that the archives and other official property of the Consulate are inviolable; that is to say, absolutely exempt from seizure or examination by the local authorities. This privilege belongs to the government which the foreign consul represents. In this particular case the Consul was not before the Court and he was not given an opportunity to be heard. Consequently the Court's resolution, which amounted to an injunction against the Consul, would doubtless have been vacated on appeal. The inviolability of consular archives should undoubtedly exclude the competence of local courts to control the official actions of consuls in relation to official documents. Otherwise local courts would be in a position of controlling the official acts of consuls and interfering with the exercise of their discretion in performance of their official duties in connection with the handling of official documents. Very truly yours, W. R. CASTLE, Jr. PANAMA REVOLUTION IN PANAMA 819.00 Revolutions/1: Telegram The Minister in Panama (Davis) to the Secretary of State PANAMA, January 2, 1931-9 a. m. [Received 12: 15 p. m.] 96. Revolutionists in control of Panama City. For confidential information of Department I conferred with President Arosemena who requested troops. Have refrained from calling troops up to the present time because there would be great bloodshed. Used my unofficial influence to stop violence and save lives of scores of Panaman officials held prisoners including President. After conference with members of Supreme Court that body is leading in effort to find peaceful solution. It is considering possibility of calling fire department which is non-political to patrol city while conferences are held looking to a peaceful solution of problem. I have conferred with General Brown and Governor Schley American troops on boundary line prepared to intervene in case American lives and property are not protected. DAVIS 819.00 Revolutions/2: Telegram The Minister in Panama (Davis) to the Secretary of State PANAMA, January 2, 1931-3 p. m. [Received 4:08 p. m.] 98. When Supreme Court met early this morning situation improved immediately and revolutionists concentrated at police station and ceased their activities. Firemen under command Colonel Guizado and under direction Supreme Court took over policing of city. Fire organization is independent of all branches of Government. Supreme Court after consulting representatives of various groups called upon President Arosemena for conference which resulted in President appointing Dr. Ballen President of Supreme Court and 'For a historical account of the revolution, see despatch No. 307, January 6, from the Minister in Panama, p. 894. 'General Preston Brown, in command of the Panama Canal Department, and Acting Governor Schley of the Panama Canal Zone. Harmodio Arias Secretary of Government. The President then resigned and Arias as Prime Minister took over the Government. It appears that the best possible solution under the circumstances has been reached. The intelligent cooperation and assistance of General Brown and Governor Schley helped materially in preventing great loss of life. DAVIS 819.00 Revolutions/8: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in Panama (Davis) WASHINGTON, January 2, 1931-6 p. m. 1. Your 96, June [January] 2, 9 a. m. The Department approves of your action in not calling troops out unless necessary for the protection of American lives. Unless it is necessary to do so for the maintenance of public order in the cities of Panama and Colon, the Department does not want troops used and if they should be used they should be returned to the Canal Zone as soon as public order is restored. In any event it is most important that they should be used only for the maintenance of public order and not in any manner whatsoever in connection with the internal political affairs of Panama. Arrange with the Governor of the Canal Zone and General Brown that appropriate steps be taken so that no political activities can be carried on from the Canal Zone either by revolutionists or Government authorities or any persons who may take refuge in the Canal Zone. Cable fully all the details of the movement and all subsequent developments. Department appreciates the delicate and difficult situation which you are handling and has confidence in your judgment. STIMSON 819.00 Revolutions/3: Telegram -The Minister in Panama (Davis) to the Secretary of State PANAMA, January 2, 1931—10 p. m. [Received 11: 35 p. m.] 9. If those in control of government desire to transport troops across Canal Zone to interior and to transport troops to Colon via Panama Railway should they be permitted to do so? Rush reply. Situation may be complicated and counterrevolutionary movements develop in case de facto authorities now in power are not in a position to send troops to outlying points. It is my opinion that every effort should be made to avoid clashes of course and I shall directly use my influence to that end. DAVIS 819.00 Revolutions/19: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in Panama (Davis) WASHINGTON, January 3, 1931-2 p. m. 2. Your 9, January 2, 10 p. m. In view of the overthrow of the Panaman Government the Department feels that this Government cannot be called upon to allow transportation of troops across the Canal Zone or to Colon via the Panama Railroad as a matter of right under Article 19 of the Treaty of 1903.3 The Department leaves to your discretion the granting of such right of transit to the de facto authorities for purposes of pacification but you should not grant such requests if to do so would lead to fighting in the Canal Zone or the cities of Panama and Colon. STIMSON 819.00 Revolutions/12: Telegram The Minister in Panama (Davis) to the Secretary of State PANAMA, January 3, 1931-3 p. m. [Received 4:03 p. m.] 15. The question of recognizing signatures of authorities of Panaman Government now functioning by Panama Canal authorities has arisen. The question of right of present government to take advantage of provision of the treaty of 1903 article 19 may arise at any moment. Please instruct immediately by cable as to attitude this Legation and Panama Canal authorities should assume toward the Panaman Government now functioning. It would appear that the Panaman Supreme Court is of the opinion that recent changes in the government have been effected in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Panama. DAVIS 819.00 Revolutions/16: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in Panama (Davis) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, January 3, 1931-7 p. m. 4. Your 15, January 3, 3 p. m. In transacting necessary and urgent business no objection is perceived to the Canal Zone authorities' recog 'Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 543. |