Page images
PDF
EPUB

At the same time, the administration was placed in the hands of a Director General, "with power to promote its most ample development, in accordance with the terms of this resolution, with the regulations and with the resolutions of the Governing Board, to which he shall be responsible."5

While the Pan American Union is not founded on treaty, the twenty-one sovereign republics, that are a party thereto, have assented to the Union of the American Republics by authorizing the appointment of delegates to the several Pan American Conferences, by providing the necessary appropriations to enable the delegates to attend, and by annually appropriating their proportionate quotas for the support of the Pan American Union.

The method of collection of quotas and disbursement of funds is as follows: All of said Republics, including the United States, send annually to the Pan American Union their respective drafts or checks for their quotas, and thereupon said Pan American Union deposits said drafts or checks as credits with the Treasury of the United States. At various times the Chairman of the Governing Board of the Pan American Union signs a requisition for disbursing funds, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, asking a warrant to issue, chargeable to the Pan American Union quotas, and to the Special Disbursing Agent of the Pan American Union. The Treasurer of the United States then certifies to the Special Disbursing Agent of the Pan American Union that the amount of said warrant has been credited to his account. Thereupon, the Chief Accountant and Disbursing Officer of the Pan American Union issues checks on the Treasurer of the United States for such purposes as have been approved by the officers of the Pan American Union, including the payment of the salaries of employees. Said Chief Accountant and Disbursing Officer is appointed by and gives bond to the Pan American Union. Under said appointment he also gives bond to the United States of America as "Special Disbursing Agent of the Department of State to disburse all funds of the Pan American Union." Pursuant to the regulations of the Governing Board, his accounts are submitted to the General Accounting Office of the United States for audit.

CONCLUSION

Sufficient facts, of a material nature, concerning the organization and functioning of the Pan American Union, have been set forth to enable the question to be considered in the light of three inquiries, namely:

(a) What is the Pan American Union?

(b) What is its legal status?

(c) Is it subject to the jurisdiction of the local courts?

From what has been set forth, it seems clear that the "Pan American Union" is the permanent organ and the administrative agency of an international union, or association, of the twenty-one American Republics. This

5 Art. VI. Same.

union, or association, has been named by the parties thereto the "Union of the Republics of the American Continent."

The Pan American Union serves as the agent of this association of sovereign states, has its seat in the building of the American Republics in Washington, and is maintained at the common expense and for the common benefit of the members of the Union. Its functions are as set forth in the resolutions of the Pan American Conferences, and are in the nature of governmental functions, as distinguished from engaging in business enterprises for profit. It is governed by a Governing Board, which is composed entirely of officials of the sovereign and independent states comprising the Union of the American Republics, namely: the Secretary of State of the United States of North America and the diplomatic representatives of the other American Republics accredited to the Government of the United States of America. As an organization, therefore, the Pan American Union is the common administrative agency of the twenty-one sovereign states which are members of the Union.

What is its legal status as an organization, particularly with respect to the laws of the United States of America, where it is located? The Union is not created by treaty. Its existence is due to resolutions adopted at international conferences, by duly appointed delegates of the various republics of this hemisphere. So far as the United States of America is concerned, such delegates were appointed by the Executive, pursuant to the authorization of Congress, and, presumably, similar action was taken by the other republics. The resolutions, then, are in the nature of agreements between the executive departments of the various governments of said republics. But such agreements have acquired a legal status, by reason of the fact that the legislative authority of each country has assented thereto, by making annual appropriations for their several quotas of the funds required for the support of the Pan American Union.

The one advantage of a treaty over the present arrangement would have been to place the Pan American Union on a permanent basis, rather than for it to continue through voluntary assent of the several governments.

Since its functions are performed within the boundaries of the United States, the question arises as to whether the Pan American Union is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. It seems clearly to result from what has been said that the Pan American Union, as an organization, partakes of the same sovereign status which pertains to the members of the Union, and which pertains to the diplomatic representatives who are members of the Governing Board.

The authorities show that neither the United States nor any of the other sovereign nations which are members of the Union, can be sued in the courts Art. I. Same. 7 Art. V. Same.

8

9

of the United States without their consent. The authorities establish that public property belonging to sovereign states, other than certain vessels, is subject to the same principle, and that there is no difference between suits against a sovereign directly and suits against its property. Public property of a government, in use for public purposes, is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of its own or any other state. The exercise of such jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the independence of the sovereign authority of a state.10 The Attorney General has ruled that on the formation of the Union of American Republics, the sovereign states comprising it neither surrendered any rights or powers nor acquired any." The Comptroller of the Treasury has held that the United States of America is only a contributing member of the Union, and has no more control over the expenditures of the Pan American Union than its representation on the Governing Board gives it.12 Therefore, the funds of the Pan American Union would appear to be the common property of the several sovereign nations composing the Union, which they have voluntarily placed under the control of the Governing Board as their agent. Being the property of sovereign nations, the fact that such funds have been commingled and deposited with the Treasury of the United States as custodian would not deprive them of their sovereign status.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has held that money in the hands of a disbursing agent is not subject to attachment, because it remains the property of the United States until the recipient of the funds actually receives the money from the Treasury, and because it would be found embarrassing, and, under some circumstances, fatal to the public service, if such funds could be diverted by process of the courts.13 On the same line of reasoning, any funds in possession of the disbursing officer of the Pan American Union would continue to constitute funds of the Union and could not be reached by process of the courts while in his hands.

By the statutes of the United States, process against foreign diplomatic representatives is void,14 and property in which the United States is interested is exempt from attachment.15

The conclusion is inevitable that the twenty-one sovereign states, which compose the union of American Republics, cannot be sued without their

Moore's Int. Law Dig., Vol. II, p. 558, with citations; Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. S. C. Rep. 116; Hyde, Int. Law, pp. 430-31, with citations; Hassard v. United States of Mexico, 61 N. Y. 645, affirmed in 173 N. Y. 645; Mannsing v. Nicaragua, 14 How. Pr. 517; Beers v. State of Arkansas, 20 How. U. S. 527.

Stanley v. Schwolly, 147 U. S. 508; U. S. v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196.

10 Oliver American Trading Co. Inc. v. Government of the United States of Mexico and National Railways of Mexico, 5 Fed. Rep. (Second Series), p. 659.

11 XX Ops. Atty. Genl. 558.

12 XXI Ops. Compt. Treasy. 850.

13 McKean Buchanan, Plaintiff in Error v. James Alexander, 45 U. S. Sup. Court Rep. 19. 14 Vol. 3, pp. 56 and 57, Secs. 4063 and 4064, Federal Statutes Annotated, Second ed. 15 Vol. 8, p. 1130, Sec. 3753, same; 24 Ops. Atty. Genl. 679.

consent; that the members of the Governing Board of the Pan American Union cannot be sued without the consent of the members of the Union; and that the funds and property of the Pan American Union cannot be reached by process of the courts of the United States, even though such funds should be in possession of its disbursing officer.

THE BOMBARDMENT OF DAMASCUS

BY QUINCY WRIGHT

Of the Board of Editors

The Syrian insurrection culminating in the bombardment of Damascus in October, 1925, is an incident of a kind which has frequently marred the relations of western Powers with less advanced peoples. Thus it may be of more than passing interest to examine the conduct of the parties concerned from the standpoint of international law.

The principal Allied Powers, in pursuance of various interallied war treaties, authorized France to undertake the mandate for Syria at the San Remo Conference of April 25, 1920. The mandate was drawn up by France, approved by the United States, confirmed by the League of Nations Council on July 24, 1922, and came into force September 29, 1923. Turkey had given up all claim to Syria within the mandate boundaries by the FranklinBouillon Treaty of October 20, 1921, confirmed by Articles 3 and 16 of the Lausanne Treaty of July 24, 1923.1

The King-Crane Commission, sent to Syria by President Wilson in 1919, had reported that of 1863 petitions received, over sixty per cent were expressly opposed to a French mandate and less than fifteen per cent (mostly from the Lebanon) were expressly favorable to France, in spite of considerable propaganda by French forces in occupation of the coastal area.2 On March 10, 1920, a congress of 135 notables, claiming to represent all Syria, met at Damascus and proclaimed the independent Kingdom of Syria with the Emir Feisal as king. Damascus and the interior, which had actually been under the Arab administration of Feisal since the withdrawal of General Allenby in 1919, was forcibly occupied by the French on July 25, 1920.3

After this, Syrian complaints against French rule were numerous and were manifested by several petitions to the League of Nations and by several insurrections of slight military significance before 1925. French troops were reduced from some 70,000 in 1920 to about 10,000 in July of 1925, two-thirds of which were Algerians, Tunisians, Senagalese and other Mohammedan colonials.4

1 See Wright, "The United States and the Mandates," Michigan Law Rev., Vol. 23, pp. 11, 22, May, 1925.

* Full text printed in Editor and Publisher, Vol. 55, No. 27, 2nd Ser., pp. 1-28, Dec. 2, 1922. See also Baker, Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement, Vol. 2, Chap. 34.

3

Chirol, The Occident and the Orient, pp. 170-177; Republique Francaise, Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres, Rapport sur la situation de la Syrie et du Liban, 1922-23, p. 37 et seq.; Buell, International Relations, pp. 88-89.

'Wright, "Syrian Grievances against French Rule," Current History, Feb. 1926, pp. 687-693.

« PreviousContinue »