The attached project of note includes reference to the AngloEthiopian Gambella Agreement 21 which was forwarded, with comment, in the Legation's No. 775 of July 29th, 1931.22 In my opinion there exists no particularly sound reason for a change in my original instructions not to protest the excise tax law as a violation of the Klobukowsky Treaty. I fear such protest may cause the Ethiopians again, and perhaps definitely, to consider denouncing the Klobukowsky Treaty which would result seriously in taking away the judicial privileges which we now have under Article Seven of the Treaty. I have been unable to find in Ethiopian official circles any inclination to consider more liberal or better defined privileges than are at present permitted by Article Seven. On the contrary I find an inclination to consider either greatly restricting or abolishing the privileges should Article Seven be brought to an issue by the Diplomatic Corps. The excise tax law does seem a violation of the Anglo-Ethiopian Gambella Agreement and we might adhere to a protest on that basis alone. Whether or not the excise tax law is a violation of the Klobukowsky Treaty, and that seems debatable at least, we have nothing definite to gain by joining in the proposed protest and there is much that we might lose particularly in connection with the above mentioned Article Seven. I would greatly appreciate it if the Department would upon receipt of this despatch telegraph me, either confirming my original instructions not to protest or indicating such amended instructions as may seem to it desirable. My colleagues have asked me to bring this proposed note before the Department by telegraph but the considerable expense does not under prevailing circumstances seem justified. I am, therefore, sending it by mail with a request for telegraphic reply which I assume can be brief. Respectfully yours, ADDISON E. SOUTHARD 884.512 Consumption/34 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Murray) [WASHINGTON,] August 25, 1931. Count Marchetti, Counselor of the Italian Embassy, came to see me on July 30th, stating that the Embassy had been instructed to as 21 Regarding the custom duties to be collected by the customhouses between the Government of Ethiopia and the Sudan, signed at Addis Ababa, March 3, 1928 (884.512 Consumption /27). 22 Not printed. certain whether this Government intended to make any protest to the Ethiopian Government as a result of the new excise tax which has recently been enforced in Ethiopia. I told Count Marchetti that the Department had no such intention and had so informed our Minister at Addis Ababa. Count Marchetti then inquired as to this Government's attitude with respect to the possible denunciation of the Klobukowski Treaty, which is the basis of foreign capitulatory rights in Ethiopia. I told Count Marchetti that we were disposed to show every leniency to the Ethiopians in fiscal matters and that therefore we would be prepared to agree to any modification of Article 3 of the above-mentioned Treaty which limits the freedom of action of Ethiopia in tariff matters. It seemed to us wise, I said, to make the above concessions to the Ethiopians in order to preserve as far as possible the rest of the Klobukowski Treaty covering the Capitulations. I reminded him that the position of the Powers disposed to protest the new excise duties on the ground that they were in violation of the Klobukowski Treaty, was very weak inasmuch as provision is made in the Treaty itself for denunciation on twelve months' notice; therefore, any protest made by the Powers to the Ethiopians might, instead of accomplishing the objective of the Powers, merely result in the denunciation of the Treaty as a whole, which would leave us all without any specified capitulatory rights in the country. Count Marchetti said that his Government's views with regard to the Capitulations in Ethiopia coincided entirely with our own, but that his Government was now apparently in agreement with the French that it would be inconsistent to discuss with the Ethiopians a modification of Article 3 of the Klobukowski Treaty without protesting a violation of that Article, which had already taken place. I remarked that in my opinion there would be little satisfaction in having made a protest in this matter if by doing so all of us lose the benefits of the Treaty as a whole in case of denunciation. WALLACE MURRAY 884.512 Consumption/41: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in Ethiopia (Southard) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, September 30, 1931—5 p. m. 22. Your mail despatch No. 776, August 1. The Department perceives no reason, from the information available, to alter its instruction in telegram 8, May 7, 4 p. m. 23 The plan which the American financial adviser in Ethiopia suggested in his memorandum 28 (see enclosure in your despatch No. 789, August 1524) is considered by the Department to offer a reasonable basis for discussion. A plan such as this would be acceptable to the American Government on condition that suitable assurances are given by Ethiopia that Article 7 of the Klobukowsky Treaty of 1908 be continued in force, either in its present form or after amendment in agreement with the Powers interested, for a definite term of years not to be less than 10. STIMSON 884.512 Consumption/45 The Minister in Ethiopia (Southard) to the Secretary of State No. 827 ADDIS ABABA, October 3, 1931. [Received November 5.] SIR: I have the honor to refer to the Legation's No. 822 of September 28th, 1931,24 reporting that the local British, French and Italian representatives had presented to the Ethiopian Government a protest against the excise tax law and to enclose herewith in the original French a copy of their actual note.24 An English translation will be prepared and forwarded later. This note is based upon the draft 24 forwarded with the Legation's No. 776 of August 1st, 1931, which was at the time proposed by my British, French and Italian colleagues for signature by the Diplomatic Corps as a body. The Department is familiar from the Legation's various reports with the reasons which prevented agreement of the Diplomatic body as a whole. After consideration my British, French and Italian colleagues decided to make the note of protest their own and submitted it in the form of the attached document. It does not, in effect at least, differ greatly from the original draft mentioned in the opening sentence of this paragraph. The Ethiopian Government has already replied to this note of the three powers and the Legation expects shortly to have a copy of that reply to forward to the Department. The reply is understood to have been very unsatisfactory to my three colleagues. 23 Respectfully yours, ADDISON E. SOUTHARD Namely, repeal of the excise taxes by Ethiopia on condition that the powers amend article 3 of the Franco-Ethiopian treaty so as to accord Ethiopia freedom of action in customs matters. 24 Not printed. 884.512 Consumption/49 The Minister in Ethiopia (Southard) to the Secretary of State No. 835 [Extract] ADDIS ABABA, October 12, 1931. [Received November 13.] SIR: I have the honor to refer to the Legation's No. 831 of October 8th, 1931 enclosing copy of the reply made by the Ethiopian Government to the recent British-French-Italian note of protest on the excise tax law.25 The next and latest step taken was a reply two days ago (on October 10th, 1931) by the British, French and Italian representatives, to the Ethiopian communication referred to in the opening paragraph of this despatch. This reply was brief (the Legation has not yet a copy) and stated merely that the three representatives could not negotiate on the basis of the Ethiopian proposal. The next step is presumably up to the Ethiopians. My three colleagues a few days ago approached me with a request that I visit the Emperor and discuss with him the negotiations as to Articles three and seven of the Klobukowsky Treaty, hoping that I could thereby find some way out of the impasse into which they had apparently gotten themselves. I declined to take up any such discussion in a formal way, but promised to mention the matter informally to the Emperor at the first opportunity and discover, if possible, what he might be actually thinking in the connection. I had occasion on October 9th, 1931, to see the Emperor on other business, and mentioned the excise tax law protest. His Majesty thereupon gave me a sketch of his negotiations with the British, French and Italians (with which I was already familiar from other sources) and confessed that he was in considerable doubt as to what he should finally do. He thought that perhaps he ought to insist on the cancellation of Article three of the Treaty, and had been so advised by Messrs. Colson, Kolmodin, and others. But he didn't feel at all sure about insisting, and thereupon asked my advice. Naturally I evaded any definite reply to this request. I did, however, suggest that he might find assistance in making up his mind by an informal discussion with all the heads of Legation assembled with him for that purpose. He appeared to favor this suggestion but didn't say definitely that he would follow it. I am inclined to think, however, that he may shortly act on it. I also obtained the impression from my conversation with His Majesty that he resented being approached by the three powers alone for the negotiations already reported upon. He appears to have the opinion that negotiations in connection with the Klobukowsky Treaty should be taken up with the Ethiopian Government either by the Diplomatic Corps as a whole or by only the French interest as signatory of the Treaty. I informally communicated this impression of the Emperor's opinion to my British, French and Italian colleagues. They thereupon called a meeting of the Diplomatic Corps and proposed that decision as to the next step in the negotiations be taken by that body as a whole. The decision arrived at was that we had best wait a while and find out whether the Ethiopians would make any reply, or otherwise give an opening for resumption of negotiations, to the three-power note of October 10th, 1931, mentioned in the third paragraph of this despatch.29 On the occasion of my informal conversation with His Majesty I took opportunity to indicate to him that the American Government would expect some definite statement in connection with Article seven of the Klobukowsky Treaty should we become party to any modification in connection with Article three. I intimated that there would be expected from him a definite statement that Article seven, or an at least equally favorable arrangement in place thereof, would continue in force for the next several (perhaps ten) years. He replied that he had as yet no intention of changing Article seven until he should have prepared an arrangement mutually satisfactory to the Ethiopian Government and the foreign powers concerned. He did not indicate that he had in mind any definite plan either as to the time or as to the substance of a new arrangement under Article seven. Respectfully yours, ADDISON E. SOUTHARD LACK OF JURISDICTION BY AMERICAN CONSULAR COURT IN ETHIOPIA OVER ALIENS IN BEHALF OF WHOM THE UNITED STATES EXTENDS ITS GOOD OFFICES 384.00/4 The Acting Secretary of State to the Minister in Ethiopia (Southard) No. 196 WASHINGTON, July 7, 1931. SIR: The receipt is acknowledged of your despatch No. 709 of May 4, 1931, enclosing a list of the countries whose nationals are under the protection of each of the foreign legations and consulates in Ethio "A new excise tax law, modifying previous laws, was decreed by Ethiopia on August 3, 1933, further reducing taxes. |
