« PreviousContinue »
IRISH FREE STATE
ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE IRISH FREE STATE REGARDING RECIPROCAL RECOGNITION OF LOAD LINE CERTIFICATES, EFFECTED BY EXCHANGE OF NOTES SIGNED SEPTEMBER 21 AND NOVEMBER 18, 1931
Executive Agreement Series No. 27 841 D. 8561/5 The American Chargé in the Irish Free State (Denby) to the Min
ister for External Affairs of the Irish Free State (McGilligan) No. 380
DUBLIN, September 21, 1931. YOUR EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to refer to the note of March 10, 1931,in which Your Excellency was so good as to apprize the Legation of the willingness of the Government of the Irish Free State to enter into negotiations for a reciprocal load line agreement with the Government of the United States of America.
Under instructions from my Government to whom the matter was at once referred, I beg to inform Your Excellency that the competent American authorities have examined the load line regulations in force in the Irish Free State and that the said American authorities found these regulations to be as effective as the United States load line regulations.
My Government accordingly is prepared to agree that, pending the coming into force in the United States and in the Irish Free State of the International Load Line Convention signed in London on July 5, 1930,” the competent authorities of the Governments of the United States and the Irish Free State, respectively, will recognize as equivalent the load line marks and the certificate of such marking of merchant vessels of the other country made pursuant to the regulations in force in the respective countries: provided, that the load line marks are in accordance with the load line certificates; that the hull and superstructures of the vessel certificated have not been so materially altered since the issuance of the certificate as to effect the calculations on which the load line was based, and that alterations have not been made so that the
(1) Protection of Openings,
14) Means of Access to Crews Quarters, have made the vessel manifestly unfit to proceed to sea without danger to human life.
* Not printed.
Let me add that it will be understood by my Government that, on the receipt by the Legation of a note from Your Excellency expressing the concurrence of the Government of the Irish Free State in the agreement and understanding as above set forth, the reciprocal agreement will be regarded as having become effective. I avail myself [etc.]
JAMES ORR DENBY
Executive Agreement Series No. 27
[DUBLIN,] 18 November, 1931. YOUR EXCELLENCY: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's Note No. 380 of the 21st September stating that your Government, after examination by the competent authorities of the load line regulations in force in this country, are willing to enter into a reciprocal Loadline Agreement with the Government of the Irish Free State.
I have accordingly the honour to inform you that the Government of the Irish Free State on the advice of the Minister for Industry and Commerce hereby concur in the terms of the agreement as set out in Your Excellency's Note, that is to say, that pending the coming into force in the United States and in the Irish Free State of the International Load Line Convention signed in London on July 5, 1930, the competent authorities of the Governments of the United States and the Irish Free State, respectively, will recognize as equivalent the load line marks and the certificate of such marking of merchant vessels of the other country made pursuant to the regulations in force in the respective countries: provided, that the load line marks are in accordance with the load line certificates; that the hull and superstructures of the vessel certificated have not been so materially altered since the issue of the certificate as to affect the calculations on which the load line was based, and that alterations have not been made so that the
(1) Protection of Openings,
4) Means of Access to Crews Quarters
I am to add that the Government of the Irish Free State regard the Agreement as having become effective by this exchange of Notes. I avail myself [etc.]
SEAN MURPHY For the Minister
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND ITALY MODIFYING THE TERMS OF ARTICLE II OF THE TREATY TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF GENERAL PEACE OF MAY 5, 1914, SIGNED SEPTEMBER 23, 1931
WASHINGTON, September 30, 1930. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: I have the honor to refer to the note of the Department of State dated May 8th concerning the recognized opportunity of altering the provisions of the Treaty for the Advancement of Peace concluded between the United States and Italy on May 5, 1914 ? so as to make the terms of office of the Members of the International Commission of indefinite duration.
My Government, having carefully examined the draft of treaty: enclosed in said note, has some suggestions to make regarding the wording of the draft. Such suggestions, however, do not affect the substance of the text, but are only intended to render its provisions more precise.
1) In the Preamble, the reference to the Treaty of 1914 does not appear to be quite exact, inasmuch as that Treaty is referred to as "Treaty of Conciliation” while its title is "Treaty for the Advancement of Peace"
2) Concerning Article I of the draft, it appears that no mention is made of the presidency of the Commission to be constituted, nor of the eventuality of the substitution (sometimes necessary) of a Member in the same Commission before examination of a question; while both such points seem to be important and calling for a definition. It seems, moreover, that it would be advisable to render more precise the provisions concerning costs and compensations involved in the operation of the Commission. My Government suggests the opportunity of employing a formula on the like of those generally used with reference to the composition of similar Commissions, provided for in recent Arbitration Treaties, which formula would make the wording of Article I read as in the enclosed draft (in Italian).
3) Concerning Article III, my Government observes that the reference to ratification "in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the High Contracting Parties” does not seem opportune,
* Not printed.
since the question is a mere internal order, exhausting its effects, for either State, within the province of its own juridical system.
Moreover, in accordance with the procedure customarily followed that the exchange of ratifications be accomplished in the country wherein the signature of an International Act has not taken place, my Government has expressed the desire that the ratifications be exchanged at Rome. Article III might therefore be worded as follows: “The present treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged in Rome as soon as possible, etc."
I would be very much obliged to Your Excellency for kindly taking into consideration the points that precede and to examine whether the suggestions made are acceptable to the United States Government. In such case, should Your Excellency have no objection, my Government would propose, for the treaty to be entered into, the text the Italian reading of which is herewith enclosed.
In case Your Excellency concur in the suggestions submitted above, I should be greatly indebted to Your Excellency for having the proposed text translated into English and the translation sent to me, so that I may obtain from my Government its definitive approval. Accept [etc.]
The Secretary of State to the Italian Ambassador (De Martino)
WASHINGTON, April 16, 1931. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to refer to your note of September 30, 1930, in which you discuss the draft submitted by this Government, as a result of a previous suggestion made by you, for the alteration of the treaty for the advancement of peace signed by the United States and Italy on May 5, 1914.
The proposals stated in your note of September 30, 1930, have been carefully examined and are in considerable part acceptable to this Government.
I am very glad to concur in your proposal that three of the members of the international commission shall be designated by the two parties by common consent. I have no objection, moreover, to the provision that either party may revoke the appointment of a member chosen by it and appoint his successor at any time when there is no case before the commission.
I am not able, however, to concur in the provision that either party may withdraw its consent to the designation of members of the commission which have been designated by the two parties acting jointly. I feel that the revocation of such designations should occur only by common agreement between the two parties.
* Not printed.
The additional details included in the draft which you have submitted seem to me unobjectionable with the exception of those which relate to expenses, especially the fixing by the respective parties of the allowances to be paid to the members of the commission appointed by them. I feel that there is no strong reason why the compensation of all the commissioners should not be the subject of mutual agreement as it is in the treaty of May 5, 1914. On the question of compensation, I prefer, therefore, that the provisions in Article II of that treaty should be continued.
I agree with you entirely that there is no need to specify that the required ratification by the respective parties shall be in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. I am also glad, in view of the fact that signature is expected to take place at Washington, to have the ratifications exchanged at Rome.
There is enclosed a revised drafts of the proposed treaty for amending the treaty of 1914. In this draft I have undertaken to include the various alterations requested by you as far as they are acceptable to this Government. Accept [etc.]
HENRY L. STIMSON
The Italian Embassy to the Department of State 6 By his note of April 16, 1931, His Excellency the Secretary of State sent to the Italian Ambassador a draft treaty which should replace the Treaty for the Advancement of Peace signed between Italy and the United States on May 5th, 1914.
By this draft treaty, while certain suggestions made by the Italian Government are accepted, two are not concurred into: viz: the one concerning the fixing of the allowances to be paid by the respective parties to the members of the Commission appointed by them, and the one regarding the possibility that either party withdraw its consent to the designation of members of the Commission designated by the two parties acting jointly.
In order to facilitate the conclusion of the agreement the Italian Government does not insist on the first of these suggestions.
As to the second, the Italian Government wishes to point out that the provision suggested on its part is inserted in numerous treaties of the same nature stipulated by Italy, as for instance the Italo-Swiss Treaty of Conciliation and Judicial settlement ("Trattato di conciliazione e regolamento guidiziario") of September 20, 1924' (Art.
Handed to the Assistant Chief of the Treaty Division by the Counsellor of the Italian Embassy, July 23, 1931.
'League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. XXXIII, p. 92.