ARTICLE 2 The United States and its nationals shall have and enjoy all the rights and benefits secured under the terms of the mandate to members of the League of Nations and their nationals, notwithstanding the fact that the United States is not a member of the League of Nations. ARTICLE 3 Vested American property rights in the mandated territories shall be respected and in no way impaired. ARTICLE 4 A duplicate of the annual report to be made by the mandatory under Article 17 of the mandate shall be furnished to the United States. ARTICLE 5 Subject to the provisions of any local laws for the maintenance of public order and public morals, the nationals of the United States will be permitted freely to establish and maintain educational, philantropic [sic] and religious institutions in the mandated territory, to receive voluntary applicants and to teach in the English language. ARTICLE 6 Nothing contained in the present convention shall be affected by any modification which may be made in the terms of the mandate as recited above unless such modification shall have been assented to by the United States. ARTICLE 7 The present convention shall be ratified in accordance with the respective constitutional methods of the High Contracting Parties. The ratifications shall be exchanged at Paris as soon as practicable. The present convention shall take effect on the date of the exchange of ratifications. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Convention and have affixed thereto their seals. DONE in duplicate at Paris, the 4 day of April, in the year 1924. CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO INCREASED DUTIES ON IMPORTS INTO SYRIA PENDING RATIFICATION OF THE SYRIAN MANDATE TREATY 690d.003/20: Telegram The Consul at Beirut (Knabenshue) to the Secretary of State BEIRUT, March 20, 1924-11 a. m. [Received 2 p. m.] Pending conclusion convention between the United States and France in regard to mandate, French High Commission requests consent of the United States to increase customs duty on alcohol to approximately 50 percent in order to protect the local wine industry which is being injured by spurious concoctions fabricated from imported alcohol. In view of the American regulations governing export of alcohol, I recommend Department accord consent requested. Please reply by telegraph. KNABENSHUE 690d.003/20: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Consul at Beirut (Knabenshue) WASHINGTON, March 22, 1924-5 p. m. Before taking action on your telegram of March 20, 11 a. m., concerning increase in customs duty on alcohol, Department desires information regarding provisions of the law in question and the attitude of nationals of other countries. HUGHES 690d.003/21: Telegram The Consul at Beirut (Knabenshue) to the Secretary of State BEIRUT, March 31, 1924-4 p. m. Referring to Department's telegram of March 23 [22], 5 p. m., French High Commission is now formulating new law increasing customs duties in general to 15 percent with few exceptions, such as certain luxuries and particularly alcohol, the latter to be approximately 50 percent. French willing fix duty on denatured alcohol at 15 percent which can only be used for medicinal purposes and not for beverages. Other powers having accepted French mandate need not be consulted. KNABENSHUE 690d.003/21 : Telegram The Secretary of State to the Consul at Beirut (Knabenshue) WASHINGTON, April 2, 1924—3 p. m. Your telegram of March 31, 4 p. m. concerning increase in customs duty on alcohol. You may inform the French authorities that this Government consents to making effective with respect to American citizens the increased duty on alcohol for beverage purposes with the reservation of the jurisdiction of the American Consular Court in cases arising under this provision in which American citizens are concerned as of the date that this Government's consent is brought to the attention of the French authorities. HUGHES 690d.003/23 : Telegram The Consul at Beirut (Knabenshue) to the Secretary of State BEIRUT, April 9, 1924-5 p. m. [Received 6:05 p. m.] French High Commissioner informs me that accord between the United States and France has been signed and pending ratification requests consent to new customs duties as follows: Duty to be raised. from 11 percent as formerly to 15 percent on all articles with the exception of live animals, cereals, flour, rice, coffee, sugar, preserves, butter, milk, cheese, mineral water, lumber and chemical manures, the duty on all of which will remain at 11 percent. The duty on alcohol to be more than 15 percent but the exact amount not yet fixed. The above customs duties are applicable to all goods from States which are members of League of Nations and from the United States, while goods from other sources will pay 30 percent. Please telegraph consent to new tariff as applicable to American goods. KNABENSHUE 690d.003/23 : Telegram The Secretary of State to the Consul at Beirut (Knabenshue) WASHINGTON, April 12, 1924-5 p. m. Your telegram of April 9, 5 p. m. concerning increase of customs duties from 11 to 15 per cent. You may inform the French authorities that this Government consents to making effective, with respect to American citizens, the increased customs duties with the reservations that there shall be no discrimination against American citizens or products and that pending ratification of Syrian Mandate Treaty the Consular Court shall have jurisdiction in cases arising under this provision in which American citizens are concerned. This consent shall be as of the date on which it is brought to the attention of the French authorities and on the understanding that other interested powers acquiesce in proposed increase. HUGHES OPINION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE REGARDING JURISDICTION OVER AMERICAN NATIONALS IN SYRIA 390d.1141 Ab 8/3 The Consul at Beirut (Knabenshue) to the Secretary of State No. 1297 BEIRUT, February 4, 1924. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Department's instruction of October 15, 1923 (File No. 390d.1141 Ab 8/-),20 with reference to a suit brought in the local courts in Syria against Mr. Joe Abraham, an American citizen now residing in the United States. I am directed to make inquiry concerning this matter and to report thereon to the Department. It appears from the dossier of this case that one Michel Zoghzoghy, a local subject, has brought action in the local Syrian courts against Mr. Joe Abraham, an American citizen, for alleged breach of contract. The question at issue which is of chief interest to the United States Government is, first, whether an American citizen residing in the United States can be prosecuted in the local Syrian courts for an alleged breach of contract, irrespective of whether the said breach took place in Syria, by correspondence, or in the United States; and, secondly, whether service upon the American citizen in question was effected legally in accordance with treaties, custom or usage. In order that the situation may be made clear, it is well to review briefly the entire question of jurisdiction under the Capitulations in Syria. There are three courts in Syria which have, under varying conditions, jurisdiction in cases wherein an American citizen is either the defendant or the plaintiff: First.-a) The American Consular Court in criminal cases when the defendant is an American citizen, irrespective of the nationality of the complainant. b) The American Consular Court in civil cases when both parties to the suit are American citizens. c) The American Consular Court in civil cases between American citizens and the citizens or subjects of other Powers enjoying capitulatory privileges, when the American is the defendant. 26 Not printed. Second.-a) The Consular Court of another capitulatory Power in criminal cases wherein the defendant is a subject of that Power and the complainant an American citizen. b) The Consular Court of another capitulatory Power in civil cases wherein the defendant is a subject of that Power and the complainant an American citizen. Third.-a) Local Tribunal (the Mixed Commercial Court) in civil cases (not arising out of landed property interests) wherein one of the parties is an American citizen and the other a local subject. Cases so heard in this Court are attended by a Dragoman of this Consulate General and two American citizens appointed by the Consulate General sit as associates with the native judges. Judgments rendered in this Court against American citizens must be referred to the Consulate General for execution. If, in the opinion of the Dragoman and the American associates, justice has not been rendered in accordance with the applicable law, the Dragoman refuses to sign the judgment and it is consequently not executed by the Consulate General, in which case a new hearing may be demanded. b) The local tribunals, without the assistance of American associates or the presence of a dragoman, in cases arising out of landed property interests, in accordance with the Turkish law of 1867, accepted by the United States on October 29, 1874.27 c) Local tribunals, in criminal cases wherein the defendant is a local subject and the complainant an American. These cases are attended by a dragoman of the Consulate General. It should be noted that in all cases in the local tribunals attended by the Dragoman of the Consulate General, the judgment must be signed by the Dragoman to make it effective. If the Dragoman refuses to sign the judgment a new case may be commenced. If the native Judge insists upon the execution of the judgment, even though the Dragoman refused to sign it, the case must be settled administratively between the French High Commission and the Consulate General. All services in connection with cases in any of the above mentioned courts should be made upon American citizens through the intermediary of the American Consulate General. It is my opinion that the case between Mr. Zoghzoghy and Mr. Abraham, being, as it is, an alleged breach of contract not involving real estate, should come properly in the Mixed Commercial Tribunal, and service could only be made upon Mr. Abraham through this Consulate General, irrespective of whether he resides in Syria or the United States. Mr. Abraham has given a power-of-attorney to Mr. Kaleel Muallem to act for him and defend his interests before the local tribunal. The case has been set for hearing on February 11, 1924. It appears that the plaintiff in his action has caused the defendant's property 27 Malloy, Treaties, 1776-1909, vol. 1, p. 1344. |