vember 2nd to Lord Curzon 16 respecting the suggested settlement of the Newcastle case. On November 5th Mr. Sperling in a conversation at the Foreign Office told me that, much to his disappointment Lord Curzon appeared to have receded from the position he took in his last talk with Mr. Harvey and seemed now unwilling to agree to the appointment of Mr. Vice-Consul Brooks to Belfast at any time whatsoever, his idea being, as Mr. Sperling expressed it, that "he should be sent, if anywhere in the British Empire, to some inland post, rather than to a large port with a shipping activity similar to that of Newcastle". I pointed out to Mr. Sperling that such a limitation in Mr. Brooks' case, so far from tending to remove the unfortunate impression made on the public mind by the allegation given currency a year ago reflecting on our whole Consular service, would appear to qualify the recall of the specific charge against him as set forth in the Foreign Office note that is a part of the suggested exchange. He said he quite realized this and for his own part heartily hoped that Lord Curzon's reply to the Ambassador's confidential letter above referred to might make possible the settlement on the lines laid down, although his mood had changed and he feared he would not waive the point. In view of the strong British commercial and shipping pressure that has been continually exerted here upon the Foreign Office for the adjustment of this case, and which is not likely to lessen, I am of the opinion that lacking further recession on our part Lord Curzon must eventually yield. I have [etc.] POST WHEELER 125.655/112a: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Great Britain (Wheeler) WASHINGTON, December 13, 1923-5 p.m. 380. For your information. Following is pertinent part of Associated Press despatch from Newcastle, dated December 13, 1923: "Fifteen months have elapsed since the Consulate shut its doors. Commercial delegations have made frequent trips to London to urge the Foreign Office and the American Embassy to hasten the re-opening. It is understood that the next move rests with Washington. 16 Neither printed. The only remaining condition for the re-establishment of the Consulate is believed to be the assignment of Consul Russell M. Brooks to a point within the British Empire other than Belfast, where it is understood the United States desires him to go. Ostensibly, Foreign Secretary Curzon takes the view that Belfast is too near Mr. Brooks old post, and to the United Kingdom. The deadlock between the two Governments is causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars weekly to Newcastle business houses." The Department to-day in reply to a press inquiry said that this Government has always insisted that the charges made by the British Government against Consul Slater and Vice Consul Brooks, formerly at Newcastle-on-Tyne, were unfounded and that action should be taken to remove the stigma placed upon these two American officials. It is impossible to reopen the Consulate unless this is done and up to the present time the British Government has not taken appropriate action. If it is taken the two officials will undoubtedly be appointed to posts within the British Empire where their services are needed and it is not anticipated that the British Government would have any objection to such appointments. It is expected that the United States will then reopen the Consulate at Newcastle-on-Tyne. HUGHES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN, SIGNED JUNE 23, 1923, FURTHER EXTENDING THE DURATION OF THE ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF APRIL 4, 1908 * Treaty Series No. 674 17 Agreement between the United States of America and Great Britain, Signed at Washington, June 23, 1923 18 The President of the United States of America and His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, being desirous of extending for another five years the period during which the Arbitration Convention concluded between them on April 4, 1908, extended by the Agreement concluded between the two Governments on May 31, 1913,1o and further extended by the Agreement concluded between the two Governments on June 3, 1918,20 shall remain in force, have respectively authorized the undersigned, to wit: Charles Evans Hughes, Secretary of State of the United States; and Sir Auckland Geddes, G. C. M. G., K. C. B., His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador 17 For text of convention of 1908, see Foreign Relations, 1908, p. 382. 15 Ratification advised by the Senate, Dec. 18, 1923; ratified by the President, Dec. 28; ratified by Great Britain, Aug. 1; ratifications exchanged at Washington. Dec. 29; proclaimed by the President, Dec. 29. 19 Foreign Relations, 1914, p. 303. 20 Ibid., 1918, p. 431. Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United States, to conclude the following Articles: ARTICLE I The Convention of Arbitration of April 4, 1908, between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, the duration of which by Article IV thereof was fixed at a period of five years from the date of the exchange of ratifications of the said Convention on June 4, 1908, which period by the Agreement of May 31, 1913, between the two Governments was extended for five years from June 4, 1913, and was extended by the Agreement between them of June 3, 1918, for the further period of five years from June 4, 1918, is hereby extended and continued in force for the further period of five years from June 4, 1923. ARTICLE II The present Agreement shall be ratified by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by His Britannic Majesty, and it shall become effective upon the date of the exchange of ratifications which shall take place at Washington as soon as possible. Done in duplicate, this twenty-third day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three. [SEAL] CHARLES EVANS HUGHES 711.4112/161 The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador (Geddes) WASHINGTON, June 23, 1923. EXCELLENCY: In connection with the signing today of an agreement for the renewal of the Convention of Arbitration concluded between the United States and Great Britain, April 4, 1908, and renewed from time to time, I have the honor, in pursuance of our informal conversations, to state the following understanding which I shall be glad to have you confirm on behalf of your Government. On February 24 last the President proposed to the Senate that it consent under certain stated conditions to the adhesion by the United States to the Protocol of December 16, 1920, under which the Permanent Court of International Justice has been created at The Hague.21 As the Senate does not convene in its regular session until December next, action upon this proposal will necessarily be delayed. In the event that the Senate gives its assent to the proposal, I understand that the British Government will not be averse to considering a modification of the Convention of Arbitration which we are renewing, or the making of a separate agreement, providing for the reference of disputes mentioned in the Convention to the Permanent Court of International Justice. Accept [etc.] 711.4112/163 CHARLES E. HUGHES The British Ambassador (Geddes) to the Secretary of State No. 523 WASHINGTON, June 23, 1923. SIR: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of today's date in which you were so good as to inform me, in connection with the renewal of the Arbitration Convention of April 4th, 1908, between Great Britain and the United States, that the President of the United States had proposed to the Senate the adherence of the United States, under certain conditions, to the Protocol of December 16th, 1920, creating the Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague, and that, if the Senate assents to this proposal, you understand that His Britannic Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider the conclusion of an agreement, providing for the reference to the Permanent Court of International Justice of disputes mentioned in the Convention. Under instructions from His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs I have the honour to confirm your understanding of His Majesty's Government's attitude on this point and to state that if the Senate approve the President's proposal His Majesty's Government will be prepared to consider with the United States Government the conclusion of an agreement for the reference to the Permanent Court of International Justice of disputes mentioned in the Arbitration Convention. I have [etc.] " Vol. 1, pp. 17 ff. A. C. GEDDES GREECE WITHDRAWAL OF AMERICAN RELIEF ORGANIZATIONS FROM OPERATIONS IN BEHALF OF GREEK REFUGEES, AND FORMATION OF THE REFUGEE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS1 868.48/351 The Chairman of the American Red Cross (Payne) to the Under Secretary of State (Phillips) WASHINGTON, February 19, 1923. DEAR MR. PHILLIPS: Herewith a copy of an important letter from Colonel Haskell, which you will read with interest. I call your especial attention to the last paragraph in which he advises that we cease our operations in June, and make early announcement of the fact. Prompt and earnest consideration should be given to this recommendation and a definite conclusion reached. If we do not withdraw, it is difficult to forecast a period when we may do so. If we withdraw, we may expect criticism from the churches and the Near East Relief. This would come at any time. Hence, our decision should be made firmly, having in mind the consequences, pro and con. I will greatly appreciate your suggestions with a definite expression of your views. Cordially yours, [Enclosure-Extract] JOHN BARTON PAYNE The American Red Cross Commissioner for Greece (Haskell) to the Chairman of the American Red Cross (Payne) DEAR JUDGE PAYNE: ATHENS, January 29, 1923. It strikes me at present that we will not have to ask for an increase in the funds already allocated to this work, that is, the $3,000,000, unless it is desired to carry the assistance to these refugees beyond 1 For previous correspondence regarding American relief activities in behalf of Greek refugees, see Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. II, pp. 414 ff. |