Office of the Historian

467.11 W 89/4: Telegram

The Special Mission at Lausanne to the Secretary of State

[Paraphrase]
Lausanne, July 6, 1923—4 p.m.
[Received July 7—6:25 a.m.]

503. 1. Counterdraft on claims has been submitted by Turks, and is in substance as follows:

A.
Nationals or companies of Turkey or of the United States having claims for injuries to their rights, property, or interests, and having before (date not fixed), 1917 presented their claims to the Government of the United States or to the Ottoman Government, shall have those claims continued under the same conditions against the Government of the United States and the Turkish Government. The abolition of the capitulations is to be taken into consideration in applying above provision.
B.
Within six months from coming into force of present treaty, claims arising after (date not fixed), 1917, shall be filed with the proper Turkish authorities at Constantinople upon application of the United States Government or of the parties interested. All evidence of the origin, grounds, and nature of the claims shall be submitted at the same time. Two commissioners, one appointed by the United States Government and one by the Turkish Government, shall undertake an inquiry into the claims within a year from the time the treaty comes into force, with the object of arriving at a friendly settlement. If a settlement cannot be reached the two Governments will agree upon the naming of competent authorities to deal with the residue of unsettled claims.
C.
Claims of Turkish nationals or companies arising after (date not fixed), 1917, shall be similarly dealt with.
D.
By mutual understanding’ the responsibility of the Turkish Government for payment of indemnity does not go beyond 62 per cent of the amounts owing upon the claims.

[Page 1099]

2. We submit the following comments:

(a)
April 20, 1917, is presumably the precise date contemplated as point of division between earlier and later claims. In general this proposal follows closely article 78 of the treaty with the Allies as given in procès-verbal of May 7. (See Mission’s despatch 11–A of May 14.83) We have plainly signified to the Turks that we cannot give a retroactive recognition of abolition of the capitulations, and it has been our contention that all claims should be submitted to arbitration. On the former point the Turks accept our view. They explain that their proposal aims at preventing special tribunals, such as were in existence during capitulatory regime. Suits as well as claims are mentioned in the Allied treaty article, and language is clearer in reference to capitulations. Attention of the Department is called particularly to claims arising but not presented before 1917, for which no definite provision is made. It is not improbable that the Turks would be willing to have the proposed commission examine all claims.
(b)
The Turks declare that until they are in possession of fuller information on origin and nature of American claims they cannot consent to submit these claims to arbitration on basis of the treaties and principles in force when the losses were incurred. In adopting this view they apparently have in mind our claims conventions with other countries, such as that with France of 1880,84 with Great Britain of 1910,85 and with Germany of 1922.86 Their legal responsibility is not disputed, they say, in some cases, in which, therefore, a resort to arbitration is unnecessary. The proper remedy in other cases, as, for instance, in those involving acts of Turkish officials, might be a resort to the courts in Turkey which would apply the general rules of international law. In cases of unavoidable accident or of injuries in time of war it is possible that a court of arbitration might not preserve a proper distinction between the principles of justice and equity on the one hand and that solicitude on the other by which some states are moved to come to the relief of their nationals in circumstances of special distress. The Turks believe that the commission which they have suggested could be very usefully employed in examining the different categories of claims in order to devise the most satisfactory method of settlement for each class. Their proposal has the obvious defect, however, of postponing the question of a proper method of claims settlements.
(c)
It is evident that the Turks look upon the provision for a settlement of their claims against the United States as perfunctory.
(d)
The Department will hardly wish to be involved now in a discussion of questions of law and fact presented by the Turkish proposal for fixing the Turkish Government’s proportionate share of the Ottoman Government’s responsibility.

3. Our own experts feel that they can advance no further under present instructions, since the Turkish experts maintain position taken in their counterdraft. I should be glad to receive any additional instructions the Department may be disposed to give before I discuss the subject formally with Ismet.

Grew
  1. Not printed; see Conférence de Lausanne, etc., deuxième série, tome i, p. 302.↩
  2. Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. i, p. 535.↩
  3. Foreign Relations, 1911. p. 266.↩
  4. Ibid., 1922, vol. ii, p. 262.↩