352.1153 St 2/14: Telegram
The Chargé in Spain (Blair) to the Secretary of State
[Received 6:53 p.m.]
1. The Embassy’s telegram 144, December 27, 11 a.m.6 Note verbale, dated December 28th received from Spanish Government contains no satisfactory assurances that promises made by Ministers reported in above-mentioned telegram will be made effective, copies of the note forwarded to the Department yesterday’s pouch. The note pretends that seizures of property are being carried out legally in accordance with Royal Decree of June 28th and October 17th and [Page 834] that delay in payment of compensation is not illegal as interest is to be paid on the amount of valuation not yet determined. The note further states that alarm in the United States in regard to the protection of property rights in Spain is unjustified in view of “that legal procedure followed by the Spanish Government.” As neither decree above mentioned states that previously existing law contrary thereto is thereby revoked and as seizures have been carried out in direct violation of previously existing law, the alleged legal position of the Spanish Government is clearly untenable.
[Paraphrase.] Our representations have, I believe, greatly worried the Spanish Government regarding alarm felt in the United States, and accordingly it would be worthwhile to press on by refuting the Spanish note’s arguments as suggested below, stating also that the Department desires, not generosity, but strict justice in conformity with previously existing law [end paraphrase]:
- (1)
- Because this procedure has been in direct opposition to article 349 of the civil code, article 3 of the law of enforced expropriation, and article 10 of the constitution.
- (2)
- Because these precepts were not expressly derogated by the Royal Decree law of June 28 last nor by that of October 17, thereby tacitly admitting the binding force thereof, nevertheless these legal provisions have not been applied and the monopoly has infringed on them.
- (3)
- In spite of the Spanish Government’s explanations it recognizes the arbitrary procedure followed by the monopoly company since it forces the company in a recent Royal Decree to grant the expropriated company the legal interest on the eventual indemnification for the period of delay. Such interest payments can only be justified in the case of failure to meet a legal obligation.
I respectfully request authority to reply to the Spanish note along these lines.
- Not printed.↩