force German Government is disposed to entertain favorably requests for extradition made by the United States?" It was not my opinion that the German action in this case could have this significance. I thought that if the Embassy had requested Diamond's provisional arrest as a preliminary to a subsequent formal requisition for surrender to American police officials, probably the German authorities would have pointed out that there was no extradition treaty in force between the United States and Germany. I thought rather that in view of the press publicity of the past week concerning the desire of American police authorities to have Diamond taken into custody, the German police were willing to detain him. provisionally until the exact desires of the said authorities could be ascertained with a view then to taking such action-by way perhaps of deportation in the desired direction, as above suggested-as would facilitate the accomplishment of these desires. However, yesterday afternoon in a telephone conversation with Mr. Brandt at Cologne the latter stated that the competent police official in that city had said to him that he was aware that there was no extradition treaty in force between the United States and Germany but that nevertheless he would be willing to surrender Diamond if formally requested, adding that this had been done in numerous cases during the past few years. The Embassy has requested Mr. Brandt to confirm this in writing and when such confirmation, or any new information in this connection, is received from him, the Embassy will communicate further with the Department. It should still be noted, however, that even in view of this statement of the Cologne official it does not necessarily follow that his view would be accepted by the officials of the Reich. I am enclosing herewith the translation of a clipping 57 from this morning's issue of the Berliner Tageblatt which is in line with my point of view. The Embassy will of course continue to be guided, as in the past, by the principle that it should only request provisional arrest under the Department's instructions; I feel confident that the Department will agree that under the circumstances the telegram from the Consulate General at Antwerp could only be construed as indicating that the Department had issued instructions to this effect to another mission, and, as indicated above, it was on this assumption that the Embassy took the action hereinabove set forth. In connection with all the unusual elements of the present situation the Embassy has been interested in the cases cited in Moore's International Law Digest (Volume 4, pp. 253-258, especially perhaps the 57 Not printed. case of William J. Sharkey cited on page 255. See also ibid. pp. 382-384, and Hyde on International Law, section 325). Respectfully yours, FREDERIC M. SACKETT 255.11 Diamond, Legs/14: Telegram The Consul at Bremen (Leonard) to the Secretary of State BREMEN, September 8, 1930-noon. [Received September 8-9:35 a. m.] Supplementing telegram from Consul at Cologne,58 local police authorities inform me John Diamond expelled from Bremen, having sailed from Hamburg Saturday afternoon 6th on freight steamer Hanover, scheduled to sail directly to Philadelphia arriving there about 20th. He was held in police custody before sailing. LEONARD 255.11 Diamond, Legs/18 The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Germany (Gordon) No. 184 WASHINGTON, September 18, 1930. SIR: The Department has received the Embassy's despatch No. 458 of September 2, 1930, in relation to the action taken by German authorities with respect to the presence in Germany of one Jack Diamond. It is noted that the Embassy's request to the German authorities which brought about Diamond's arrest was in the form of a suggestion that in view of his record he might be deported as an undesirable alien. With respect to the Embassy's action the Department is glad to note that it did not take the form of requesting Diamond's arrest with a view to his extradition as the Department had understood to be the case from telegram No. 93 of September 2, 11 a. m. However, the Department prefers that even requests of the nature made by the Embassy in this case should not be presented except under its instructions, and in this relation it informs you that it is not usual for the Department to suggest to a foreign government the deportation of an individual within its jurisdiction, and that in those cases where such a suggestion has been made it has taken the form of pointing out the facts and circumstances attendant upon the case with the added statement that the foreign government concerned might think it advisable to deport the person in question if such action should prove practicable under its laws. With regard to the instant case the Department is of the opinion that the utmost action which should have been taken by your Embassy 58 Not printed. was to call to the attention of the German authorities for their information such advices as had come to the Embassy respecting the past activities of Diamond. So far as concerns the reported statement of the police authorities of Cologne that numerous persons had been surrendered to the United States by Germany in the past few years, it may be stated that the Department is not aware of any such case of surrender. For the Secretary of State: W. R. CASTLE, JR. Very truly yours, GREAT BRITAIN SUPPLEMENTARY TREATY ON TENURE AND DISPOSITION OF REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES, GREAT BRITAIN, AUSTRALIA, AND NEW ZEALAND 811.5241/173 The Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes) to the Secretary of State No. 761 LONDON, March 25, 1930. [Received April 3.] SIR: I have the honor to inform you that immediately upon receipt of the Department's Instruction No. 234, dated January 22, 1930 (File 123 al 11/111),' enclosing a copy of an instruction which had been sent to the American Vice Consul at Nairobi, Kenya, East Africa, relating to the death duties on the estate of Mr. Charles H. Albrecht, deceased, formerly American Consul at Nairobi, a note was sent to the Foreign Office requesting that the Embassy be furnished, for the use of the officials of the United States Government, with a list of the British Colonies which have not adhered to the Convention between the United States and Great Britain which was signed at Washington on March 2, 1899,2 and I am transmitting herewith copies of the Foreign Office note received in reply, which is self-explanatory. I have [etc.] [Enclosure] For the Ambassador: RAY ATHERTON Counselor of Embassy The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Henderson) to the American Ambassador (Dawes) No. A1973/1001/45 LONDON, March 24, 1930. YOUR EXCELLENCY: I have the honour to refer to Your Excellency's note No. 424 of February 4th and in reply to state that the following British Colonies and Protectorates have not adhered to the Convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America relative to the Disposal of Real and Personal Property signed at Washington on the 2nd March, 1899: 2. Gibraltar, Ascension, Federated Malay States (Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, Selangor,) Unfederated Malay States (Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis, Trengganu, Brunei), Kenya Colony and Protectorate, Malta, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland Protectorate, Sarawak, Seychelles, Somaliland Protectorate, Swaziland, Uganda Protectorate, Weihaiwei, British Solomon Islands Protectorate, Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony, Tonga, Zanzibar Protectorate. 3. The Convention has not been applied to the New Hebrides, which are administered as a Franco-British condominium. 4. Natal, which was not among the Colonies now forming the Union of South Africa that acceded to the Convention, should be added to the list. 5. No territory administered by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom under mandate from the League of Nations is a party to the Convention. I have [etc.] (For the Secretary of State) G. H. THOMPSON 811.5241/173 The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes) No. 520 WASHINGTON, October 6, 1930. SIR: The Department has received your despatch No. 761, dated March 25, 1930, with enclosure concerning the British Colonies and Protectorates which have not adhered to the Convention concluded between the United States and Great Britain on March 2, 1899, relative to the disposal of real and personal property in the respective countries. Several small islands and Protectorates of limited territorial extent are included in this list. It may be found difficult for the local authorities of the United States to differentiate between the British Colonies and Protectorates in which the Convention of March 2, 1899, is in effect and those listed in the second paragraph of the Foreign Office note dated March 24, 1930. You are, accordingly, instructed to take up the matter again with the Foreign Office and to inquire whether any special reasons exist for excluding Americans resident in the Colonies and Protectorates listed in paragraph 2, their heirs, legatees or donees, from the benefits of this Convention. You will add that the Department has had under consideration the procedure by which local authorities in the United States might be advised that British subjects from the Colonies and Protectorates listed in the second paragraph of the Foreign Office note or their heirs, legatees or donees were not entitled to take advantage of the provisions contained in the Convention. However, as it was thought that this may lead to some misunderstanding on the part of the local authorities, the Department desires before taking such action, to ascertain whether the British Govern 528037-45-15 |