860P.512 Residence/16
The Secretary of State to the Minister in Latvia (Coleman)
Sir: The Department acknowledges the receipt of your telegram of November 30, 1928,6 with reference to the interpretation of the treaty between the United States and Latvia, embodying the position of the Latvian Foreign Office to the effect that the sojourn tax on foreigners is not an internal charge or tax and that, therefore, the provisions of the second paragraph of Article I in the treaty do not apply with respect to Americans sojourning in Latvia.
The Department suggests that the position taken by the Latvian Foreign Office is unsound. The Foreign Office appears to believe that the sojourn tax is not an internal charge or tax within the meaning [Page 271] of paragraph 2 of Article I of the treaty, for the reason that Latvian nationals are not subject to it.
The paragraph reads, “The nationals of either High Contracting Party within the territory of the other shall not be subjected to the payment of any internal charges or taxes other or higher than those that are exacted of and paid by its nationals”. The use of the word “other” in this paragraph would seem clearly to imply that American citizens in Latvia have a right to claim exemption from the payment of the tax, as the tax is not imposed upon Latvian citizens. It would appear that Latvia would have a right to impose a sojourn tax upon American citizens in Latvia only in the event that a like tax should be imposed in that country upon Latvian citizens, and only in the amount that such tax might be required of them.
The Latvian Foreign Office asserts that the question of the sojourn tax on foreigners is dealt with specifically in the last paragraph of Article I of the treaty. The reservation in the paragraph, that nothing in the treaty shall be construed to affect the statutes of either party in relation to the admission or sojourn of aliens has to do, as the language clearly states, with admission and sojourn, and not with the treatment to be accorded them in matters of taxation or other substantive rights specifically covered by other parts of the treaty. It is suggested that if the Latvian construction of the treaty were applied, either party could virtually nullify certain specific grants in the treaty, such as the right to pursue certain occupations as accorded in the first paragraph of Article I, or the right to freedom of worship, granted by Article V.
In connection with the negotiation of the treaty, Article I of the counter-proposal of the Latvian Government, as conveyed in your Legation’s despatch No. 4615, of July 18, 1927,7 differed from the last paragraph of this Government’s draft of that Article in that it was provided in the Latvian draft that nothing in the treaty should be construed to affect existing statutes in relation to the “admission or sojourn of foreign nationals,” or the right of either of the High Contracting Parties to enact such statutes, as well as that nothing therein should be construed to affect these rights in respect of the immigration of “aliens”, which was the reservation in this Government’s draft. In its instruction No. 479, of December 15, 1927,8 the Department informed your Legation that this Government construed the paragraph as contained in its original draft to embrace statutes affecting aliens temporarily visiting the United States as well as those affecting intended immigrants. This Government accepted the Latvian proposal with reference to the admission or sojourn of foreigners, except that it was agreed that the word “aliens” should be substituted for [Page 272] the words “foreign nationals”, occurring in the Latvian proposal. It may be seen that the term “admission or sojourn of aliens” was understood by this Government to refer to the right to impose immigration restrictions, and not as conferring upon either party the right to withhold from persons permitted sojourn any substantive right accorded in any other part of the treaty.
The Department would be pleased to have you bring this matter again to the attention of the Latvian Government, and to report to the Department the answer of the Latvian Government.
If, as appears from your despatch of October 3, 1928, such procedure would simplify the settlement of the matter, you may state, in such communication as may to you seem advisable, that Latvian nationals are not required to pay a sojourn tax in the United States, and request that American nationals in Latvia be relieved of the payment of the tax in that country.
I am [etc.]