811.34544/707

The British Ambassador (Halifax) to the Under Secretary of State (Welles)

Dear Mr. Under Secretary: As agreed at our conversation yesterday, I enclose herein a memorandum regarding the conversations now going on in London about the bases. This memorandum is of necessity based on rather incomplete information as the Foreign Office have not kept us informed of the details of the negotiations. It is clear, however, from the latest telegrams from the Foreign Office that they are much concerned about the matter and they very much hope that it may be possible for the United States authorities to take action in the sense suggested in the memorandum. I shall be very grateful for any help you may feel able to give.

Believe me [etc.]

Halifax
[Enclosure]

The British Embassy to the Department of State

Memorandum

It was provided in the notes exchanged between Mr. Cordell Hull and Lord Lothian on September 2nd, 1940, that,

“His Majesty’s Government in the leases to be agreed upon will grant to the United States for the period of the leases all the rights, power and authority within the bases leased, and within the limits [Page 70] of territorial waters and air spaces adjacent or in the vicinity of such bases, necessary to provide access to and defence of such bases and appropriate provisions for their control.

Without prejudice to the above-mentioned rights of the United States authorities and their jurisdiction within the leased areas, the adjustment and reconciliation between the jurisdiction of the authorities of the United States within these areas and the jurisdiction of the authorities of the territories in which those [these] areas are situated shall be determined by common agreement.”

In accordance with the foregoing provisions, discussions are now taking place in London with a view to deciding how the necessary “adjustment and reconciliation” between the jurisdiction of the United States authorities and that of the local British authorities can best be arranged.

No question of the transfer of sovereignty arises. This was made clear in the Attorney General’s opinion of August 27th,85 and has been reaffirmed by the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons. That being so, the question to be solved would seem, to be how to arrange that the United States authorities in the various territories shall obtain adequate powers to defend, control and operate their bases with the minimum disturbance to the existing British administrative and jurisdictional arrangements.

There is, of course, no suggestion that the United States Government should be denied any powers which they consider necessary for the proper defence or use of the bases. At the same time, it is felt that it is most important that the fullest consideration should be given to the interests and feelings of the local inhabitants and that the existing administrative and jurisdictional arrangements should only be disturbed if this is really essential for the proper defence of the American bases. While the British authorities are naturally particularly concerned to protect the interests of the local inhabitants for whose welfare they are responsible, it is felt that it is equally to the advantage of the United States authorities to see that the leases are drawn up in such a manner as to reduce to the minimum the possible causes of friction between the various parties concerned. The leases are to run for a period of 99 years, and that being so it is clearly necessary that their long term effect upon the well being of the local inhabitants should be taken into account. It would seem, however, that the instructions sent to the United States Delegates in London make it difficult for the latter to pay due account to the interests of the different territories and their inhabitants, and compel them to put forward demands for concessions or facilities which would not seem to be essential for the defence or control of the bases.

Two examples may be given. In the matter of jurisdiction the British authorities are prepared to allow the United States authorities [Page 71] to exercise jurisdiction over American nationals as regards security offences committed anywhere in the territories concerned and over Americans in regard to all offences committed within the leased areas. The American Delegates have, however, been instructed to claim United States jurisdiction over all persons, including British subjects, as regards security offences committed anywhere in the territories concerned, and as regards all offences committed in the leased areas. The exercise by the United States authorities of jurisdiction over all persons, whether Americans or not, in respect of all offences committed within the leased areas would not seem to be essential to the proper defence of the bases. This would not, for example, be prejudiced by an assault by one British subject on another taking place within the leased area.

As regards shipping, the British authorities have proposed that all vessels owned by the United States Government should be granted the same privileges and exemptions from harbour dues, etc. as vessels belonging to the Royal Navy. They have also proposed that the United States coastwise shipping laws should not apply to the leased areas, and that British Merchant ships should therefore not be excluded from these areas and have asked that harbour facilities within the leased areas should be made available to British and other ships under certain conditions. In reply, the American Delegates have it appears been instructed to press for the exemption of United States ships from all dues—which might place them in a more favourable position than ships in the Royal Navy—and have made no proposals to meet the British request in regard to the United States coastwise shipping laws and facilities for British ships in the leased areas.

The exemption of United States ships from all dues and the possible exclusion of British ships from the leased areas would again hardly seem to be essential to the defence or control of the bases.

There are other points on which similar difficulty seems to have arisen; but the broad argument that it is wished to urge is one in favour of the instructions to the United States Delegates being such as to enable them to treat the matters under discussion on a wide basis from the defence aspect and to take fully into account the interests of the various territories and their inhabitants.

Washington, February 26, 1941.

  1. 39 Op. Atty. Gen. 484.