Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

311.60P3/11–547

Memorandum by Mr. Richard W. Flournoy, Assistant to the Legal Adviser for Special Affairs, to Brigadier General Conrad E. Snow, Assistant to the Legal Adviser for Political Affairs

[Washington,] November 5, 1947.

Before the attached draft letter to Judge O’Brien of the Probate Court of Wayne County, Michigan, and note to the Latvian Minister¹ are sent in to Mr. Gross² for signature I think that they should be approved by you and Mr. Johnson of EE. Just why this case was sent to Le/S in the first instance I do not know. Perhaps it was regarded as a “special problem”, although I have not yet learned just what that term means.

I have discussed these drafts with Mr. Keegan³ who prepared them, and, while I believe that they are correct, they seem to require attention by you as well as Mr. Johnson.

It appears to me that, when the Department is called upon to authenticate the Seal of the Soviet Embassy or signature of the Soviet Ambassador or Chargé d’Affaires appearing on documents executed before Soviet officials in Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia, it might follow any one of three courses, as follows:

(1) Refuse to authenticate the document when another one is received, and at the same time inform the sender that such refusal is due to the possibility that the authentication might be construed as a recognition by this Government of the sovereignty of the Soviet Union in the country in question;

(2) Authenticate the document and send it along without comment, leaving it to be explained when occasion arises that the authentication does not imply recognition of the legal authority of the Soviet official in the country in question to act in connection with the execution of the document;

(3) Authenticate the document, but at the same time inform the sender that the authentication does not mean such recognition.⁴

The first course indicated would probably result in obstructing commerce between the United States and the foreign countries in question, as well as prevention of persons from receiving property due them, while the second might be taken to mean that our Government has receded from its stand with regard to the relationship between the countries in question and the Soviet Union. I am inclined to think that the third course suggested would be preferable to either of the others, but that would seem to be a matter for you, rather than myself, to decide.

Unless it is decided that all authentication cases are to be sent to Le/S as “special problems”, I shall endeavor to see that any other cases of this kind sent to Le/S shall be forwarded directly to Le/P. However, since this case was sent here and drafts were prepared by Mr. Keegan, I have initialed the latter, subject to any changes which you may find desirable, and am making the above suggestions for what they may be worth in solving a rather tangled problem.

R[ichard] W. F[lournoy]

1. Dr. Alfreds Bilmanis. No drafts found attached to the file copy.
2. Ernest A. Gross was the Legal Adviser, Department of State.
3. James M. Keegan, of the Office of the Legal Adviser for Special Affairs.
4. In a memorandum of November 20, C. Burke Elbrick, the assistant chief of the Division of Eastern European Affairs, believed that this suggestion would best serve the interests of American citizens. “If this solution is adopted, it is suggested that the persons initiating the action with the Department be informed that the authentication does not imply recognition by this Government of the sovereignty of the Soviet Union over the country in question nor the right of a Soviet official to function in such country.” (311.60P3/11–2047)