081.60m/12–847

Memorandum by Mr. Richard W. Flounoy, Assistant to the Legal Adviser for Special Affairs 1

If, as I understand from your statement to me over the telephone, the Department is opposed to having the Embassy at Moscow authenticate the seals and signatures on documents issued in the Baltic [Page 634] States,2 even though it may at the same time make statements to the effect that such authentication does not involve recognition of the sovereignty of the Soviet Union in those countries, we might consider answering each request or inquiry concerning the subject as follows:

“The Department has received inquiries from a number of persons in this country concerning their desire to obtain copies of official records or documents issued in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and to have such documents authenticated.

“The Government of the United States has no diplomatic or consular officers in the countries mentioned. While the Soviet Union appears to claim that it is sovereign over those countries, and that notaries public and other persons exercising public functions therein are under its sovereign control, the validity of such claims is not recognized by this Government. Therefore it is not deemed proper for the Embassy of the United States at Moscow to certify to documents issued by such persons.

“In view of the above it would seem necessary for the interested parties in the United States to communicate, directly or through attorneys, with the persons in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania who issue or certify to the documents to be used in this country. They may also find it desirable in each case to consult competent counsel as to how the particular document under consideration should be authenticated so that it would be recognized as genuine by courts in the United States.”

Perhaps it would save time and trouble to have the proposed statement made in a printed or multigraphed notice, to be enclosed with the Department’s reply to each request or inquiry. If that does not seem desirable, it might be used as a model in replying to letters on this subject.

Please let me know as soon as may be convenient what you think of the above suggestions, so that replies may be sent to the attached letters, which have remained unanswered for some time.

R[ichard] W. F[lournoy]
  1. This memorandum was directed to Mr. Elbrick, assistant chief of the Division of Eastern European Affairs.
  2. An unsigned marginal notation here reads: “No. See memo of Nov. 20 from EE to Le.” The memorandum of November 20 is not printed, but see footnote 4, p. 613.