791.003/134: Telegram
The Minister in Persia (Philip) to the Secretary of State
[Received 3 p.m.]
61. Reference the Department’s 46, May 29, 4 p.m.
(1) The departure of Teimourtache to meet the Ameer of Afghanistan at Pahlavi has temporarily interrupted conversations regarding personal status and family law jurisdiction. The Minister of the Court will return about June 9.
(2) Settlement on a basis of reciprocal favored-nation treatment is definitely refused by Teimourtache, who declares that such a formula involves the according to the United States of identical treatment to that given the European continental powers, the latter having, in turn, accorded unconditionally to Persians their national law in regard to personal status, etc., while the United States cannot undertake any obligations of this character at all.
(3) No attempt is made by the Persian Government to conceal the fact that the arrangement with Great Britain was negotiated on a [Page 738] give-and-take basis, with extraneous considerations taking a prominent part.
I am informed, moreover, that in order to obtain the terms in the Anglo-Persian arrangement, the British addressed a communication to Persia to the effect that, insofar as the British Empire’s laws permit, Persians in the Empire would, in matters of personal status, etc., be under their national laws and would, in any event, receive favored nation treatment.
In the view of Teimourtache, the terms of the British arrangement amount, in their practical effect, to an important British concession because, whereas only a few non-Moslem British subjects are to be found in Persia, there are thousands of British Moslems, all of these now being brought within the scope and jurisdiction of Persian law, and also because this latter category will greatly increase eventually upon Iraq’s recognition. Teimourtache referred to this point as a special consideration in effecting the British arrangement.
(4) The Germans, French, and Belgians have renounced definitely all consular rights to administer their national laws in matters of personal status, etc.; it has, therefore, not been possible to bring Teimourtache to accept such a stipulation regarding United States consuls. In conversations with the British, the Persian Government, furthermore, let it be understood clearly that “their national tribunals”, when interpreted, did not mean that consulates could function juridically. Nor have the British any illusions on this subject.
(5) The personal status and family law jurisdiction over Persians in Belgium, France, and Germany is to be exercised by judiciaries belonging to those countries, though the Persian law will be applied. Conversely, Persian courts are to execute the laws of those countries in dealing with their nationals in Persia.
(6) The Minister of the Court’s last proposal was that the arrangement with the United States might follow the general lines in the British case, but the provision as to “national tribunals” (which the Persian Government intends deleting from any definitive treaty and which Teimourtache refuses to accept now) would be changed to a stipulation substantially as follows:51
“When in a case involving the personal status, etc., of a national of the United States comes before a Persian court, American law will be applied.”
Persia’s French legal adviser, who has figured constantly during these discussions, meanwhile believes that Teimourtache would accept the following:51
“In matters of personal status, etc., American law will be applied to nationals of the United States in Persia.”
In my opinion, this formula is the maximum to be obtained in any declaration or temporary arrangement, and it affords the added advantage of obligating Persia to decisions rendered by any United States court sitting outside Persia. The probable procedure would be that followed when safeguards were obtained regarding missionaries (see my telegram 56, May 16, 3 p.m.).