four vessels to be constructed for His Majesty's Navy. The particu lars of the vessels are given by the Ambassador as follows: Classification: Destroyers H. M. S. Hereward: February 28, 1935 H. M. S. Hotspur: February 27, 1935 Standard displacement: 1,350 tons (1,372 metric tons) Length at water line: 320 feet Extreme beam at or below water line: 33 feet Mean draft at standard displacement: 8 feet 6 inches By a note dated April 15, 1935, the British Ambassador at Washington informed the Secretary of State of the particulars on completion of H. M. S. Salmon, which are given as follows: Classification: Submarine Date of laying keel: June 15, 1933 Standard displacement: 670 tons (681 metric tons) Extreme beam at or below water line: 24 feet Mean draft at standard displacement: United States 10 feet 6 inches The Acting Secretary of the Navy informed the Secretary of State by a note dated April 2, 1935, that the keel of the U. S. S. Pickerel was laid on March 25, 1935. In accordance with the terms of article 10 of the London naval treaty, the parties to the treaty have been notified of particulars of this vessel as follows: Classification: Submarine Standard displacement (estimated): 1,330 tons (1,351 metric tons) Length at water line: 290 feet Extreme beam at or below water line: 25 feet 1 inch The Acting Secretary of the Navy informed the Secretary of State by a letter dated April 6, 1935, that the keel of the U. S. S. Boise was laid on April 1, 1935. In accordance with the provisions of article 10 of the London naval treaty, particulars of this vessel as follows have been furnished to the governments parties to the treaty: Standard displacement (estimated): 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) Length at water line: 600 feet Extreme beam at or below water line: 61 feet 7 inches The Acting Secretary of the Navy informed the Secretary of State by a letter dated April 9, 1935, that the keel of the U. S. S. Phoenix was laid on April 15, 1935. In accordance with the terms of article 10 of the London naval treaty, the governments parties to the treaty have been notified of the particulars of this vessel as follows: Classification: Cruiser Standard displacement (estimated): 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) Length at water line: 600 feet Extreme beam at or below water line: 61 feet 7 inches Mean draft at standard displacement: 19 feet 9 inches The Acting Secretary of the Navy informed the Secretary of State by a letter dated April 18, 1935, of the laying of the keels of the destroyers DD 384 and DD 385 on April 10, 1935. In accordance with the terms of article 10 of the London naval treaty, the governments parties to the treaty have been notified of the following particulars of these vessels: Standard displacement (estimated): 1,500 tons (1,524 metric tons) Length at water line: 334 feet Extreme beam at or below water line: 34 feet 8 inches Great Britain WASHINGTON NAVAL TREATY OF 1922 By a note dated April 15, 1935, the British Ambassador at Washington informed the Secretary of State, in accordance with the provisions of article XVI of the Washington naval treaty of 1922, of the particulars on completion of the submarine Golfinho which was constructed for the Portuguese Government by Messrs. VickersArmstrong, Ltd. Particulars are given as follows: Italy Date of completion: February 28, 1935 Standard displacement: 796 tons (808.98 metric tons) Extreme beam: 21 feet 911⁄2 inches Mean draft at standard displacement: 12 feet 1 inch By a note dated April 8, 1935, the Italian Ambassador at Washington informed the Secretary of State in accordance with the pro visions of the Washington naval treaty of 1922, that a contract was signed on July 17, 1934, between the Siamese Government and the C. R. D. A. Shipbuilding Firm of Trieste for the construction of two torpedo boats. Particulars of the vessels are given as follows: Standard displacement: 349 tons Width: 6.35 meters Mean draft at standard displacement: 1.80 meters INTERNATIONAL LAW PROTOCOLS ADOPTED AT THE CONFERENCE FOR THE CODIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE HAGUE, 1930o Chile By a circular letter dated March 29, 1935, the Secretary General of the League of Nations informed the Secretary of State that the instrument of ratification by Chile of the protocol relating to a certain case of statelessness, signed at The Hague April 12, 1930, was deposited with the Secretariat on March 20, 1935. In accordance with the provisions of the protocol, the ratification will be effective 90 days after the date on which a procès-verbal shall have been drawn up by the Secretary General stating that ratifications or accessions of 10 members of the League of Nations or nonmember states have been deposited with the Secretariat. According to the information of the Department, the protocol has been ratified by Brazil, Chile, China, Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire not separate members of the League of Nations, India, and Poland. El Salvador The American Legation at San Salvador reported by a despatch dated March 9, 1935, that the ratifications by El Salvador of the following three protocols adopted at The Hague on April 12, 1930. were published in the Diario Oficial of March 7, 1935: Protocol relating to military obligations in certain cases of Protocol relating to a certain case of statelessness; and The last-named protocol was ratified subject to a reservation regarding article 1 as follows: "The Republic of El Salvador does not indorse the obligation which the protocol establishes if the Salvadoran nationality pos"See Bulletin No. 66, March 1935, p. 3. sessed by the individual and ultimately lost by him had been obtained by naturalization." These three protocols are not yet in force. In accordance with their respective provisions they will not enter into force until 90 days after the date on which a procès-verbal shall have been drawn up by the Secretary General of the League of Nations stating that ratifications or accessions of 10 members of the League or nonmember states have been deposited with the Secretariat. According to the information of the Department the protocol relating to military obligations in certain cases of double nationality has been ratified by the United States of America, Brazil, Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations, India, and Sweden. The protocol relating to a certain case of statelessness has been ratified by Brazil, Chile, China, Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire not separate members of the League of Nations, India, and Poland. The special protocol concerning statelessness has been ratified by Brazil, China, Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations, and India. Chile CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES? The Director General of the Pan American Union transmitted to the Secretary of State with a letter dated April 11, 1935, a certified copy of the instrument of ratification by Chile of the convention on rights and duties of states, signed at Montevideo December 26, 1933, at the Seventh International Conference of American States. With the same letter the Director General transmitted a procès-verbal of deposit of the instrument of ratification, which deposit took place on March 28, 1935. Japan ORGANIZATION COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS On March 27, 1933, Japan notified to the League of Nations its intention of withdrawing from the League. The time limit of 2 years provided in paragraph 3 of article 1 of the Covenant expired. on March 27, 1935, at midnight. Therefore, as from March 28, 1935, Japan, an original member of the League, and a permanent 7 See Bulletin No. 64, January 1935, p. 5. 8 See Bulletin No. 43, April 1933, p. 3. member of the Council for 15 years, ceased to be a member of the League of Nations." Paraguay On February 24, 1935, the Secretary General of the League of Nations received a telegram signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Ecclesiastical Affairs of Paraguay, informing him of the intention of Paraguay to withdraw from the League. By a communication dated February 25, 1935 (C.104. M.49.1935), the Secretary General communicated to the Council and to the members of the League the text of this telegram as follows: ASUNCION, February 23rd, 1935. Paraguay did not reject the recommendations voted by the Assembly on November 24th last for putting an end to the Chaco conflict but requested that certain fundamental points might be reconsidered with the object of eliminating features incompatible with the constitution of the country and ensuring that the recommendations should be effective in practice. The Advisory Committee however decided that Paraguay's reply was equivalent to a negative and proceeded to inflict the sanctions entailed by the resolution of January 16th last. This decision was the more unexpected that various chancelleries informed the Paraguayan Chancellery that they would instruct their delegates at Geneva either to vote for the desired reconsideration or in any case to oppose the infliction of sanctions of any kind. These declarations subsequently confirmed show that the decision of January 16th does not correspond exactly to the instructions of some of the Governments represented on the Committee and this circumstance seriously impugns its value. The arms embargo upon the belligerents was the subject of strong protests from Bolivia from the moment of its introduction. That country's protest was founded upon the principle that inasmuch as the embargo was a sanction it could not be imposed until the identity of the aggressor had been determined. Paraguay did not object to the measure regarding it as a legitimate measure of which the neutral Powers could avail themselves in the exercise of their sovereignty in order to stop the war even before the identity of the guilty party had been determined on condition of course that it was applied in accordance with the rules of equity. Notwithstanding Paraguay's repeated demands the League has constantly evaded entering upon an investigation which would establish the responsibility for the war thus deliberately disqualifying itself from applying the only sanctions admissible when a conflict has already broken out. Such an investigation would have presented and does present no difficulty. It is notorious and perfectly plain that Paraguay is the victim of a condemnable offence against international law. By raising the embargo on one side only the Advisory Committee has converted an indirect means of stopping the war into a sanction against one of the belligerents. No such sanction is provided for in the Covenant and therefore no legal authority can enact it without impairing the mutual agree For list of members of the League, see Bulletin No. 60, September 1934, p. 3. |