permanent delegate of the Irish Free State accredited to the League of Nations, stating that the Irish Government is not in a position to accept the international wheat agreement.

The text of the communication is as follows:

"I have the honour to refer to my letter (Ref. S.2/36/33) of the 8th instant regarding the Protocol drawn up by the International Conference of Wheat Importing and Exporting countries in London. I am now instructed by my Government to inform you that for the reasons stated by the Irish Representatives at the conference the economic interests of the Irish Free State require that the Government should retain complete freedom of action in regard to the putting into operation of their considered policy for the extension of wheat growing in the Irish Free State. I am, accordingly, instructed to inform you that my Government regrets that they are not in a position to accept the agreement signed ad referendum by the Irish Free State Representative on the 25th August.

I shall be glad if you will be good enough to inform the Representatives of the other countries concerned.'

AVIATION

AVIATION ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND

NORWAY

By exchanges of notes between the Secretary of State and the Minister of Norway, dated October 16, 1933, the United States and Norway entered into three reciprocal aviation arrangements relating to (1) the operation of civil aircraft of the one country in the other country; (2) the issuance by each country of pilot licenses to nationals of the other country authorizing them to pilot civil aircraft; and (3) the acceptance by each country of certificates of airworthiness for aircraft exported from the other country as merchandise.'

It was agreed in the exchanges of notes that all three arrangements shall become effective on November 15, 1933.

The arrangement relating to the operation of civil aircraft sets forth the conditions under which civil aircraft of each country may be operated in the other country, and provides for the recognition by each government of certificates and licenses issued by the other government.

Under the terms of the arrangement relating to the issuance of pilot licenses, the Ministry of Defense of Norway will issue pilot licenses to American nationals upon a showing that they are qualified under the regulations of that Ministry, and the Department of Commerce will issue pilot licenses to Norwegian nationals upon a showing that they are qualified under the regulations of that Department.

To be published as Executive Agreement Series, Nos. 50, 51, and 52, respectively.

The arrangement relating to the acceptance of airworthiness certificates for exported aircraft relates to the aeronautical trade. Under the terms of this arrangement each country accepts, as a basis for its registration, airworthiness certificates issued by the other country in connection with aircraft constructed in and exported from its territory.

COMMERCE

TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP, COMMERCE, AND CONSULAR RIGHTS BETWEEN 3 THE UNITED STATES AND HONDURAS

DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, S.D., ALABAMA, JULY 7, 1933: LIBEL BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE MOTOR BOAT "YULU"

The Yulu, a motor boat of Honduran registry, found within the 12-mile limit off the coast of Louisiana and suspected of transporting liquor, was pursued by a Coast Guard vessel and overhauled outside the 12-mile limit. Upon examination, che was found to be loaded with liquor. She was then arrested and brought to Mobile, Ala., where she was libeled by the Government for violation of the customs act (U.S.C.A., title 19, sec. 1585).

A motion to dismiss was filed to the libel on various grounds, one question being whether, because of the most-favored-nation clause in the treaty of December 7, 1927, between the United States and Honduras, the provision of the treaty with Great Britain providing for the seizure and searching of vessels suspected of smuggling liquors and found within one hour's run of the coast, is substituted for the 12-mile provision contained in the customs act.

There is no treaty between Honduras and the United States similar to the one with Great Britain providing for searches and seizures of vessels suspected of transporting liquors. It was contended, however, that the provisions on this subject found in the treaty with Great Britain, and the rule laid down in Cook v. U.S. (288 U.S. 102, 53 S.Ct. 305) were controlling.

5

The court examined the provisions of the Honduran treaty and found that under these provisions the rights of commerce and navigation, and duties, bounties, etc., and the regulations concerning them, relate to goods shipped and intended to be introduced into the other country for use or sale therein, and to ships transporting such goods. None of the provisions were found to refer to goods prohibited entry, or to ships transporting such goods.

It was held by the court that the most-favored-nation clause in the treaty with Honduras did not give vessels of Honduran registry engaged in the smuggling of liquor the advantage of the provisions of

3 Treaty Series, No. 764.

Convention to prevent the smuggling of intoxicating liquors into the United States (Treaty Series, No. 685).

See Bulletin No. 40, January 1933, p. 12.

the treaty with Great Britain whereby one hour's run of the coast is substituted for the statutory 12-mile provision. The court said:

"It is manifest that only favors as to goods that are to be legitimately imported or exported by some other government are contemplated or granted.

"The British treaty nowhere contemplates that the liquors are to be imported into the United States and pay any duties, but that such liquors are to be sealed up and remain on the vessels when they enter port, and go out when the vessel clears. Then it is agreed that seizures may be made of liquor-laden vessels in one hour's run of the coast instead of the twelve miles specified in our statutes.

"This privilege does not come under any of the most favored nation clauses in the Honduran treaty."

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE ABOLITION OF IMPORT AND EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 6

The Netherlands

By a circular letter dated September 23, 1933, the Secretary General of the League of Nations informed the Secretary of State of the position taken by the Netherlands in respect of the convention and protocol for the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions, signed at Geneva November 8, 1927, and the supplementary agreement and protocol to the convention signed July 11, 1928. The text of the letter follows:

"I have the honour to inform you that the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs has informed me, by a letter dated September 11, 1933, that the Netherlands consider themselves as relieved after June 30, 1934, of the obligations accepted by them, in accordance. with the terms of Article 6 of the Protocole of Paris dated December 20, 1929, concerning the entry into force of the International Convention and Protocol for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and restrictions, signed at Geneva, November 8, 1927, and of the Supplementary Agreement to that Convention and Protocol, of July 11, 1928."

The protocol concerning the entry into force of the convention for the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions of November 8, 1927, and of the supplementary agreement thereto of July 11, 1928, was signed at Paris December 20, 1929, by the following countries: the United States of America, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Rumania, Switzerland, and Yugoslavia.

The protocol provided that the convention should be ratified by Poland and Czechoslovakia before May 31, 1930, in order to become binding upon all the signatories. An extension of this time limit See Bulletin No. 46, July 1933, p. 10.

until June 20, 1930, in respect of Poland, and until June 26, 1930, in respect of Czechoslovakia, was agreed to by the contracting parties. Czechoslovakia deposited its instrument of ratification on June 25, 1930, with a declaration that it would depend upon the ratification of the convention by Poland. Poland announced on June 19, 1930, that it was obliged to postpone its ratification. The abstention of Poland, and the declaration of Czechoslovakia, caused the Governments of Austria, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxemburg, Rumania, and Switzerland to announce that, as from July 1, 1930, they would cease to consider themselves bound by the convention, since the conditions on which they had been willing to accede to it had not been fulfilled. By the terms of the protocol of Paris, the Governments of Belgium, Denmark, France, Rumania, and Yugoslavia also ceased to be bound by the convention, as from July 1, 1930. On June 30, 1930, Denmark, waived the conditions which it had stipulated in regard to the ratification or accession of Germany. Therefore, the countries remaining bound by the convention on July 1, 1930, were the United States of America, Denmark, Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal. Article 6 of the protocol of December 20, 1929, provides that any party may declare itself relieved of the obligations of the convention by forwarding a declaration to that effect to the Secretary General of the League of Nations on June 30, 1931, or on the same date in 1932, 1933, or 1934. Under the terms of this article the following six countries have announced their withdrawals:

Switzerland

United States of America, June 30, 1933

Denmark, June 30, 1933

Great Britain, June 30, 1933

Norway, June 30, 1933

Netherlands, June 30, 1934

Portugal, June 30, 1931

TARIFF TRUCE

According to a circular letter dated September 25, 1933, from the League of Nations, the Swiss Government notified the Secretary General by a communication dated September 11, 1933, that in accordance with the declaration made at the time of the acceptance of the tariff truce,' Switzerland "regards herself as free to take any measures she may regard as essential for the safeguard of her national economy."

Venezuela

A communication dated June 29, 1933, from the Venezuelan delegation to the Monetary and Economic Conference declares that "the See Bulletin No. 46, July 1933, p. 16.

Venezuelan Government only adheres to this truce up to July 31st, after which date it retains full liberty of action."

FINANCE

SILVER AGREEMENT

ERRATUM

The table of figures appearing on page 13 of Treaty Information, Bulletin No. 47, August 1933, should read as follows:

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF COUNTERFEITING CURRENCY, AND PROTOCOL

Germany

8

According to a communication from the League of Nations dated October 13, 1933, the instrument of ratification by Germany of the convention for the suppression of counterfeiting currency, and protocol, signed at Geneva April 20, 1929, was deposited with the Secretariat on October 3, 1933.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR THE UNIFICATION OF LAWS ON BILLS OF EXCHANGE, PROMISSORY NOTES, AND CHEQUES

CONVENTIONS OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE

Germany

According to information received from the League of Nations, the instruments of ratification by Germany of the following three conventions signed at Geneva June 7, 1930, were deposited with the Secretariat on October 3, 1933:

1. Convention providing a uniform law for bills of exchange and promissory notes;

2. Convention for the settlement of certain conflicts of laws in connection with bills of exchange and promissory notes; 3. Convention on the stamp laws in connection with bills of exchange and promissory notes.

The ratification of the convention providing a uniform law for bills of exchange and promissory notes was made subject to the reservations provided in articles 6, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 of annex II of the convention.

*See Bulletin No. 46, July 1933, p. 21.

20289-33-3