File 2249/1915 Pt 4 ‘Oil: Mesopotamia & Persia. (General File) 1920–24’ [‎48r] (95/484)

in the enterprise as well as the terms of the contract. I should add that during the
war the German interests m the company were liquidated, and thus came into the hands
ot Mis Majesty s Government.
12 . from the facts as narrated, it will be seen that the Turkish Petroleum
ompany 8 nght to the lease of the oilfields in the two vilayets rests on an official
Sjiciertakmg given by the Turkish Government to the two Governments concerned
rter prolonged diplomatic negotiations. In the circumstances the oil rights in the
Jayets ot Bagdad and Mosul cannot be treated merely as a matter of abstract principle
/ w^hout reference to the special character of the negotiations w T hich preceded the war.
. It can hardly be contended that His Majesty’s Government are called upon to
ques ion e va idity of an undertaking which they had been largelv instrumental in
obtaining from the Turkish Government, or to disallow in their capacity of mandatory
claims for the recognition of which they would have pressed most strongly had
Mesopotamia remained under Turkish rule.
^ connection I feel bound to remind your Excellency that the attitude of
the United States Government in suggesting that His Majesty’s Government should
disregard the rights acquired by the 'J urkish Petroleum Company is scarcely consistent
with that adopted by the United States Government in regard to similar United States
interests m oil properties in Mexico.
• ven ^ ure c ^ e a f ew instances taken from the official communications of the
United States Government to the Mexican Government. On the 2nd April, 1918, the
U tilted States Government addressed a note to the Mexican Government, from which
the following passages are extracted :—
The United States cannot acquiesce in any procedure ostensibly or nominaby
in the form of taxation or the exorcise of eminent domain, but really resulting in
confiscation of private property and arbitrary deprivation of vested rights ”
The seizure or spoliation of property at the mere will of the sovereign, and
without due legal proce-s fairly and equitably administered, has always been
regarded as a denial of justice. ...”
‘‘Acting under instructions, I have the honour to request your Excellency to
be good enough to lay before his hxcellency the President of Mexico this formal
and solemn protest of the Government of the United States against the violation
or infringement of legitimately acquired American private property rights. . .
On the 13th August, 1918, the United States Ambassador at Mexico addressed a
further note to the Mexican Government in which he stated that the United States
Government was “ constrained to call vour Excellency’s attention to that note (quoted
above) and to repeat the grave apprehension which my Government entertains as to
the possible effect of these various decrees upon the vested rights of American citizens
in oil properties in Mexico . . . .”
In his letter of the 25th November, 1920, to M. Pesqueira, the Mexican repre
sentative in Washington, Mr. Colby expressed particular satisfaction at the statements
made in M. Pesqueira’s letter, then under reply, to the effect that President de
la Huerta and President-elect Obregon had declared that article 27 of the new Mexican
Constitution “ is not, and must not be, interpreted as retroactive or violative of valid
property rights.”
16. It will be within your recollection that many other communications in the
same sense were made by the United States Government to the Mexican Government,
and Bis Majesty’s Government cannot but feel that if they were to disregard the
legitimately acquired rights of the Turkish Petroleum Company, they would lay them
selves open to representations by the company similar to those made by the United
States Government, against the measures taken by the Mexican Government.
17. Turning now to the San Remo Oil Agreement, I may state that the
co-operation of British and French interests in regard to oil production in various
countries was first suggested in the early part of the year 19 L9 by the French Govern
ment. It was proposed that some arrangement should be arrived at whereby French
interests might be given yome participation in companies either existing or to be formed
for the production of petroleum in various regions, and the suggestion was made that
the French Government should acquire the former German share in the Turkish
Petroleum Company The proposal put forward by the French Government was
carefully considered, and it was found possible to come to an agreement based on the .,
principles of mutual co-operation and reciprocity in various countries, especially where
British and French interests were already considerable, and on the whole greater than
those of other Allied countries. Toe agreement aimed at no monopoly or exclusive