^ -< 'iir/ i 
 
 i|W 
 
 '' '*5.'i .- jS'v#^a'.»4i s« “®Si 
 
 
 :,A-:v i'.i'^-vf.^iK 
 
 
 
 'i.'VV .‘?i'JtI''*lv-*' 
 
 -VA 
 
 
 S/Vj - 
 
 /"af^ .i^T’ 
 
 '".r- ^ 
 
American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations 
 
 The Passing of 
 Extraterritoriality in Siam 
 
 Francis Bowes Sayre 
 
 These articles are reprinted from the Atlantic Monthly, November, 1927, and the 
 American Journal of International Law, January, 1928, at the request of the 
 Research Committee of the American Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations. 
 
THE RUMFORD PRESS 
 CONCORD, N. H. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Siam’s Fight for Sovereignty. 1 
 
 The Passing of ExtraterritoriaHty in Siam. 19 
 
 Treaties and Negotiations with Great Britain 
 
 Jurisdiction. 38 
 
 Protocol. 41 
 
 Commerce and Navigation. 43 
 
 Notes. 54 
 
 Arbitration. 59 
 
' s- 
 
 V 
 
 A-' 
 
 i 
 
 i' 
 
 i3 
 
 ‘I 
 
 4' 
 
 ■ 4 " ,, 
 
 .V ' ^ 
 ^ ■ 
 T.\ 
 ■4'' 
 
 I 
 
SIAM’S FIGHT FOR SOVEREIGNTY 
 By Francis Bowes Sayre 
 
 “Siam’s Fight for Sovereignty/’ through the courtesy of Mr. Sayre, is reprinted with 
 the consent of the publishers from the Atlantic Monthly of November, 1927, and “The 
 Passing of Extraterritoriality in Siam,” with documentary material, through the courtesy 
 of Mr. Sayre, is reprinted with the consent of the pubUshers from the American Journal 
 OF International Law of Januar}^, 1928, both at the request of the Research Committee 
 of the American Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations. 
 
 I 
 
 Since Marco Polo first told of the far lands of Cathay, one trading nation 
 after another has sought through peaceful means or through force of arms 
 to capture the coveted trade of the Orient. The efforts of British merchants 
 to force their way into China culminated in the Opium War and the Treaty 
 of Nanking in 1842, which opened up the more important Chinese coast 
 cities to foreign trade; additional treaties speedily followed, imposing on 
 China the system of extraterritoriality for the protection of Western mer¬ 
 chants. In 1853 Admiral Perry’s dramatic appearance in Japanese waters 
 marked the beginning of Western trade in Japan; and soon thereafter West¬ 
 ern treaties were made with the Shogun imposing a similar system of extra¬ 
 territoriality upon the newly awakened Japanese nation. 
 
 Even Siam, hidden away between India and China, was not overlooked. 
 In 1855 Great Britain, in order to foster its growing trade with Siam, per¬ 
 suaded the Siamese King to sign a new treaty which was destined to have 
 profound and far-reaching effects upon the development of his country. The 
 treaty required that ‘‘all British subjects coming to Siam shall receive from 
 the Siamese Government full protection and assistance to enable them to re¬ 
 side in Siam in all security and trade with every facility,” and provided that 
 all British subjects in Siam should be exempt from the jurisdiction of Siamese 
 courts and that Siam should never raise its import tariff on English goods 
 beyond three per cent. Neither of these provisions was felt to be burden¬ 
 some at the time; consular jurisdiction seemed a measure wisely framed to 
 meet the exigencies of a day when Siamese courts knew nothing of Western 
 justice or Western ways, and a three-per-cent import tariff was then amply 
 sufficient to provide for the simple needs of the undeveloped state. But un¬ 
 happily the negotiators of this one-sided agreement had neglected to insert 
 any time limit for the duration of the treaty; nor was any method provided 
 for abrogating or modifying its provisions except with the consent of both 
 parties. 
 
 What Siam had granted to Great Britain she could not well refuse to 
 other powerful states. Between 1856 and 1870 similar treaties were made 
 with the United States, France, Denmark, Portugal, the Netherlands, Ger¬ 
 many, Sweden and Norway, Belgium, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Spain. 
 
 1 
 
2 
 
 All of these were closely modeled on the British treaty; all were without time 
 limit. The restrictions were irrevocable and eternal. 
 
 During the last third of the nineteenth century Siam underwent a re¬ 
 markable transformation. Under the intelligent and able leadership of 
 King Chulalongkorn, railroads were built, telegraphic and mail communica¬ 
 tion with the outside world established, irrigation projects undertaken, 
 slavery and gambling abolished. Western education introduced, the entire 
 government reorganized and modern ministries of state created, an adequate 
 system of law courts established, and a royal commission appointed to 
 prepare codes of law based upon the best Western models. By the opening 
 of the twentieth century Siam had become a modern state aquiver with 
 Western progress. Internationally she was prepared to take her place in the 
 Family of Western Nations. 
 
 With her profound transformation the conditions under which the early 
 treaties had been made were for the most part swept away; but the treaty 
 restrictions remained unchangeable. Not only remained—through a series 
 of harsh interpretations their provisions were rendered still more onerous. 
 The clauses providing that foreigners should be tried by their own consuls, 
 originally designed for the mutual convenience of both foreigners and Sia¬ 
 mese, were interpreted so as to give foreigners exemption not only from 
 Siamese courts but also from any Siamese legislation which was unacceptable 
 to foreign wishes. Even so, had the exemptions been confined, as they were 
 originally intended, to Europeans, the situation would have been more 
 tolerable. Unfortunately the Western nations insisted on including within 
 the exemptions many thousands of Asiatics, inhabitants of European colonies 
 in Asia, and therefore in point of law European subjects. The inclusion of 
 these native races, not bred in a European civilization, was without inherent 
 reason or sound justification, and its tendency was to arouse in many 
 Asiatics resident in Siam a feeling that Siamese law could be disregarded 
 with impunity. Thus Mohammedans from Malaya, Tamils from India, 
 native races from the island of Java, Chinese from the Portuguese Colony 
 of Macao, Burmese, Cambodians, Annamites, all gained exemption from 
 Siamese courts and to a certain extent from Siamese law, even though 
 dwelling permanently in Siam. So convenient and profitable did this ex¬ 
 emption become that Chinese and even in some cases Siamese began to 
 apply for and obtain enrollment in the foreign legations as proteges’’ of 
 the treaty nations. 
 
 Thus excluded from administering law and punishment to an ever widen¬ 
 ing circle of foreign subjects and proteges, Siam began to find that no im¬ 
 portant law directly affecting European subjects or proteges could be put 
 into force without first gaining the consent of the foreign offices in Europe. 
 When Siam passed a General Education Law providing for universal com¬ 
 pulsory education, a certain European nation refused to accept it because 
 it offended the susceptibilities of its Mohammedan subjects in that it com- 
 
3 
 
 pelled girls to go to school during the sacred month of Ramadan, and as a 
 result, with respect to all such children, the law could not be enforced. 
 Similarly the law for the protection of trade-marks has remained since its 
 promulgation a dead letter because infringements were found to be chiefly 
 by foreigners, and Siam could not induce all the Treaty Powers to accept 
 it. The subjects of one of them were profiting too greatly from its infringe¬ 
 ment. Even laws so obviously desirable as proper police regulations for 
 the correction of abuses in Bangkok often could not be enacted or could 
 be enacted only after the most discouraging delays because of the extreme 
 difficulty of winning the unconditional approval of a dozen different foreign 
 legations. 
 
 The treaty exemptions, furthermore, furnished a ready refuge for wrong¬ 
 doers. If Wu Sung had arranged for a particularly valuable consignment of 
 opium to be smuggled in across the northern frontier, or if Abdul Razim 
 desired to run a gambling shop without risk of police interference, each would 
 arm himself with foreign papers as a prudent man should. 
 
 The financial provisions of the early treaties were equally intolerable. The 
 pushing of widespread education demands the expensive training and paying 
 of thousands of teachers. The development and stimulation of the agricul¬ 
 tural resources of an undeveloped country demand large and increasing 
 expenditures. An efficient administration of justice demands highly trained 
 and adequately paid judges. Policing becomes more expensive as the amount 
 of police regulation increases. Progress costs money. It began to be evident 
 that Siam^s continued progress could be just as effectively menaced by the 
 inability of the state to finance further works of improvement because of the 
 fiscal restrictions of the early treaties as by its inability to assume jurisdiction 
 over foreigners. If Siam’s progress was to continue, it became clear that 
 the old treaties must go. 
 
 Yet there seemed to be no possible way. Suggestions, requests, entreaties, 
 brought no results. Since the treaties, written in the interests of the traders, 
 contained no time limit and no termination clause, Siam was helpless. 
 Japan had finally succeeded in freeing herself from very similar treaty re¬ 
 strictions by proving the possibilities of her military power in the Chino- 
 Japanese War. Siam did not possess the military resources to make such a 
 solution possible, even were it desirable. 
 
 II 
 
 In 1907 Siam had succeeded in obtaining from France a treaty providing 
 that French Asiatic subjects and proteges should become subject to the 
 jurisdiction of Siamese courts. But for this concession a heavy price was 
 paid. Siam had to agree that henceforth French Asiatic subjects and 
 proteges throughout the whole of Siam should be entitled to all the rights and 
 privileges enjoyed by Siamese subjects. Furthermore, French consuls were 
 given the right to evoke from Siamese courts and to try themselves all cases 
 
2 
 
 All of these were closely modeled on the British treaty; all were without time 
 limit. The restrictions were irrevocable and eternal. 
 
 During the last third of the nineteenth century Siam underwent a re¬ 
 markable transformation. Under the intelligent and able leadership of 
 King Chulalongkorn, railroads were built, telegraphic and mail communica¬ 
 tion with the outside world established, irrigation projects undertaken, 
 slavery and gambling abolished. Western education introduced, the entire 
 government reorganized and modern ministries of state created, an adequate 
 system of law courts established, and a royal commission appointed to 
 prepare codes of law based upon the best Western models. By the opening 
 of the twentieth century Siam had become a modern state aquiver with 
 Western progress. Internationally she was prepared to take her place in the 
 Family of Western Nations. 
 
 With her profound transformation the conditions under which the early 
 treaties had been made were for the most part swept away; but the treaty 
 restrictions remained unchangeable. Not only remained—through a series 
 of harsh interpretations their provisions were rendered still more onerous. 
 The clauses providing that foreigners should be tried by their own consuls, 
 originally designed for the mutual convenience of both foreigners and Sia¬ 
 mese, were interpreted so as to give foreigners exemption not only from 
 Siamese courts but also from any Siamese legislation which was unacceptable 
 to foreign wishes. Even so, had the exemptions been confined, as they were 
 originally intended, to Europeans, the situation would have been more 
 tolerable. Unfortunately the Western nations insisted on including within 
 the exemptions many thousands of Asiatics, inhabitants of European colonies 
 in Asia, and therefore in point of law European subjects. The inclusion of 
 these native races, not bred in a European civilization, was without inherent 
 reason or sound justification, and its tendency was to arouse in many 
 Asiatics resident in Siam a feeling that Siamese law could be disregarded 
 with impunity. Thus Mohammedans from Malaya, Tamils from India, 
 native races from the island of Java, Chinese from the Portuguese Colony 
 of Macao, Burmese, Cambodians, Annamites, all gained exemption from 
 Siamese courts and to a certain extent from Siamese law, even though 
 dwelling permanently in Siam. So convenient and profitable did this ex¬ 
 emption become that Chinese and even in some cases Siamese began to 
 apply for and obtain enrollment in the foreign legations as “proteges’’ of 
 the treaty nations. 
 
 Thus excluded from administering law and punishment to an ever widen¬ 
 ing circle of foreign subjects and proteges, Siam began to find that no im¬ 
 portant law directly affecting European subjects or proteges could be put 
 into force without first gaining the consent of the foreign offices in Europe. 
 When Siam passed a General Education Law providing for universal com¬ 
 pulsory education, a certain European nation refused to accept it because 
 it offended the susceptibilities of its Mohammedan subjects in that it com- 
 
5 
 
 without price.” It was the new note in international diplomacy; justice and 
 international right meant more than empty words. 
 
 In 1920 President Wilson gave to Siam the treaty which he had promised. 
 Without compensation and without secret understanding of any sort, 
 America, recognizing the efficient administration of justice which Siam 
 had achieved, surrendered all rights of extraterritoriality, provided only 
 that the American consul should have the right, up to five years after the 
 promulgation of the last of the Siamese codes of law, to evoke out of the 
 Siamese courts any case involving American citizens should this seem 
 necessary in the interests of justice. Although as a matter of fact the right 
 of evocation under the American treaty has never been exercised, this wise 
 provision furnished to American citizens a guaranty against possible judicial 
 abuse and one which Siam could glady give because of her confidence in 
 her own courts. Furthermore, the new treaty abrogated the earlier Ameri¬ 
 can treaty of 1856 in its entirety; and America, recognizing Siam’s right to 
 fiscal autonomy, agreed that Siam should have the right to impose any tariff 
 she pleased against American goods, provided that all the other Treaty 
 Powers would agree to similar provisions without compensation or price. 
 The new treaty was made terminable after a ten-year period upon one year’s 
 notice given by either party, and it was expressly provided that such termina¬ 
 tion would not revive the former treaty. Through America led the path 
 to freedom. 
 
 Ill 
 
 After the American treaty had been signed, Siam again approached Great 
 Britain and France and requested each to follow America’s lead. Great 
 Britain replied that until the other Powers had gone as far as she had in the 
 treaty of 1909 any application for further treaty revision ‘‘would appear to be 
 premature.” France made favorable rephes, but little seemed to come of 
 them. Three years passed with the goal apparently no nearer. A new 
 treaty with France involved Siam’s relations with her Eastern neighbor, 
 French Indo-China; and the difficulties of the problem were increased by the 
 political situation in Hanoi and by France’s anxiety not to give offense 
 to Indo-Chinese susceptibilities. Ultimately it was agreed that problems 
 concerning Indo-China alone should be excluded from the main French 
 treaty and should form the subject of a separate French convention nego¬ 
 tiated directly between Bangkok and Hanoi. The Quai d’Orsay then 
 placed the negotiations for the new French treaty in the hands of the French 
 Minister to Bangkok, a forward-looking man thoroughly conversant with 
 Indo-Chinese opinion. After his arrival in Bangkok early in 1924 negotia¬ 
 tions were pushed in earnest. 
 
 In the meantime the system of extraterritoriality in practice seemed’ 
 more and more unjustified and vexatious. As a result of the war, Germany 
 and Austria had indeed lost their treaty rights; but ten European Powers, 
 
6 
 
 deaf to every plea, still insisted on their legal rights, and unless Siam could 
 persuade each in turn without price or compensatory benefit to surrender 
 them, no feasible way of escape lay open. It seemed clear that it would 
 be impossible to accomplish such a task through ordinary methods; the 
 only practicable road to success, if success were possible at all, lay through 
 direct personal work in the various foreign offices in Europe. Because of 
 the unavoidable ignorance of responsible officials in European foreign offices 
 as to actual conditions in Siam, and the natural disinclination of European 
 representatives living in Bangkok to surrender existing privileges, long¬ 
 distance negotiations at Bangkok would block success at the very outset. 
 
 These ideas had the active support of the able and energetic Siamese 
 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prince Traidos Prabandh, a man of wide 
 diplomatic experience in both Europe and America. King Rama VI gra¬ 
 ciously entrusted the fortunes of this project, so vital to Siam, to the keeping 
 of the Adviser in Foreign Affairs, who, arm.ed with a roving commission, was 
 to sail from Bangkok in the autumn of 1924 and, in conjunction with Siam^s 
 diplomatic agents in each country, to spend the ensuing year seeking to 
 convince one after another of the foreign offices of Europe of the wisdom 
 of giving up their existing rights in Siam. 
 
 It was our great hope that the French negotiations could be brought 
 to a successful termination and the treaty signed before our departure, but 
 as each difficulty was overcome new obstacles arose, and every new obsta¬ 
 cle caused fresh delays. Nevertheless, by the end of the summer, agreement 
 had apparently been reached on the treaty draft. France was to renounce 
 all the provisions of former treaties except those which concerned Indo- 
 China, and to grant to Siam judicial autonomy subject to a limited right of 
 evocation and fiscal autonomy on the same lines as in the American treaty. 
 Most important of all, the new treaty was to be terminable after ten years 
 by either party. When the time came for our departure from Bangkok vv^e 
 supposed that everything was settled. 
 
 IV 
 
 Upon reaching Paris early in December 1924, however, to our dismay we 
 found the treaty apparently as far from settlement as ever. At our first 
 meeting with the French Minister to Bangkok we discovered that new 
 questions had arisen; the discussion of certain underlying principles re¬ 
 vealed sharply diverging interpretations maintained by the French and 
 the Siamese Governments; and to the French interpretation the Siamese 
 Government found itself quite unable to accede. Negotiations must be 
 taken up afresh. Several weeks of anxious, intensive work followed. By 
 the middle of January the French Foreign Office finally agreed to accept 
 a formula satisfactory to Siam, and also gave its consent to the insertion of 
 an unusual and sweeping arbitration clause by which both parties agreed 
 that, in default of settlement by diplomatic or arbitral means, all questions 
 
7 
 
 arising between them should be settled by the Permanent Court of Inter¬ 
 national Justice in conformity to the principles of the League of Nations. 
 Even questions affecting national honor and vital interests were not ex¬ 
 cepted. After complete agreement on the treaty draft had been reached 
 among ourselves, the text was laid before the French Cabinet and its consent 
 won. Finally a date—January 31—was actually set for the signing. Suc¬ 
 cess seemed at hand. 
 
 During the ten days’ interval while the treaty text was being printed pre¬ 
 paratory to the signing, we proceeded to The Hague to open negotiations 
 for a new Dutch treaty. Three days before the date set for the signing 
 of the French treaty, out of a clear sky came a telegram from Paris saying 
 that the French Foreign Office had just received cabled word from their 
 Charge d’Affaires at Bangkok that an outrageous and murderous attack had 
 been made upon the wife of one of the French legal advisers in Siam and the 
 treaty therefore could not be signed. The news burst like a bombshell. 
 
 We rushed back to Paris heavy of heart and cabled to Bangkok for a full 
 report. For several critical days the outcome hung in the balance. What 
 we most feared was a hostile newspaper campaign in the French opposition 
 press, which might easily have killed the treaty. Bangkok’s cabled reply, 
 however, gave some room for hope. The attack had been made without 
 malice by an irresponsible individual too drunk to know what he was doing. 
 Exactly similar attacks might have happened on the streets of Paris or 
 New York. 
 
 But the difficult task remained of convincing the French Foreign Office 
 of the truth of these facts in the face of an adverse report from the French 
 Charge at Bangkok, and of doing so without undergoing the long delays 
 incident to an ordinary judicial trial. Until the French treaty was signed 
 there was little hope of securing other treaties. It was not enough that the 
 French Foreign Office had agreed to ask for no indemnities. For the sake 
 of the other treaties France must be persuaded to sign the new treaty 
 forthwith in the very face of this unhappy incident, and to sign it without 
 additional demands or modifications. Fortunately the affair had so far 
 been kept out of the French press; but the downfall of the Herriot Ministry 
 was already threatening, and the Foreign Office feared that if the treaty 
 was signed in complete disregard of such an incident the opposition press 
 might still publish the story in an exaggerated form and cause the over¬ 
 throw of the Government. Followed anxious days, discussions, lengthy 
 cable dispatches, persuasions, proposals and counterproposals. For a week 
 the outcome lay in the lap of the gods. In the end Siam’s efforts prevailed. 
 France agreed to sign the treaty forthwith, and on February 14, at one 
 o’clock. Premier Herriot as Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Prince Charoon, 
 the Siamese Minister, attached their signatures to the document that meant 
 so much for the future of Siam. Victory, after months of uncertainty and 
 struggle, had come at last! 
 
8 
 
 V 
 
 The delay in getting the French treaty signed prevented the opening 
 of British negotiations until late in February. The outlook in London was 
 discouraging. The British Minister to Bangkok, who had been in London in 
 conference with the British Foreign Office, had just departed for Siam. The 
 British Labor Government, which had on several occasions shown a friendly 
 interest in Siam, had been overthrown and succeeded by a Conservative Gov¬ 
 ernment. Furthermore, when, several months before, the Siam.ese Minister 
 of Foreign Affairs had approached the British Government suggesting a 
 treaty revision. Great Britain had given a noncommittal reply, but requested 
 that if conversations should be opened they should be carried on in Bangkok, 
 a request which the Siamese Minister felt unable to refuse. Altogether the 
 situation seemed far from hopeful. 
 
 Mr. Austen Chamberlain, in our opening interview at the Foreign Office, 
 presented the British point of view with great frankness and fairness. The 
 United States, he said, could afford to surrender existing treaty privileges 
 in Siam, because American trade there was, comparatively speaking, non¬ 
 existent. With Great Britain the situation was very different. Over 
 eighty per cent of the entire Siamese export trade was to British territory, 
 and some sixty-seven per cent of Siam’s imports were from British territory. 
 If Siam should be released from the three-per-cent tariff restriction and 
 should suddenly impose a heavy import tariff, great hardship would result 
 to the British merchants concerned. For this reason, while Great Britain 
 might be willing to agree to a moderate increase in the existing three-per-cent 
 restriction, she could not feel justified in granting to Siam complete tariff 
 autonomy. Furthermore, British trade in Siam had assumed such sub¬ 
 stantial proportions that Great Britain could not afford to take the risk of 
 jeopardizing her commercial interests in Siamese law courts without ade¬ 
 quate protection; the presence of European legal advisers constituted the 
 surest guaranty of such protection. For these reasons, Mr. Chamberlain 
 confessed, it would seem premature at this time to surrender the existing 
 treaty privileges. 
 
 These arguments seemed, in the light of immediate interests, difficult 
 to answer; nevertheless one could not but feel that in the long view Great 
 Britain would be making a mistake in taking such a position. To the 
 reasons for this Mr. Chamberlain listened with an uncommonly open mind; 
 and he attentively considered our suggestions for securing practical and 
 adequate protection for British interests in Siam by methods so framed as 
 to avoid infringing Siamese sovereignty or wounding the national pride of 
 the Siamese. 
 
 At the end of an hour’s talk Mr. Chamberlain had convinced us of his 
 sincerity and his fair-mindedness. “We had made up our minds to refuse 
 the things you ask,” he said. “But you have put a new light upon the 
 
9 
 
 situation. What you propose seems to me reasonable and fair. If you can 
 convince the experts and heads of departments of the Foreign Office, of the 
 Board of Trade and the Department of Overseas Trade, of the Colonial 
 Office and of the Indian Office—if you can convince them as you have me, 
 while I can’t make any definite promises, I don’t see why we shouldn’t be 
 able to enter upon negotiations along the line you propose.” Siam had won 
 her fighting chance! 
 
 A day was appointed in the following week for Siam to argue her case 
 before the assembled representatives of the several ministries concerned. In 
 the meantime our concrete written proposals were submitted to the various 
 government departments, and were further explained and urged in intimate 
 personal conferences with those who were particularly influential. 
 
 On the appointed day we met with the assemblage of British representa¬ 
 tives around a long table in the British Foreign Office. Everything de¬ 
 pended on the outcome. It was clear that, if Great Britain refused to give 
 Siam a new treaty, Italy would hkewise refuse. Also Portugal and Spain, 
 and probably Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. We discussed the British 
 position in Siam from almost every angle; the British experts showed by their 
 searching questions how carefully they had studied our proposals and sug¬ 
 gestions, and for a whole afternoon, amid the rapid fire of question and an¬ 
 swer, the tide of battle hung uncertain. All forms of diplomacy had been 
 dropped; with utter frankness we sought to reach the fundamental truth. 
 We endeavored to explain the weak as well as the strong points of our pro¬ 
 posals; and the British representatives were equally frank and above board. 
 At the end of the day we saw eye to eye, and the British Foreign Office said. 
 We’ll give you a treaty along the lines which you propose.” 
 
 Followed a month’s intensive work of hammering out a draft which would 
 relieve Siam from the old, unjust restrictions and yet which would not 
 leave British interests unprotected. It was agreed to wipe away all the 
 former treaties, and to replace them by a new General Treaty and a com¬ 
 prehensive Commercial Treaty framed in the new spirit along the lines of our 
 initial proposals. We held numerous meetings with assembled representa¬ 
 tives of various British offices and found our minds clashing over many 
 technical details and questions of minor importance. For instance, in 
 connection with the treaty provision which required the payment of draw¬ 
 backs on the reexport of goods not consumed in Siam, the Indian Office 
 desired a provision releasing Siam from having to pay drawbacks on filled 
 gunny bags but forbidding the imposition of an import duty on them in 
 excess of one per cent. To this Siam could not agree; for her main export is 
 rice, which is handled in gunny bags, and should the price of foreign gunny 
 bags be greatly advanced, Siam might one day have to manufacture her own, 
 and temporarily impose a moderate duty exceeding one per cent. It was 
 therefore necessary to find a formula which would satisfy the Indian Office 
 and yet which would not saddle Siam with an injurious restriction. Simi- 
 
10 
 
 larly, provisions respecting the general granting of forestry concessions and 
 oil rights must be dealt with in a way such as would not hamper Siam’s 
 future development of these industries. Intricate legal problems arose over 
 the rights of children born in Siam whose parents were natives of Burma or of 
 British protectorates; questions arose as to the probate of estates of British 
 subjects dying in Siam. The position of India and the self-governing British 
 Dominions with regard to treaty rights and privileges in Siam opened up 
 fresh complications and problems. These and a hundred other questions 
 furnished many contentious points; yet never once during the course of the 
 negotiations was there resort to subterfuge or concealment. We sought a 
 common object, and in mutual whole-hearted confidence hurdled all obsta¬ 
 cles which lay in the path. 
 
 By the end of March we had provisionally agreed upon drafts which 
 embodied even more than we had originally planned to ask. Without 
 compensation Great Britain agreed to surrender all her existing treaty 
 privileges in Siam and to recognize in precisely the same terms as in the 
 American treaty Siam’s complete right to judicial and fiscal autonomy. The 
 old treaties had been irrevocable and eternal; the new General and Com- 
 mercial Treaties were each made terminable after ten years by either party. 
 Siam in return agreed not to impose any customs duty in excess of five per 
 cent ad valorem upon textiles, upon iron, steel, or manufactures thereof, or 
 upon machinery manufactured in British territory and imported into Siam; 
 but this undertaking was limited to ten years after the coming into force 
 of the treaty, after which Siam’s hands were free. In short. Great Britain 
 agreed that henceforth British influence in Siam should be built upon Siamese 
 goodwill rather than upon irritating and irrevocable treaty restrictions. 
 It was a farseeing step for Britain to take. The provisional treaty drafts 
 were mailed to Bangkok to receive the detailed consideration of the Siamese 
 Government and the comments of the British Minister to Bangkok; the five 
 or six weeks which must elapse before cabled replies could come would afford 
 an opportunity to push negotiations in other countries. 
 
 During the course of the British conversations, negotiations with the 
 Netherlands Government were pushed with all possible speed; the night boat 
 across the Channel made it possible often to spend alternate days in London 
 and The Hague. The Netherlands were generous in their response to Siam’s 
 appeal; friendly understanding and mutual confidence smoothed away all 
 difficulties. The questions raised by the Netherlands treaty were far less 
 complicated and fewer than those raised by the British; consequently, as 
 the British draft took shape the draft of a new Dutch agreement progressed 
 even more rapidly. Therefore by the time the British drafts were completed 
 a new Netherlands treaty text had also been agreed upon, closely following 
 the American model. The day following the dispatch of the British text 
 the Netherlands draft was mailed to Bangkok. In the opening days of 
 April we took the train south to begin negotiations with Italy. 
 
11 
 
 VI 
 
 At Rome Siam’s case was urged, first before individual, influential offi¬ 
 cials of the Italian Foreign Oflfice, and later before a formal group appointed 
 to consider the matter. Italian interests in Siam are comparatively small; 
 and Italy saw little reason for changing the existing situation. The progress 
 of the negotiations seemed so slow and uncertain that a conference with 
 Premier Mussolini was arranged. At the last moment Signor Mussolini 
 was prevented by illness from keeping the engagement. Time pressed; and, 
 leaving Rome, we returned to Paris and took the Sud Express for Lisbon. 
 
 A new Portuguese treaty was of particular importance to Siam; for, 
 apart from gaining the right of fiscal autonomy, Siam is embarrassed by 
 large numbers of Chinese residents who claim exemption as Portuguese 
 proteges by virtue of alleged birth in the Portuguese colony of Macao near 
 Hongkong. Proof of the falsity of each individual claim by patient investi¬ 
 gation and the securing of contrary evidence fails to deter others from 
 indulging in the same practice; apparently this is only one of the inevitable 
 and incurable outgrowths of the system of extraterritoriality. 
 
 The political situation in Lisbon is peculiar. Ministry succeeds ministry 
 with startling rapidity; the regularity of the process is broken only by revo¬ 
 lution. A minister’s hearty support may prove valueless with his removal 
 a few weeks later. The frequent changing of cabinet positions concentrates 
 power in the hands of the permanent officials. Yet these cannot be reached 
 except through their minister. Accordingly we first held conferences with 
 the Minister of Foreign Affairs. After his support had been gained, no 
 one could have been more courteous to us than he; yet, as we well knew, the 
 real battle still lay before us. 
 
 Of one man we had been warned on several sides; if the path of our treaty 
 led through his office, we were told, our quest would prove well-nigh impos¬ 
 sible, for he was infinitely difficult to win and, once having made up his 
 mind, adhered unwaveringly to his decision. Our hopes fell when we 
 discovered that he headed one of the important divisions of the Foreign 
 Office without whose sanction no treaty could pass. After holding confer¬ 
 ences with several of the other heads of divisions with varying measures of 
 success, we secured an appointment to confer with him on the last day of 
 April. 
 
 It was with rather gloomy forebodings that we walked down the long, 
 highly ornamented corridors to the former bedchamber of the King, which 
 with the coming of the Republic had been converted into an office. But to 
 our delight we found that here was a man of brains and character who had 
 really studied and digested our proposed treaty draft, and was prepared to 
 act. We entered into detailed discussions with him, and that very afternoon 
 agreed to various modifications in the draft; and when we parted we realized 
 that of all in Lisbon he best understood the point of view of Siam. He 
 
12 
 
 proved our staunchest friend; when seemingly insurmountable obstacles 
 arose in other divisions of the Foreign Office, he championed our cause and 
 overcame the opposition. Had it not been for him, Siam in all probability 
 would not have won the treaty. 
 
 In the end the provisional consent of the various officials to a treaty closely 
 following the American model, and also embodying a general arbitration 
 clause, was won. The draft could not be finally approved, however, until it 
 had gone before various bureaus and legislative committees. Our friends 
 in the Foreign Office promised to expedite matters as much as possible and to 
 defend the draft if necessary; in the meantime negotiations could be opened 
 in Spain. 
 
 VII 
 
 In Madrid good fortune favored us. It chanced that on the day of our 
 arrival the King was to attend the races; the American Ambassador in¬ 
 vited us to accompany him to the gala luncheon at the race course, where we 
 were introduced to General Primo de Rivera, then President of the Military 
 Directorate and in supreme power, and to others close to His Majesty. 
 That very afternoon, thanks to the American Ambassador, His Majesty 
 heard about our Siamese treaty. 
 
 Next day there followed a conference with the all-powerful General Primo 
 de Rivera; and, once his whole-hearted consent had been won, success was 
 assured. He promised us the treaty and appointed a commission to carry 
 on the negotiations, placing at its head his nephew, Senor Fernando Espinosa 
 de los Monteros, the acting head of the Spanish Foreign Office. Every 
 evening we gathered around a table at the Foreign Office in a large red room 
 resplendent with fine old paintings; we modified only in quite unimportant 
 details the original treaty draft as presented to General Primo de Rivera. 
 In little more than a week the work was done and Spain had agreed to the 
 surrender of the old treaty and the acceptance of a new one closely following 
 the lines of the American treaty. The commission good-naturedly laughed 
 at our informality and our continual plea for speed. “ You Americans would 
 like to make a treaty over the telephone,’' they exclaimed. But they never 
 failed in their kindliness or in their generous and sympathetic understanding 
 of Siam’s difficult position. 
 
 From Madrid we returned to Paris, and thence on to The Hague for the 
 final ceremonies attendant upon the signing of the treaty with the Nether¬ 
 lands. On June 8 the Dutch treaty was signed by Dr. van Karnebeek, 
 the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Prince Damras, the Sia¬ 
 mese Minister to The Hague. On the same day disturbing news arrived 
 from London. The British Foreign Office wrote that the British Minister in 
 Bangkok had raised objections to the draft of the new treaty. Apparently 
 local British opposition in Bangkok was strong. The Foreign Office wrote 
 to say that, in view of their Minister’s cabled report, after further mature 
 
13 
 
 consideration they must ask for certain additions and modifications to the 
 draft. A glance at the changes asked for caused one’s heart to sink. To cer¬ 
 tain of them Siam could not accede. Did this, then, spell the end of all our 
 hopes? 
 
 We rushed back to London, realizing that the fight there must be fought 
 again in the face of the adverse report. Again a formal meeting was arranged 
 between ourselves and the experts and representatives of the Foreign Office, 
 the Board of Trade, the Indian Office, and the Colonial Office, together with 
 the former British Consul-General in Siam, who had been summoned for the 
 occasion. For a whole afternoon the battle raged. We sought to explain 
 why Siam could not accept certain of the proposed modifications and why 
 Great Britain should not make the mistake of requesting them; why some of 
 the objects sought were quite unnecessary and how others might be attained 
 in more practicable ways. It was one against many, and the battle never 
 flagged. ‘Wou reminded me of Daniel in the lions’ den,” exclaimed one of 
 the British representatives at the end of the afternoon. But, when the 
 smoke of battle cleared away, the sun was shining. Great Britain had 
 agreed to withdraw all the objectionable modifications, or to alter them 
 to a quite unobjectionable form. The British treaty was won. During two 
 more all-afternoon sessions such difficulties as remained were ironed out; 
 and in individual conferences during the next ten days solutions were found 
 for several highly technical but extremely difficult legalistic problems, 
 and in addition a Treaty of General Arbitration was negotiated and agreed 
 upon. By the middle of July the General and Commercial Treaties were 
 ready for signature. We hurried down from Stockholm for the signing; and 
 on the afternoon of July 14 Mr. Chamberlain and Phya Prabha Karavongse, 
 the Siamese Minister to London, unostentatiously attached their signatures 
 and seals to the documents of such vital importance to Siam. The new 
 British treaty had come into being. 
 
 VIII 
 
 In the meantime we had been turning our attention to the Scandinavian 
 countries. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden still remained; also Italy. 
 Should any one of these countries refuse to give up its existing rights, Siam 
 would remain bound by the old three-per-cent tariff restriction; for all the 
 new treaties contained the provision that Siam should be free to raise its 
 tariff only after every one of the nations holding irrevocable treaty rights 
 had freely and without compensatory benefit agreed to surrender them. 
 Apart, therefore, from the existence of considerable Scandinavian shipping 
 interests in Siam, each one of these treaties was a matter of large importance 
 to Bangkok. 
 
 In Copenhagen, in Stockholm, and in Oslo, where Siamese interests are- 
 in the hands of Prince Vipulya, accredited to these three capitals, again 
 we encountered an open-mindedness, a sympathetic understanding for the 
 
 
14 
 
 plucky struggle of a small nation, and a readiness to translate sympathy into 
 practical action which showed that, in spite of much that is said to the con¬ 
 trary, European foreign offices are not all closed to liberal sentiments. All 
 three of the Scandinavian countries declared themselves ready to meet 
 with Siam’s desires and to give new treaties. In Denmark and Sweden, 
 through the help of influential friends at court, negotiations were expedited 
 and final agreement come to on the drafts of the treaties, which were to be 
 signed as soon as the parliamentary committees could formally signify their 
 approval in the early fall. Norway also promised a new treaty along the 
 same general lines, and quickly agreed in principle to the draft which we 
 proposed. 
 
 In Oslo came word from Lisbon reporting that our Portuguese treaty 
 had gone on the rocks. To protect her port and Madeira wine, in which her 
 wealth largely consists, Portugal insists on the insertion in her treaties of 
 a clause for the punishment of all who sell wine labeled ‘‘Port ” or “Madeira” 
 not coming from Portugal or the island of Madeira; in the Siamese treaty 
 the formula had been considerably modified so as to avoid possible difficulties 
 with British and French merchants selling these wines in Bangkok. The 
 formula thus modified had run afoul in one of the Portuguese legislative com¬ 
 mittees; the treaty had therefore failed to pass and there seemed a not 
 improbable chance of its total shipwreck. 
 
 During the four days’ train journey from Oslo to Lisbon urgent cables were 
 dispatched to Bangkok and various telegrams exchanged with Lisbon, so 
 that by the time we reached the Portuguese capital the way had been 
 opened to agree on a new formula which would not endanger Siamese inter¬ 
 ests and yet would prove acceptable to the various groups in Portugal. 
 Once in Lisbon, in intimate contact with Foreign Office officials who had 
 become personal friends, it was not difficult to agree upon a formula; but 
 a new difficulty then confronted us. The Minister of Foreign Affairs with 
 whom we had negotiated in April had been succeeded by another; his suc¬ 
 cessor had been deposed as a result of a revolution, and so far no Premier 
 could be found able to control a majority of the Chamber. As a result 
 there was no existing Minister of Foreign Affairs by whom the treaty could 
 be signed! We had, as it happened, come down from Paris on the train with 
 the man who it was hoped would be able to form a Government. He ulti¬ 
 mately succeeded in doing so; and one of the earliest acts of the newly ap¬ 
 pointed Minister of Foreign Affairs was, together with Phya Sanpakitch, the 
 Siamese Minister to Italy, Spain, and Portugal, to sign the treaty with Siam. 
 
 IX 
 
 It was then late in July; we stopped a few days in Madrid to give to the 
 draft of the Spanish treaty its final touches preparatory to its signature, 
 and hurried on to Rome, reaching there the first week of August. The Italian 
 treaty was the last one remaining, but the way to its attainment seemed 
 
15 
 
 beset with difficulties. Since the preceding April various telegrams had 
 been sent to the Italian Foreign Office urging the hastening of negotiations; 
 but these had failed to bear fruit, and a bare three weeks now remained 
 before it was necessary for me to return to America. Unfortunately Rome 
 was in the throes of intense summer heat, and the majority of Foreign 
 Office officials were away on their vacation. Apparently the only hope of 
 success was to go straight to Premier Mussolini, convince him of the 
 importance of Italy^s not being the single nation to bar Siam’s right to full 
 fiscal autonomy, and urge top speed. With his aid it might be done; he 
 works with the speed and precision of a steam turbine, and by the force of 
 his compelling, dominant will drives the Italian machinery of state at a pace 
 that it has never known before. 
 
 The Marquis Paulucci de’ Calboli Barone, the Chef du Cabinet of 
 Premier Mussolini, seemed considerably impressed by the situation. At 
 the close of our discussion the Marquis expressed the sincere wish that Italy 
 might meet with Siam’s desires and that the new treaty might be negotiated 
 at once, especially since the Siamese Government had felt obliged to ask 
 for the withdrawal of negotiations were the draft not agreed to before my 
 departure. ‘‘But,” he added, “unhappily we are blocked by physical im¬ 
 possibility. The Foreign Office officials are away on their holidays. There 
 is no one in Rome competent to negotiate the treaty.” “But,” we asked, 
 “can they not be recalled?” 
 
 This was a question which only the Premier could decide. The Marquis 
 Paulucci promised to take it up with him immediately. For three days we 
 waited, holding our breath; on the fourth, word came from the Itahan 
 Foreign Office that telegrams had been sent out to various Foreign Office 
 officials calling them to Rome, that a Treaty Commission had been ap¬ 
 pointed, and that they would meet with Siam’s plenipotentiary on the 
 following Wednesday, August 19. That gave just nine days before I had to 
 leave Rome to catch my steamer for America. Again the gods were favoring 
 us and we had a fighting chance. 
 
 During the intervening days we got into personal touch with certain of the 
 Italian representatives on the newly appointed Treaty Commission and 
 talked over several of the more vital issues. None of the Commissioners 
 thought it possible to conclude the negotiations within a week, yet we felt 
 that if there was a will a way could be found, and we mapped out a pro¬ 
 gramme accordingly. The first clash came over the question of the language 
 to be used for the treaty text. The Italian Commissioners wanted it to 
 be in Italian. At our first meeting, however, they agreed to accept both 
 an English and an Italian text, with the English one controlling; and we 
 then proceeded to formulate a programme of action for the ensuing week. 
 Siam agreed to prepare and present to the Italian Foreign Office on the 
 following day a treaty draft in English and Italian; the Italians were to study 
 this and meet with us two days later to discuss counterproposals; and every 
 
16 
 
 day thereafter the Treaty Commission would sit with us until the wmrk was 
 completed. 
 
 Evidently Premier Mussolini had issued orders that things were to move, 
 for this programme was followed out to the letter. During all those crowded 
 days and nights—for there were times when the lights in the Siamese lega¬ 
 tion burned till morning—there was never an hour wasted. The Treaty 
 Commission, at considerable personal self-sacrifice, held long, protracted 
 sessions with us, discussing our proposals, arguing against some of them, 
 presenting counterproposals. We defended and maintained our draft in 
 all the essential points, but yielded wherever possible on the nonessentials 
 and on all matters of pure form. By the following Monday we had appar¬ 
 ently come within sight of final agreement. The Italian Commission seemed 
 ready to accept a text which was thoroughly satisfactory to Siam. Never¬ 
 theless, Italian desires remained unsatisfied as to five remaining points, 
 which Italy felt a sine qua non for the granting of the treaty, but to which 
 Siam could not agree. For two days the debate raged. At length the 
 Italians on three of the points agreed to accept modified formulas phrased 
 in such a way as not to endanger Siamese interests, but on the other two 
 deadlock resulted. In the end the only course open was to refer the impasse 
 to Premier Mussolini, who alone was responsible for the final decision. 
 
 On the day before our departure from Borne we were ushered into Signor 
 Mussolini’s office at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the quiet of a 
 palatial room lined with radiant old Italian pictures he arose from a desk in 
 the corner to receive us. As he advanced I could not but wonder at the 
 gentleness of his eyes, set in a powerful, clean-cut face—a face which with 
 all its strength had nothing in it of hardness. Fie spoke simply and to the 
 point. He told us that Italy had always felt friendship for Siam, and that 
 in token of that friendship Italy would withdraw the fourth and fifth de¬ 
 mands. The last treaty, then, was won! After seventy years of extra¬ 
 territoriality Siam was to be once more autonomous and free. 
 
 X 
 
 All the new treaties, including one with Belgium negotiated in Bangkok, 
 are now signed and ratified; and extraterritoriality in Siam is a thing of 
 the past. With its passing, and the removal of the old fiscal restrictions, 
 new vistas open out. How has Siam been preparing herself for the new 
 period into which she is entering? Will she be able to exercise wisely her 
 new power? 
 
 King Rama VI died in November, 1925, soon after the completion of the 
 treaty negotiations. During the close of his reign expenditures were exceed¬ 
 ing the national income and a financial crisis loomed ahead. 
 
 With the accession to the throne of his brother. King Prajadhipok, vigorous 
 measures were taken. Instead of negotiating foreign loans or increasing 
 taxes, the new King adopted the more salutary method of eliminating need- 
 
17 
 
 less and extravagant expenditures. He required each ministry to prune 
 away waste, to dismiss supernumeraries, to abolish sinecures. Economy be¬ 
 came the watchword of the day. Bravely he led the way by reducing at a 
 single stroke the revenues allowed for royal expenditure from nine milhon to 
 six million ticals. His earnestness was irresistible. As a result Siam has 
 turned its deficits into surpluses; and the present intention is deliberately to 
 budget for surpluses so as to build up substantial reserves. In view of the 
 great natural wealth of the country, in view of the increased revenues made 
 possible under the new treaties by slight increases in duties on widely con¬ 
 sumed articles, in view of the practicability of improving the rice crops 
 and introducing other secondary crops, Siam’s financial future looks very 
 bright. 
 
 In constitutional matters a similarly vigorous policy has been pursued. At 
 the end of the last reign the sovereign had been more and more successfully 
 isolated from the best counsel of the realm by a group seeking its own ends. 
 One of the new King’s first acts was to dismiss from the high offices which 
 they had attained the leaders of this group. Simultaneously he created a 
 new constitutional body to give to the sovereign advice on high matters of 
 policy; this Supreme Council of State, composed of five men, was small 
 enough to impress responsibility on each of its members. Upon it he placed 
 some of the ablest and most sincere of Siam’s leaders. By this adroit and 
 statesmanlike move not only was an avenue of access to the King opened 
 up, but Siam gained what she badly needed—a single body to help coordinate 
 and unify the work of the separate ministries. 
 
 Troublous constitutional problems still remain. His Majesty keenly ap¬ 
 preciates the difficulties and dangers of absolute monarchy; he has a sincere 
 desire to democratize the government and to shift part of its responsibilities 
 to the shoulders of the people. But a parliament uncontrolled by an in¬ 
 telligent and interested electorate is a far more dangerous engine of tyranny 
 than an absolute monarch; and, until the groundwork can be built by push¬ 
 ing forward the work of general education, the parliamentary form of govern¬ 
 ment must wait. Programmes, nevertheless, can be formulated looking 
 toward this goal; and in the meantime the King is hoping to develop the 
 people’s political experience by creating popularly elected municipal councils 
 in some of the larger cities. 
 
 Siam’s judicial problems are already well in hand. The patient and 
 thorough work of the Code Commission has borne fruit in able codes of law 
 based on the best European models. Five years will probably be required 
 for the completion of these codes. The most important part of the judicial 
 groundwork yet remaining is the teaching and training of Siamese judges. 
 
 Further progress demands special activity in two directions—the one 
 the vigorous pushing forward of general education, which is made exception¬ 
 ally difficult by lack of trained Siamese teachers and Siamese textbooks; the 
 other the stimulation of agricultural productivity by standardizing and im- 
 
18 
 
 proving the rice crop and by introducing secondary crops such as tobacco 
 and hemp. 
 
 Underlying all else is the problem of how to assimilate the best of Western 
 civilization without being corrupted by the demoralizing forces with which 
 that civilization seems inextricably bound. Of all possible future dangers 
 to Siam perhaps here lies the greatest. Will she be able to incorporate the 
 best from the Occident and yet retain sufficient poise to maintain her own 
 distinctive individuality, to assimilate things Western and yet not be swal¬ 
 lowed by the West? Can she prevent religious and moral values becoming 
 subordinated to material ones? 
 
 Indeed, Siam has problems a plenty. But these are a sign of progress. 
 Those who have lived and worked in Siam and come to know and love her 
 people have great faith in the Siamese. They will find a way. Siam’s star 
 is rising. 
 
THE PASSING OF EXTRATERRITORIALITY IN SIAM 
 
 By Feancis Bowes Sayee 
 
 Former Adviser in Foreign Affairs to His Siamese Majesty’s Government 
 
 As a result of the expansion of Western trade during the nineteenth century 
 following the industrial revolution, Yfestern nations, ever eager for the 
 coveted trade of the Orient, and stimulated by the need of finding new 
 markets for their accumulating exports, pushed their insistent way into the 
 Far East with new determination. There followed a series of treaties with 
 Eastern potentates opening up new trading areas and clothing Western 
 merchants with extraterritorial rights roughly similar to those enjoyed by 
 foreigners under the Turkish Capitulations. Thus was born in the Orient 
 the regime of extraterritoriality which in three quarters of a century was 
 destined to become the focus of increasing disturbance and unrest in the 
 Far Eastern world. 
 
 Siam did not escape the play of these world forces. British merchants 
 pushing beyond India and Burma found in Siam a country unawakened but 
 with rich possibilities; and in the year 1855 Great Britain secured the 
 signature of the Siamese Fling to a treaty^ which marked the beginning of the 
 system of extraterritoriality in Siam. Under the existing Siamese law of 
 that day no foreigners had the right to acquire land or to live permanently 
 in Siam; the earlier Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1826^ had expressly provided 
 that Siamese authorities might deny to British merchants permission to 
 stay in Siam.^ The treaty of 1855 ushered in a new regime. It provided 
 that ‘‘all British subjects coming to Siam shall receive from the Siamese 
 Government full protection and assistance to enable them to reside in Siam 
 in all security, and trade with every facility, free from oppression or injury 
 on the part of the Siamese.” ^ Another article® gave to British subjects the 
 right “to trade freely in all the seaports of Siam;” and it further provided 
 that British subjects should have the right to reside permanently in Bangkok 
 or within a certain area defined by the treaty, and under prescribed regula¬ 
 tions there to acquire land or construct buildings. 
 
 The treaty contained two other outstanding provisions. The treaty of 
 1826 had provided® that all difficulties should be settled “according to the 
 established laws of the place or country.” ^ The new treaty of 1855 provided 
 
 1 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 46, p. 138. 
 
 2 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 23, p. 1153. 
 
 3 Article VII. Article I of the treaty of April 18, 1855. 
 
 6 Article IV. »Article VI. 
 
 ^ Similarly, the treaty of March 20,1833, with the United States had provided (Article IX) 
 that “merchants of the United States trading in the Kingdom of Siam shall respect and 
 follow the laws and customs of the coimtry in aU points.” 
 
 19 
 
20 
 
 that ‘‘any disputes arising between Siamese and British subjects shall be 
 heard and determined by the [British] Consul in conjunction with the proper 
 Siamese officers; and criminal offenses will be punished, in the case of English 
 offenders, by the Consul, according to English laws, and in the case of 
 Siamese offenders by their own laws, through the Siamese authorities. 
 But the Consul shall not interfere in any matters referring solely to Siamese, 
 neither will the Siamese authorities interfere in questions which only concern 
 the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty.” ® 
 
 The second provision, framed to prevent the reduction of British trade 
 through increased Siamese duties, stipulated that “on all articles of import 
 the duties shall be three per cent;” ^ and it was further stipulated that “the 
 tax or duty to be paid on each article of Siamese produce previous to or upon 
 exportation” should be that specified in a long and minute schedule of 
 export and inland duties attached as an annex to the treaty. Both of these 
 provisions were explained and amplified in an explanatory agreement 
 signed the following year.^® 
 
 At the time when these two provisions were adopted, no one dreamed that 
 they could or would be used in future years to curb the domestic and foreign 
 policy and handicap the future development of Siam. The trial of a handful 
 of British traders, accustomed to a different law and a different civilization, 
 by their own consul seemed a matter of mutual convenience; and the financial 
 needs of the undeveloped state were amply covered by the revenue from a 
 three per cent, import tariff. The ominous feature of this one-sided arrange¬ 
 ment was that the treaty contained no time limit; by its terms it could not 
 be modified without the consent of both parties, and was therefore irrevoca¬ 
 ble and unending. 
 
 It was only natural that other Western nations should demand like 
 privileges; and during the succeeding years, therefore, Siam became bound 
 by a series of treaties closely similar to the British treaty of 1855, supple¬ 
 mented by the explanatory agreement of 1856. In 1856 treaties were signed 
 with the United States and with France,in 1858 with Denmark,in 
 
 ® Article II. ® Article VIII. 
 
 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 46, p. 146. Article II of the supplementary 
 agreement of 1856, explaining the meaning of Article II of the treaty of 1855, stipulated 
 “that all criminal cases in which both parties are British subjects, or in which the defendant 
 is a British subject, shall be tried and determined by the British Consul alone. All criminal 
 cases in which both parties are Siamese or in which the defendant is a Siamese, shall be tried 
 and determined by the Siamese authorities alone. 
 
 “That all civil cases in which both parties are British subjects or in which the defendant 
 is a British subject, shall be heard and determined by the British Consul alone. Ail civil 
 cases in which both parties are Siamese, or in which the defendant is a Siamese, shall be 
 heard and determined by the Siamese authorities alone . . . 
 
 “British subjects, their persons, houses, premises, land, ships or property of any kind, 
 shall not be seized, injured, or in any way interfered vfith by the Siamese.” 
 
 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 46, p 383. 
 
 12 Ibid., Vol. 47, p. 993. Ibid., Vol. 50, p. 1073. 
 
1 
 
 21 
 
 1859 with Portugal/^ in 1860 with the Netherlands,^® in 1862 with Ger- 
 in 1868 with Sweden and Norway/^ with Belgium,and with Italy,^® 
 in 1869 with Austria-Hungary, 2 ° and in 1870 with Spain.Each of these 
 treaties in varying language imposed extraterritoriality upon Siam. Thus, 
 the American treaty of 1856 adopted the language of the British treaty 
 of the previous year; the Portuguese treaty of 1859 provided that: 
 
 Any question which may arise betvv^een Portuguese and Siamese 
 subjects must be laid before the Portuguese Consul, who, in concert and 
 agreement wdth the Siamese authorities, will endeavor to settle it 
 amicably ; and in case of not being able to do so, civil questions will be 
 decided by the Consul or by the Siamese authority, according to the 
 nationality of the dehnquent or accused person, and in conformity 
 with the respective laws. The Consul will never interfere in questions 
 which solely concern Siamiese subjects, nor the Siamese authorities in 
 questions solely relating to Portuguese subjects, except in the case of 
 crimes in which the delinquents will be taken into custody by the local 
 authority and handed over to the Portuguese Consul to be punished 
 according to the Portuguese laws, or sent to Macao to be tried there. 
 
 The Itahan treaty of 1868 provided that: 
 
 Any dispute or controversy between Italian and Siamese subjects^ 
 shall be settled by the Diplomatic Representative or jointly by the 
 Consuls and the functionaries of Siam. Criminal cases shall be ad¬ 
 judged by the Legation or the Consulates, if the delinquent be an Italian, 
 and by the local authorities if he be a Siamese subject. But neither 
 the Legation nor the Consulates shall interfere in matters affecting 
 Siamese subjects only, nor shall the local authorities interfere in ques¬ 
 tions relating purely to Italian subjects. 
 
 All of the treaties, in addition to the extraterritorial provisions, contained 
 substantially the same fiscal provisions as in the British treaty, restricting 
 Siam to a fixed schedule of duties and preventing her from imposing an 
 import tariff in excess of three per cent. All were without time limit, 
 irrevocable. 
 
 In 1868, with the accession of King Chulalongkorn to the throne of Siam, 
 a new era began. Under the leadership of that remarkable king, telegraphic 
 and mail communication was opened up with foreign countries, slavery 
 abolished, railroads constructed, irrigation projects carried out, water 
 supply systems built, modern hospitals erected, and the whole kingdom trans¬ 
 formed and quickened with new life and development. The government of 
 the kingdom was radically and completely reorganized, modern ministries 
 
 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 72, p. 109. Ibid., Vol. 58, p. 262. 
 
 Ihid.y Vol. 53, p. 741. Ibid., Vol 69, p. 1135. 
 
 18 Ibid., Vol. 59, p. 405. i» Ibid., Vol. 60, pp. 773, 783. 
 
 2o/6td., Vol. 61, p. 1308. 21 jud., Vol. 61, p. 483. 
 
 22 Article II. 23 Article VI. 
 
 ** Article IX. See also the explanatory declaration of Dec. 10,1868. British and Foreign 
 State Papers, Vol. 60, p. 783. 
 
22 
 
 were established, and an efficient system of law courts was set up to ad¬ 
 minister justice along Western lines. Recognizing the fundamental im¬ 
 portance of modern law, the king created a royal commission to study the 
 problem of legal administration for Siam and to draft carefully prepared 
 codes of law based on the best European codes. By the time of his death 
 in 1910, this tireless and able sovereign had completely transformed the old 
 Siam into a progressive, vigorous, modern state. 
 
 With the changed conditions, abuses began to make themselves felt. 
 Extraterritoriality fitted well enough an Oriental kingdom innocent of 
 Western law or Western institutions; it did not fit a country with modern 
 courts administering Western law and with a well-developed sense of in¬ 
 ternational responsibility. Yet the European nations insisted on not only 
 maintaining it for their European subjects, but even extending it so as to 
 cover all those born in the Asiatic colonies which they were fast acquiring, 
 since such colonials were in point of law European subjects. As a result, 
 Siam was deprived of jurisdiction over hosts of Cambodians, Annamites 
 and Laos from Indo-China, Javanese, Malayans, Burmese, Chinese born 
 in Macao or Hongkong, and East Indians, even though residing permanently 
 and perhaps doing an extensive business in Siam. Whatever violations of 
 Siamese law they might commit, Siam was powerless to touch them or their 
 property. They could be tried only in foreign consular courts; these courts 
 in practice not infrequently refused to apply the laws of Siam, and were often 
 presided over by men who had no legal training whatsoever. In addition 
 to these thousands of Asiatic subjects, the treaty provisions were made to 
 include foreign proteges as well; and foreign protection thus came to be 
 claimed not only for subjects born in Asiatic colonies but for such Chinese 
 or other Asiatics as any European Power chose to enroll at its consulate. 
 It was only natural that out of such a system abuses should grow; those 
 desirous of avoiding police interference or arrest—smugglers, gamblers, 
 disreputable characters—often resorted to foreign papers as a wise measure 
 of protection. If, in spite of their precautions, they should be unlucky 
 enough to be caught, they felt confident of more lenient treatment before 
 many of the foreign consuls, who were ordinarily not permitted under their 
 laws to impose any kind of drastic punishment and who were popularly 
 expected to favor their own subjects. There were even times when foreign 
 papers came to be surreptitiously bought and sold at so much a head by 
 underlings in the foreign legations. 
 
 The treaties exempted foreigners from the jurisdiction of Siamese courts. 
 The Western nations insisted that these provisions should be interpreted 
 as carrying exemption from Siamese legislation as well, except such as the 
 Western nations might choose to accept. As a result, further progress 
 became increasingly difficult. When Siam passed an education law provid¬ 
 ing for compulsory general education, its enforcement was prevented in 
 certain communities because one of the Western nations refused to accept 
 
23 
 
 it and therefore objected to its enforcement against its Asiatic subjects. 
 When Siam was asked to adhere to the International Convention for the 
 Protection of Industrial Property she was obhged to confess her inability 
 to do so; for when in 1914 she had promulgated a law for the protection of 
 trademarks and trade-names, she soon found that it was foreigners who were 
 chiefly violating the law, and the practice proved so profitable that not every 
 treaty Power could be induced to accept it, so that the protection of trade¬ 
 marks as required by the international convention was a practical impos¬ 
 sibility. Siam began to find herself in a position where she was unable to 
 enforce progressive legislation without first winning the consent of the 
 Foreign Offices of most of the nations in Europe, 
 
 Further progress was menaced by the fiscal provisions of the treaties no 
 less than by the jurisdictional ones. From a material viewpoint progress 
 costs money. The spread of education, the organization of an efficient 
 judicial system, the undertaking of increased police regulation, the renuncia¬ 
 tion of opium revenues, the securing of competent foreign advisers and 
 helpers, all swell current expenditures. For various practical reasons in¬ 
 creased revenue from taxation seemed impossible or inadvisable. Normally 
 the situation would be met by increased revenue from tariff. But the fiscal 
 provisions of the old treaties holding the Siamese import tariff down to three 
 per cent, made this impossible. After 1920 the time seemed approaching 
 when further progress might be prevented by Siam^s inabifity to meet its 
 financial cost because of the treaty provisions. 
 
 Long before the death of King Chulalongkorn in 1910, Siam had sought in 
 every possible way to free herself from the shackles of the treaty restrictions, 
 but in vain. As a small nation she lay at the mercy of the more powerful 
 European states; and these saw no reason for relinquishing the privileges and 
 advantages which they had secured. By the beginning of the twentieth 
 century, apart from special arrangements for some of the northern states, 
 the most that Siam had been able to attain were agreements with certain 
 of the treaty Powers to prevent the wholesale creation of prot^g^s and to 
 fix definite limits to the groups entitled to foreign protection and exemptions. 
 Thus, under the British agreement of November 29, 1899,^® although Great 
 
 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 91, p. 101. It was agreed that registration 
 should be confined to the following categories of persons: 
 
 “1. All British natural born or naturahzed subjects other than those of Asiatic descent. 
 
 “2. All children and grandchildren born in Siam of persons entitled to be registered under 
 the first category, who are entitled to the status of British subjects in contemplation of 
 EngHsh law. Neither greatgrandchildren nor illegitimate children born in Siam of persons 
 mentioned in the first category are entitled to be registered. 
 
 ‘‘3. AU persons of Asiatic descent, born within the Queen’s dominions, or naturalized 
 within the United Kingdom, or born within the territory of any Prince or State in India 
 under the suzerainty of or in alliance with the Queen; except natives of Upper Burma or the 
 British Shan States who became domiciled in Siam before January 1st, 1886. 
 
 “4. All children born in Siam of persons entitled to be registered under the third category. 
 
24 
 
 Britain insisted on rights of extraterritoriality for the children of all British 
 subjects, and even for the grandchildren of European British subjects, 
 although born and resident all their lives in Siam, she consented that great¬ 
 grandchildren of European and grandchildren of Asiatic British subjects 
 should not be entitled to rights of extraterritoriality. Somewhat similar 
 agreements were made with The Netherlands on May 1, 1901, with France 
 in 1904, with Denmark^^ in 1905, and with Italy^^ in the same year. Bene¬ 
 ficial as these agreements were, they did not of course check the fraudulent 
 obtaining of foreign papers by misrepresentation or corruption; and although 
 they put a limit upon some of the abuses to which the system of extrater¬ 
 ritoriality lent itself, they in no way cured the evils of extraterritoriality 
 itself. 
 
 Meanwhile changed conditions in certain of the northern provinces made 
 it necessary as early as 1883 to modify somewhat the strict provisions of the 
 British treaty of 1855. With the opening up of the northern part of Siam, 
 Burmese, Shans and other Asiatics entitled to British protection gradually 
 entered the northern provinces and took up their residence there in increasing 
 numbers. Under the stipulations of the 1855 treaty, this native population 
 was, on the one hand, entitled to all the privileges of extraterritoriality and 
 yet, on the other, strictly speaking, as British subjects they were debarred 
 from residing there at all. To meet the altered conditions for which the 
 provisions of the treaty of 1855 had become unsuitable, a new treaty was 
 made in 1883applicable to the northern provinces alone. The problem of 
 jurisdiction over these Asiatic British subjects was solved in a most interest¬ 
 ing way. The treaty provided that all cases, both civil and criminal, arising 
 in the northern provinces of Chiengmai, Lakon and Lampoonchi between 
 British subjects, or in which a British subject might be a party as complain¬ 
 ant, accused, plaintiff or defendant, should be tried according to Siamese law 
 by a special Siamese court sitting in Chiengmai, presided over by a Siamese 
 commissioner and judge, under the proviso, however, (1) that the British con¬ 
 sul residing at Chiengmai should always have the right to be present at the 
 trial if he so desired and to make such suggestions to the judge as he might 
 
 No grandchildren born in Siam of persons mentioned in the third category are entitled to be 
 registered for protection in Siam, 
 
 “5. The wives and widows of any persons who are entitled to be registered under the fore¬ 
 going categories.” 
 
 2 ® Articles 10 and 11 of Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1904. See British and Foreign State 
 Papers, Vol. 97, p. 961. 
 
 2 ^ Article I of Danish treaty of March 24, 1905. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 
 101, p. 289. 
 
 28 Article I of Italian treaty of April 8, 1905. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 101, 
 p. 409. 
 
 28 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 74, p. 78. Many of the provisions of this treaty 
 were taken from the treaty of January 14,1874, between Siam and the Government of India. 
 See British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 66, p. 537. 
 
25 
 
 think fit in the interests of justice, (2) that the British consul should have the 
 power at any time before judgment to evoke out of the Siamese court any case 
 in which a British subject might be defendant or accused, in which event the 
 case would forthwith be transferred for adjudication to the British consular 
 court at Chiengmai, and (3) that in both civil and criminal cases in which 
 a British subject might be a party, either party might appeal to Bangkok, 
 in which case, if the accused or defendant were a British subject, the final 
 decision on appeal should rest with the British Consul General. In other 
 words, in certain of the northern provinces henceforth Great Britain would 
 allow Siam to apply its own law and to exercise jurisdiction over British 
 subjects on sufferance; but this power would always be subject to Great 
 Britain’s right to evoke from the Siamese court any case where the defendant 
 or accused was a British subject, and try it herself, or to appeal from the 
 Siamese judgment and render the appeal judgment herself. It was an 
 interesting solution for a difficult problem; its justification would depend 
 entirely upon the ability of the Siamese courts to administer efficient justice. 
 
 Subsequent events more than justified the experiment. The competency 
 of the Siamese courts was evidenced by the remarkably small number of 
 cases evoked under the provisions of the treaty. From the British view¬ 
 point, so satisfactory did the arrangement prove that not only was it contin¬ 
 ued in force without change and even extended to a number of other northern 
 provinces,^® but twenty six years later, when the British treaty of 1909 came 
 to be written, the arrangement of the treaty of 1883 was extended to all 
 British pre-registered subjects throughout Siam.^^ 
 
 The satisfactory nature of this arrangement caused France to adopt very 
 similar provisions in the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1904 .Article XII of 
 that treaty, after providing that all French citizens, subjects and proteges in 
 Siam should continue to be exempt from the jurisdiction of Siamese courts, 
 went on to provide that, as an exception in the northern provinces of Chieng¬ 
 mai, Lakon, Lampoonchi and Nan, ail civil and criminal cases concerning 
 French resortissants (including French citoyens) should be brought before 
 the ‘‘Siamese International Court,” with the proviso that the French consul 
 should have the right to assist in the hearings and to evoke and try himself 
 all cases in which the defendant was French or a French protege. This so- 
 called “Siamese International Court” was not in fact international at all. 
 It was only a new name for the Siamese tribunal created under the British 
 treaty of 1883, a court created by and entirely within the control of the 
 Siamese Government, presided over by a judge chosen and paid solely by 
 
 Extended to Muang Nan and Phre by exchanges of notes dated December 31, 1884, and 
 January 10,1885, and to Muang Than, Raheng, Sawankalok, Sukothai, Utaradit and Pichai 
 by notes dated September 29, October 28,1898. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 88, 
 pp. 33-35. 
 
 Article V of British treaty of 1909. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 102, p. 127. 
 
 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 97, p. 961. 
 
26 
 
 the Siamese Government. It was international only in the sense that its 
 jurisdiction was confined to cases in which foreigners were parties and by 
 virtue of treaty provisions foreign consuls had the right to be present at its 
 sessions and to evoke certain of its cases. As a matter of fact, however, 
 under the French treaty of 1904, as under the British treaty of 1883, in prac¬ 
 tice the right of evocation was exercised only in rare instances. Very 
 similar provisions, also applicable to the northern provinces alone, were 
 adopted shortly afterwards in the Danish treaty of 1905,^^ and in the Itahan 
 treaty of the same year.^^ 
 
 Except for these special arrangements covering certain of the northern 
 provinces, however, nationals of the treaty Powers still continued altogether 
 exempt from Siamese jurisdiction. In 1898 Siam had entered into a treaty 
 with Japan which granted rights of extraterritoriality to Japanese subjects 
 in Siam, but recognized that the system of extraterritoriality should be a 
 temporary expedient and made it terminable with the completion of “the 
 judicial reforms of Siam,’^ z.e., the coming into force of the Siamese codes of 
 law. In 1899 Siam had signed a declaration with Russia,^® granting each to 
 the other most-favored-nation treatment with respect to jurisdiction, com¬ 
 merce and navigation, terminable, however, by either party at any time upon 
 six months notice. Apart from the special northern arrangements, therefore, 
 Siamese courts were powerless to enforce obedience to Siamese law upon the 
 thousands of British, French, American, Danish, Portuguese, Dutch, 
 German, Swedish, Norwegian, Belgian, Italian, Austrian, Spanish, Japanese 
 and Russian subjects and proteges resident in Siam; and, except in the case 
 of the handful of Japanese and Russians there resident, there seemed no 
 possible way to remedy a situation which was growing every year more 
 difficult. 
 
 A new phase in Siam’s battle to regain jurisdictional autonomy was marked 
 by the treaty of 1907 with France and that of 1909 with Great Britain. 
 Thousands of French Asiatic subjects and proteges live in Siam; and inas¬ 
 much as large parts of French Indo-China were carved at various times out 
 of Siam, and the inhabitants of these territories are therefore in fact closely 
 assimilated to the Siamese, there seemed inherently no reason why they 
 should be treated in Siam differently from the Siamese. Yet under the 
 French treaty of 1856, as interpreted in practice and as reaffirmed in the 
 treaty of 1904, apart from the northern provinces, all these Asiatics as 
 French subjects and proteges were entitled to exemption from Siamese 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 The right of land ownership in Siam also came into question. Under the 
 early treaties foreign traders were given the right to acquire and own land 
 
 Article VI (b). British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 101, p. 289. 
 
 Article III, subsect. 3. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 101, p. 409. 
 
 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 90, pp. 66, 70. 
 
 »• Ibid., Vol. 92, p. 109. 
 
27 
 
 and establish a permanent residence in Siam only in or near Bangkok; 
 beyond a distance of 24 hours’ journey from Bangkok foreign subjects were 
 allowed neither to go without a passport nor to acquire land.^^ The pro¬ 
 visions of these early treaties still remained in force; consequently, when 
 portions of Siam were annexed to French Indo-China, the inhabitants, as 
 well as other Laos, Cambodians and Annamites, resident in Indo-China, 
 by virtue of their becoming French subjects or proteges lost the right to 
 acquire land in the interior of Siam. 
 
 Because of the manifest absurdity of continuing to apply the provisions of 
 the old treaties, framed for European traders, to Asiatic subjects and pro¬ 
 teges, a special arrangement was worked out in a new French treaty signed 
 on March 23, 1907,^® dealing with the status of French Asiatic subjects in 
 Siam. Under this treaty French Asiatic subjects and proteges were in gen¬ 
 eral assimilated to Siamese. They were henceforth not to enjoy rights of 
 extraterritoriality, but to be subject to Siamese courts and liable for the 
 ordinary Siamese taxes. On the other hand, the treaty expressly provided 
 that they should be entitled henceforth in every part of Siam to all the rights 
 and privileges enjoyed by Siamese subjects, particularly the right to acquire 
 land and the right to go or settle anywhere in the kingdom. With regard to 
 the jurisdiction of Siamese courts, a distinction was drawn between those 
 Asiatics registered prior to the date of the treaty, henceforth known as 
 preregistered subjects,” and those registered after 1907, known thenceforth 
 as ‘'postregistered subjects.” The jurisdiction of the so-called interna¬ 
 tional courts” of the 1904 convention was extended so as to cover all pre¬ 
 registered French Asiatic subjects and prot4g6s throughout the whole of 
 Siam, with the right of a French consul to be present at the trial and the right 
 to evoke the case and try it himself should he see fit to do so; whereas all 
 French Asiatic subjects and prot4g4s registered after 1907 would henceforth 
 be subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary Siamese courts, without any 
 rights of evocation. The regime of ^international courts” was to end upon 
 the promulgation and putting into force of all the Siamese codes of law.^° 
 As to French European citizens and subjects, however, the treaty of 1907 
 made no change. All French non-Asiatic citizens, subjects and prot^g4s 
 were to continue to enjoy rights of extraterritoriality as under the treaty of 
 1856; and the fiscal provisions of that treaty, including the three per cent, 
 tariff restriction, were continued in full force and without limit of time.^^ 
 The Jurisdiction Protocol attached to the treaty contained two further 
 provisions concerning the functioning of the international courts. One of 
 
 See, for instance, British treaty of 1855, Art. IV. 
 
 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 100, p. 1028. 
 
 Article VI. 
 
 l.e., the Penal Code, the Civil and Commercial Codes, the Codes of Procedure, and the 
 Law for Organization of Courts. 
 
 « Art. VII. 
 
28 
 
 them provided that judgments of appeal from international courts of first 
 instance must bear the signature of two European judges,thus introducing 
 into the treaty the requirement of European advisers sitting as judges in 
 Siamese courts. The other provision concerned the right of evocation 
 allowable to preregistered Asiatic subjects. It provided that the right 
 should terminate as to all matters coming within the scope of Siamese codes 
 or laws duly promulgated and put into force.Under the French treaty of 
 1907, therefore, Siam regained judicial autonomy over French Asiatic sub¬ 
 jects and proteges, but only for a heavy price. Siam had to grant to them 
 every right and privilege enjoyed by Siamese subjects as such; she had to 
 submit to the requirement of European legal advisers sitting in a Court of 
 Appeals, at least for a limited period; and in addition the treaty was sealed 
 by Siam’s cession to France of further Siamese territory, i.e., the territory 
 of Battambang, Siem Reap and Sisophon. In spite of this heavy price, 
 all French European subjects and proteges continued exempt from Siamese 
 jurisdiction; and every one of the burdensome fiscal restrictions of the treaty 
 of 1856 was continued in full force. 
 
 The French treaty of 1907 was followed by the British treaty of March 10, 
 1909.Twenty-six years of actual experience with the Siamese administra¬ 
 tion of justice in the international court in the north under the treaty of 1883 
 had convinced the British that, under proper safeguards and guarantees, 
 British interests could safely be entrusted to Siamese courts. The British 
 treaty of 1909 therefore was built upon the principle of renouncing for a 
 price the general rights of extraterritoriality for British subjects, but re¬ 
 taining such safeguards and guarantees as adequately to protect British 
 interests. The treaty accordingly provided that the system of interna¬ 
 tional courts, together with the right of evocation, inaugurated for the north 
 in the treaty of 1883, should be extended so as to cover all British subjects in 
 Siam registered at the British consulate before March 10, 1909, the date of 
 the treaty. All British subjects registered after 1909 were henceforth to be 
 subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary Siamese courts. As in the case 
 of the French treaty of 1907, the right of evocation from international courts 
 was to cease in all matters coming within the scope of codes or laws regularly 
 promulgated and communicated to the British Legation at Bangkok, and the 
 system of international courts was to come to an end upon the promulgation 
 and coming into force of all the Siamese codes of law. Judgments on appeal 
 from either the international courts or the ordinary Siamese courts must 
 bear the signature of two European judges. 
 
 The most noteworthy feature introduced into the British treaty of 1909, 
 however, related to the use of foreign judicial advisers. Section 4 of the 
 Jurisdiction Protocol annexed to the 1909 treaty provided that “in all cases 
 
 ^2 Clause V. Clause IV. 
 
 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 102, p. 12G. 
 
 Article V; Annex II, sec. 3. 
 
29 
 
 whether in the international courts or in the ordinary Siamese Courts in 
 which a British subject is defendant or accused, a European legal adviser 
 shall sit in the Court of First Instance. In cases in which a British born or 
 naturalized subject not of Asiatic descent may be a party, a European ad¬ 
 viser shall sit as a judge in the Court of First Instance, and where such 
 British subject is defendant or accused the opinion of the adviser shall pre¬ 
 vail.’’ In other words under the 1909 treaty no binding judgment could 
 thenceforth be rendered against a European British subject except by a 
 European judge or adviser. As a matter of fact the European adviser was 
 in every sense a Siamese official; the Siamese Government freely chose him, 
 paid him and controlled him. In practice the European advisers have been 
 chiefly British and French, and they have generally acted quite independ¬ 
 ently of the desires and wishes of the British and French Legations. Never¬ 
 theless, the very fact that the treaty in absolute terms required their pres¬ 
 ence in Siamese courts caused a natural irritation; and to many it seemed that 
 since Siamese judges could not of themselves render a binding judgment 
 against European British subjects, Siam by the treaty of 1909 had gained 
 the shadow rather than the substance of actual judicial autonomy. More¬ 
 over, no time-limit had been set to the provisions requiring the presence of 
 European judicial advisers; the requirement was as irrevocable and unending 
 as the provisions of the treaty of 1855. Furthermore, all the burdensome 
 fiscal provisions of the old 1855 Treaty, including the three per cent, tariff, 
 were continued in full force.^® 
 
 As was the case with the French treaty of 1907, Siam had to pay a heavy 
 price for the treaty of 1909. Although in a sense Siam gained the abolition 
 of British rights of extraterritoriality, she had to agree (1) that henceforth 
 without end European legal advisers should sit in Siamese courts where 
 British subjects were defendants or British non-Asiatic subjects were parties; 
 and (2) that British subjects should henceforth enjoy throughout the whole 
 extent of Siam the rights and privileges enjoyed by the natives of the coun¬ 
 try, notably, the right of property, the right of residence and travel.In 
 addition a territorial compensation was exacted. Siam under the treaty 
 ceded to Great Britain the States of Kelantan, Tringgam, Kedah, Perles and 
 adjacent islands. Siam thus gave all that she had to give in return for a 
 treaty which saddled her courts forever with foreign advisers and which still 
 maintained unaltered the three per cent, tariff restriction. Without having 
 gained autonomy, Siam had nothing left with which to bargain. 
 
 During the ten years that followed, with the exception of a treaty with 
 Denmark^^ signed in 1913, following in general the terms of the British treaty 
 of 1909, Siam was unable to make further progress on the road to judicial or 
 fiscal autonomy. During all these years, however, Siam kept steadily im¬ 
 proving her administration of justice and in countless ways manifesting an 
 
 Article VII. Article VI. 
 
 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 107, p. 750. 
 
30 
 
 extraordinary progress. A Royal Code Commission, with the help of 
 French advisers, was slowly and patiently preparing Siamese codes of law 
 modeled on the best of the European codes. The Penal Code was completed 
 and promulgated in 1908; following this, laws were prepared and codified on 
 Civil Obligations, Things (Property), Partnership, Bankruptcy, Confiict of 
 Laws, Family Registration, etc., etc. This work has been done in a most 
 painstaking and scholarly manner; the Code Commission is still at work, 
 and the final promulgation of all the codes will probably not take place 
 for at least five years more. When it came to inducing the great Powers 
 of Europe to surrender their treaty privileges, however, Siam’s progress 
 seemed to count for little. All her efforts to shake off the old treaty restric¬ 
 tions proved unavaifing; and the goal of actual fiscal and jurisdictional 
 autonomy seemed as far away as ever. 
 
 During the World War, Siam joined the Allied Powers fighting against 
 Germany for the rights of small nations, and after interning the Germans 
 resident in Siam she sent an expeditionary force to France composed largely 
 of aeroplanists. At the end of the war Siam at Versailles appealed to her 
 Allies on the strength of their oft-repeated assertions that the war was 
 really fought to protect the rights of small nations and to remove interna¬ 
 tional injustices that make for war. Although Siam’s plea seemed lost on 
 many there present, the justice of the appeal impressed itself strongly on the 
 mind of President Wilson. He promised that America would be prepared 
 to give Siam a new treaty and would as a matter of justice renounce without 
 compensation her rights of extraterritoriahty. 
 
 The result of President Wilson’s action was the Siamese-American Treaty 
 of 1920,^^ a treaty of epoch-making importance for Siam. It began by 
 abolishing the right of extraterritoriality set up under the old treaty of 
 1856. All Americans were to be henceforth subject to the jurisdiction of 
 the ordinary Siamese courts. To insure against possible injustice, however, 
 the treaty provided that until five years after the promulgation of all the 
 Siamese codes of law, America was to have the right to evoke any case in 
 which an American was defendant, or accused, from any Siamese court, 
 except the Supreme Court, and proceed to try the case in its own consular 
 court. If the case were so evoked and tried in an American consular court, 
 however, Siamese law was to prevail as to all matters coming within the scope 
 of Siamese laws regularly promulgated. The treaty contained no mention 
 of foreign legal advisers. In the British treaty of 1909 Great Britain had 
 placed its rehance upon two different rights, each somewhat contradictory 
 in its nature to the other, the right of evocation and the right of imposing 
 European legal advisers upon Siamese courts. America refrained from 
 demanding the latter right, which could not but prove a constant cause of 
 irritation, and placed its reliance instead upon the right of evocation, en- 
 
 S. Treaty Series, No. 655; British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 113, p. 1168; Am. 
 Jour. Int. Law, Vol. 16, Supp. p, 25. 
 
31 
 
 larged in its scope but strictly limited in its duration so as to cease altogether 
 five years after the promulgation of the Siamese codes of law. Because of 
 Siam’s confidence in the competency of her own courts and because of the 
 time-limit set upon the right, Siam could willingly give to America such an 
 enlarged right of evocation; as a matter of fact no case has ever been evoked 
 under the American treaty. 
 
 So far as fiscal provisions were concerned, America recognized Siam’s 
 right to complete fiscal autonomy, and she agreed that the old fiscal restric¬ 
 tions should be removed and Siam should have the right to raise its tariff 
 beyond the three per cent, limit against American goods as soon as all other 
 treaty Powers having similar rights against Siam should come to a like 
 agreement without price or compensatory benefit. 
 
 Of almost equal importance were the abrogation and termination provi¬ 
 sions. The treaty of 1856 was abrogated in its entirety; and the new treaty 
 was made terminable after ten years by either party upon giving one year’s 
 notice. A further all-important clause expressly provided that its termina¬ 
 tion should not have the effect of reviving any of the former treaties abro¬ 
 gated by the new one. So far as America was concerned, therefore, Siam 
 was at last freed from the old extraterritorial restrictions. For this treaty 
 America demanded and received no compensation whatsoever. 
 
 Once the American treaty was signed, Siam turned again to the European 
 nations and asked them to follow America’s lead, but for one reason or 
 another results were not forthcoming. Great Britain replied that she had 
 gone further in the treaty of 1909 than any other European nation; and that 
 until other nations with substantial commercial interests had gone as far 
 as she had any discussion of further treaty revision would appear to be pre¬ 
 mature. France made favorable replies; but as the months passed into 
 years and nothing definite materialized hopes began to fade. Siam could 
 not afford to cede any additional territory; and until she could succeed in 
 separately persuading Great Britain, France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, 
 Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain and Portugal each to surrender its fiscal 
 rights voluntarily, and without compensatory benefit, Siam must remain 
 helplessly and permanently bound by the old three per cent, tariff restriction 
 in addition to the existing rights of extraterritoriality. The problem of how 
 to induce ten European nations, some of whom had very substantial com¬ 
 mercial interests in Siam, to give away their rights for nothing seemed 
 insoluble; in spite of the American treaty, Siam seemed from a practical 
 viewpoint no nearer her goal than before. 
 
 In 1923 a new treaty was negotiated with Japan closely following the 
 American treaty of 1920. Under the Japanese treaty of 1898 Japan enjoyed 
 the three per cent. Siamese tariff restriction only by virtue of a most-favored- 
 nation clause,®® whereas she enjoyed rights of extraterritoriality for a limited 
 period by virtue of express grant.The new treaty, signed on March 10, 
 
 “ Article VI. “ Procol, Article I. 
 
32 
 
 1924,^2 abrogated the existing rights of extraterritoriality, subject, however, 
 to the same rights of evocation as under the American treaty, and similarly 
 provided that all rights of evocation would cease five years after the pro¬ 
 mulgation of the Siamese codes of law. Reciprocal most-favored-nation 
 treatment with respect to import duties was continued as under the former 
 treaty; and the new treaty was made terminable after ten years by either 
 party. In substance Siam gained very little by this new treaty; for although 
 under its terms Japanese subjects came immediately under the jurisdiction 
 of Siamese courts, the right of evocation was made to extend until five years 
 after the promulgation of the Siamese codes, whereas under the treaty of 
 1898 extraterritoriality with ail its attendant rights was to cease absolutely 
 with the promulgation of the codes. The chief value of the new Japanese 
 treaty lay in its psychological effect upon the European nations. Siam 
 could henceforth point to two of the great Powers as leading the way, and 
 ask the remaining great Powers to follow in their lead. 
 
 Experience had shown, however, that Siam could not hope to induce the 
 various European Powers voluntarily to surrender their existing rights 
 through long-distance negotiations carried on in Bangkok. The force of 
 local prejudice and the unavoidable lack of understanding on the part of 
 European Foreign Offices of the true conditions in Siam made it evident that 
 the ordinary and routine methods of negotiation could end only in failure. 
 If success were possible it could come only through convincing the respon¬ 
 sible officials in the Foreign Offices of each of the treaty Powers that wise 
 statesmanship demanded the recognition of Siam’s remarkable progress and 
 stability and the consequent freeing of her from the shackles of extraterri¬ 
 toriality so that her further development might be unimpeded. Such 
 results could come only through direct, personal work in Europe. Accord¬ 
 ingly, His Majesty King Rama VI decided to send the Adviser in Foreign 
 Affairs as Siam’s representative on a roving commission to Europe to visit, 
 one after another, the European Foreign Offices, seeking to persuade them 
 to renounce their existing rights and, if he succeeded in this, to negotiate in 
 conjunction with the Siamese Ministers in Europe new treaties. 
 
 In the meantime conversations with the French Foreign Office which had 
 dragged along for over three years came to a head. From the outset excep¬ 
 tional difficulties had been encountered owing to the fact that a new French 
 treaty necessarily involved many questions between Siam and her Eastern 
 neighbor, French Indo-China, and because of the political situation in Paris, 
 France was anxious to avoid giving offense to Indo-Chinese opinion by the 
 relinquishment of Indo-Chinese rights against Siam. It was finally agreed 
 that, except as to jurisdictional and fiscal rights, all questions peculiarly 
 affecting Indo-China should be settled by a separate Indo-Chinese conven¬ 
 tion between Siam and France, negotiated after the main French treaty 
 directly between Bangkok and Hanoi. The negotiations for the French 
 
 League of Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 31, p. 187, Reg. No. 795. 
 
33 
 
 treaty were then placed in the hands of the French Minister to Bangkok, 
 who came from Paris to Bangkok late in 1923; and during 1924 a definite 
 treaty text was worked out covering all jurisdictional and fiscal questions and 
 matters of general French concern. As the treaty took definite form, how¬ 
 ever, innumerable complications arose, and protracted delays followed. 
 
 In the fall of 1924 Siam’s Adviser in Foreign Affairs left Bangkok on his 
 European mission. Upon his arrival in Paris, French negotiations were 
 taken up afresh, new obstacles which had arisen were overcome, and in 
 spite of difficulties which at one time threatened disaster, the treaty was 
 finally signed on February 14, 1925. This treaty was in general based upon 
 the lines of the American treaty of 1920, but modifications were introduced 
 so as to leave undisturbed the existing position of Indo-Chinese in Siam. 
 Under its terms the position of French Asiatic subjects and proteges remain 
 as fixed by the treaty of 1907, ix., all those registered at French consulates 
 prior to 1907, are to be tried in the so-called international courts, and all 
 those registered subsequent to 1907 in the ordinary Siamese courts with no 
 right of evocation. The system of international courts, with the attendant 
 right of evocation, is to terminate, however, with the promulgation of all 
 the Siamese codes of law. French citizens, who would naturally complain 
 of treatment inferior to French Asiatic subjects and proteges, are also to 
 be tried in the international courts, but with the right of evocation, as in 
 the American treaty, until five years after the promulgation of all the Siamese 
 codes. Subject to these restrictions, all French extraterritorial rights in 
 Siam are abolished by the new treaty; and as the ^^International Court” is 
 in reality a Siamese court with restrictions, and as all these restrictions have 
 definite and fixed time limits, the treaty means in substance the grant of 
 actual judicial autonomy to Siam. 
 
 The fiscal provisions of the earlier treaties are also abrogated. In Article 
 XV, closely following the corresponding article in the American treaty, France 
 recognizes Siam’s right to complete fiscal autonomy, and agrees that Siam 
 may raise its tariff on French goods beyond three per cent, as soon as all other 
 treaty Powers having similar rights against Siam come to a like agreement 
 voluntarily and without compensatory benefit. Until the conclusion of a 
 new Franco-Siamese customs convention, each is to enjoy le traitement le plus 
 favorable with respect to its goods imported into the other country. Ques¬ 
 tions directly involving the relationship between Siam and its neighbor, 
 French Indo-China, are reserved for a separate Indo-Chinese convention. 
 With the exception of provisions particularly relating to Indo-China, the 
 treaty of 1856 and all subsequent treaties and conventions are abrogated. 
 As in the American treaty, either party may after ten years denounce the new 
 treaty on giving one year’s notice, but it is expressly provided that such a 
 denunciation will not have the effect of reviving any of the former treaties or 
 conventions abrogated by the 1925 treaty. The new treaty, in a word, has 
 freed Siam from the burden of French extraterritorial rights, and so far as 
 
34 
 
 France is concerned, has restored to Siam her full fiscal autonomy, subject to 
 a like grant by all other treaty Powers. 
 
 Interesting arbitration provisions were also inserted. A small nation is 
 always at a disadvantage if international disputes are to be settled by war, 
 especially if its territory adjoins a powerful neighbor. A sweeping arbitra¬ 
 tion clause was therefore inserted providing for the compulsory arbitration 
 of all questions whatsoever, not excluding questions of vital interest or 
 national honor. Both parties agree ^4n conformity to the principles an¬ 
 nounced in the Covenant of the League of Nations that in case controversial 
 questions should arise between them in the future which cannot be settled 
 by mutual agreement or by the method of diplomacy, they will submit 
 the controversy to one or more arbitrators chosen by them, or in default 
 of arbitration to the Permanent Court of International Justice. This 
 Court will obtain jurisdiction by means of a common agreement between the 
 two parties, or if agreement cannot be reached, by the simple request of 
 either of them.^’ 
 
 Immediately after the signature of the French treaty, negotiations were 
 begun at The Hague for the conclusion of a new treaty with The Netherlands. 
 This was a matter of particularly large importance to Siam because of the 
 great number of Javanese settled in Siam, all claiming extraterritorial rights 
 by virtue of their Dutch allegiance. The negotiations thus inaugurated were 
 successfully completed on June 8,1925, when a new treaty was signed at The 
 Hague following almost word for word the American treaty of 1920. It 
 abolished Dutch rights of extraterritoriality, acknowledged Siam^s full right 
 to fiscal autonomy, abrogated all prior treaties between the two countries, 
 and was made terminable after ten years by either party upon giving one 
 year’s notice. 
 
 In the meantime Siam’s representative had opened up negotiations in 
 London for a new British treaty. In many respects this was the most im¬ 
 portant of all; for British trade is predominant in Siam and British interests 
 there are far more substantial than those of any other country. Over eighty 
 per cent, of Siam’s export trade and some sixty-seven per cent, of her 
 import trade is British. Also, Siam is bordered by British Burma on the 
 west and the British Federated Malay States on the south, and Siam is 
 consequently filled with British subjects. The difficulties of securing a new 
 British treaty were, however, proportionate to its importance. The sub¬ 
 stantial amount of British imports into Siam made British merchants loath 
 to surrender their privilege of the three per cent, tariff restriction; and the 
 large value of British interests in Siam militated against Great Britain’s 
 being willing to surrender voluntarily her right of having European legal 
 advisers sit in Siamese courts. The diflaculty was increased by the fact that 
 under the 1909 treaty British subjects had already been granted all the rights 
 and privileges enjoyed by native Siamese. Siam had nothing more to give. 
 
 “ Article II. 
 
35 
 
 At the opening interview which Siam’s representative had with Mr. 
 Austen Chamberlain late in February, Mr. Chamberlain frankly discussed 
 the difficulties of Great Britain’s then granting to Siam full jurisdictional 
 and fiscal autonomy, and confessed that the time seemed premature for such 
 a step. Nevertheless, he Hstened attentively to the proposals of the Siamese 
 representative, so framed as to uphold Siamese sovereignty and yet afford 
 adequate protection to British interests; and when the true situation in 
 Siam was brought home to him, he promised a reconsideration of the British 
 poHcy toward Siam and the granting of a new treaty, provided the experts 
 and leading representatives of the Foreign Office, the Indian Office, the 
 Colonial Office, and the Board of Trade could be similarly convinced. As a 
 result of the meetings which followed this interview, a new program of 
 policy was formulated and a treaty finally agreed to, granting to Siam both 
 jurisdictional and fiscal autonomy in the same broad terms as in the American 
 treaty. Since Siam was essentially an agricultural country and would, 
 therefore, never desire a tariff for protection against industrial products, 
 British policy would content itself with Siam’s agreeing to a provision hmit- 
 ing for a fixed period the Siamese import tariff to moderate, specified duties 
 on those articles which constituted the bulk of British exports to Siam in 
 return for Great Britain’s granting to Siam the fiscal autonomy to which 
 every sovereign nation should be entitled. Similarly, Great Britain would 
 henceforth content itself with relying upon an enlarged right of evocation, 
 terminating with the completion of the Siamese judicial reforms, in place of 
 the requirement of European judicial advisers, which at best were Siamese 
 officials and not under foreign control. In a word. Great Britain, seeing the 
 picture more clearly, would henceforth discard certain fears, more theoretical 
 than real, and choose to rest the future of British trade in Siam upon a large 
 policy of cultivating Siamese good-will rather than upon ironclad treaty 
 restrictions, bound to irritate while they lasted and eventually to be swept 
 away by the inevitable march of progress. 
 
 In their main outlines the new British general and commercial treaties 
 were modeled upon the American treaty. Except as to boundary provisions 
 all former treaties were abrogated; the requirement of legal advisers was 
 dropped; all British subjects were to be under the jurisdiction of the ordinary 
 Siamese courts, with the right of evocation until five years after the promul¬ 
 gation of the Siamese codes of law; the grant of fiscal autonomy was made in 
 the same words as in the American treaty; and the new treaties were made 
 terminable by either party after ten years upon one year’s notice. These 
 treaties, containing Great Britain’s renunciation of her former rights, were 
 given without compensation or price. This statesmanlike move on the part 
 of Great Britain the Siamese have not failed to appreciate. The British 
 general and commercial treaties were signed on July 14, 1925; and a British 
 treaty of general arbitration on November 25, 1925. 
 
 In the meantime negotiations were being pushed in other countries. 
 
36 
 
 In late April, after various conferences at Lisbon, the Portuguese Ministry 
 of Foreign Affairs had given its consent to the renunciation of Portuguese 
 extraterritorial rights and had provisionally agreed with Siam’s representa¬ 
 tive upon a treaty draft also closely following the text of the American 
 treaty. In May, Madrid did the same; and in late June, as a result of 
 conferences held at Copenhagen with the Danish Ministry of Foreign 
 Affairs, Denmark also agreed to a new treaty draft, following, except for 
 slight variations due to local conditions, the American treaty. Visits to 
 Stockholm and to Oslo in July produced similar happy results with respect 
 to Sweden and Norway. The new Spanish treaty was signed on August 
 8, 1925, and the new Portuguese treaty after a somev/hat troubled time on 
 August 14th. By this time the Scandinavian treaties were practically 
 completed. Apart from them only the Italian and the Belgian treaties 
 remained. Belgium had already agreed to a new treaty based on the 
 American model, and the treaty text was being worked out in Bangkok. 
 Siam’s representative therefore proceeded direct from Madrid to Rome to 
 take up negotiations for a new Italian treaty. Italian interests in Siam are 
 comparatively small, and Italy felt satisfied with the existing arrangements 
 under the old treaties. Nevertheless, after Premier Mussolini’s help had 
 been enlisted, obstacles were overcome, and by the end of August, 1925, 
 a nevf Italian treaty was finally agreed upon, also closely based on the text 
 of the American treaty. The Danish treaty was formally signed on Septem¬ 
 ber 1, 1925, the Swedish on December 19, 1925, the Italian on May 9, 1926, 
 the Belgian on July 13, 1926, and the Norv/egian on July 16, 1926. With 
 the ratification®^ of these treaties Siam has at last won her long struggle for 
 judicial and fiscal autonomy. 
 
 The dates of the signatiires and ratifications of the Treaties restoring autonomy to Siam 
 are as follows; United States treaty, signed December 16, 1920, ratifications exchanged, 
 September 1,1921; Japanese treaty, signed March 10,1924, ratifications exchanged, December 
 22,1924; French treaty, signed February 14,1925, ratifications exchanged, January 12,1926; 
 Netherlands treaty, signed Jime 8, 1925, ratifications exchanged, August 24, 1926; British 
 general treaty and treaty of commerce and navigation, signed July 14, 1925, ratifications 
 exchanged March 30, 1926; Spanish treaty, signed August 3, 1925, ratifications exchanged, 
 July 28, 1926; Portuguese treaty, signed August 14, 1925, ratifications exchanged July 31, 
 1926; Danish treaty, signed September 1, 1925, ratifications exchanged, March 13, 1926; 
 Swedish treaty, signed December 19, 1925, ratifications exchanged, October 25, 1926; 
 Itahan treaty, signed May 9, 1926, ratifications exchanged March 18, 1927; Belgian treaty, 
 signed July 13, 1926, ratifications exchanged, March 25, 1927; Norwegian treaty, signed 
 July 16, 1926, ratifications exchanged, February 9, 1927. 
 
 The registration numbers and the citations in the League of Nations Treaty Series are as 
 follows: Japanese treaty, Reg. No. 795, Treaty Series, Vol. 31, p. 187; French treaty, Reg. 
 No. 1055, Treaty Series, Vol. 43, p. 193; Netherlands treaty, Reg. No. 1323, Treaty Series, 
 Vol. 56, p. 57; British general treat 3 ^, Reg. No. 1175, Treaty Series, Vol. 49, p. 29; British 
 treaty of commerce and navigation, Reg. No. 1176, Treaty Series, Vol. 49, p. 51; British 
 treaty of arbitration, Reg. No. 1487; Spanish treaty, Reg. No. 1303, Treaty Series, Vol. 55, 
 p. 39; Portuguese treaty, Reg. No. 1304, Treaty Series, Vol. 55, p. 57; Danish treaty, Reg. 
 No. 1131, Treaty Series, Vol. 47, p. 103; Swedish treaty, Reg. No. 1386; Itahan treaty, Reg. 
 
37 
 
 Under the provisions of the new treaties, Siam is now free of all the old 
 fiscal restrictions, and has already put into force a new tariff increasing by 
 very slight amounts the tariff on a few widely used commodities, so as to 
 derive sufficient revenue to meet the current needs of the state. Extra¬ 
 territoriality in Siam is now a thing of the past; and such jurisdictional re¬ 
 strictions as still remain, such as the right of evocation, will cease altogether 
 five years after the promulgation of the Siamese codes. The old, one-sided, 
 irrevocable treaties are gone; and in their place stand modern treaties, freely 
 terminable after ten years by either party. For modern Siam a new era 
 opens. 
 
 Progress, irresistible, cannot be stayed by the chains and shackles of 
 unyielding treaty restrictions. If wise statesmanship fails to loosen or 
 remove them, no matter what their strength, they will be forcefully shattered. 
 The outstanding feature in the story of Siam’s struggle for autonomy is the 
 open-mindedness and liberality of the Foreign Offices of Europe during the 
 period following the World War, once the issues were made really clear to 
 them. What was inevitable sooner or later has come, not through blood and 
 fighting, but through the method of large-visioned statesmanship and peace. 
 As a result, instead of the folly and waste of war, gain will come to all. 
 
 No. 1436; treaty with Belgium and Luxemburg, Reg. No. 1468; Norwegian treaty, Reg. 
 No. 1404. 
 
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND SIAM FOR THE REVISION 
 OF THEIR MUTUAL TREATY ARRANGEMENTS AND PROTOCOL 
 CONCERNING JURISDICTION APPLICABLE IN SIAM 
 TO BRITISH SUBJECTS, ETC.^ 
 
 Signed at London, July I 4 , 1925; ratifications exchanged, March 30, 1926. 
 
 His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
 Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, 
 and His Majesty the King of Siam, being desirous of maintaining and 
 strengthening the relations of friendship which happily exist between them, 
 have resolved to proceed to a revision of their mutual treaty arrangements, 
 and have for that purpose named as their plenipotentiaries, that is to say: 
 
 His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 
 and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India: The Right 
 Honourable Joseph Austen Chamberlain, a Member of Parliament, His 
 Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and 
 
 His Majesty the King of Siam: Phya Prabha Karawongse, His Envoy 
 Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Britannic 
 Majesty; 
 
 Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full 
 powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles: 
 
 Article 1 
 
 His Britannic Majesty recognises that the principle of national autonomy 
 shall apply to the Kingdom of Siam in all that pertains to the imposition of 
 customs duties on the importation and exportation of merchandise, to draw¬ 
 backs and to transit and all other taxes and impositions; and, subject to the 
 condition of equality of treatment with other nations in these respects, His 
 Britannic Majesty agrees to assent to the imposition in Siam of customs 
 duties higher than those established by existing treaties; on the further 
 condition, however, that all other nations entitled to claim the benefit of 
 special rates of customs duties in Siam assent to such higher duties freely and 
 without the requirement of any compensatory benefit or privilege. 
 
 Article 2 
 
 The subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have free access 
 to the courts of justice of the other in pursuit and defence of their rights; 
 they shall be at liberty, equally with native subjects and with the subjects or 
 citizens of the most favoured nation, to choose and employ lawyers, advo¬ 
 cates and representatives to pursue and defend their rights before such 
 courts. There shall be no conditions or requirements imposed upon British 
 subjects in connection with such access to the courts of justice in Siam, which 
 
 * British Treaty Series No. 7 (1926). Cmd. 2642. 
 
 38 
 
39 
 
 do not apply to native subjects or to the subjects or citizens of the most 
 favoured nation. 
 
 Aeticle 3 
 
 The subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall be entitled in the 
 territories of the other, provided that they comply with the laws and regula¬ 
 tions in force, to engage in religious and charitable work, to open and conduct 
 educational establishments, and to do anything incidental to or necessary for 
 those purposes, upon the same terms as native subjects. 
 
 The subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall enjoy in the 
 territories of the other entire liberty of conscience, and, subject to the laws 
 and regulations in force, shall enjoy the right of private and public exercise 
 of their religion. 
 
 Aeticle 4 
 
 The vessels of war of each of the high contracting parties may enter, 
 remain and make repairs in those ports and places of the other to which the 
 vessels of war of other nations are accorded access; they shall there submit 
 to the same regulations and enjoy the same honours, advantages, privileges 
 and exemptions as are now or may hereafter be conceded to the vessels of 
 war of any other nation. 
 
 Aeticle 5 
 
 From the date of the exchange of ratifications of the present treaty and of 
 the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United Kingdom and 
 Siam, concluded at London on the 14th July, 1925,^ the following treaties, 
 conventions and agreements between the two high contracting parties shall 
 cease to be binding: 
 
 The treaty signed on the 20th June, 1826, together with the additional 
 articles thereto ratified on the 17th January, 1827. 
 
 The Treaty of Friendship and Commerce signed at Bangkok on the 18th 
 April, 1855, together with the agreement supplementary thereto, signed 
 at Bangkok on the 13th May, 1856. 
 
 The Agreement for Regulating the Traffic in Spirituous Liquors, signed at 
 London on the 6th April, 1883. 
 
 The Treaty for the Prevention of Crime and the Promotion of Commerce, 
 signed at Bangkok on the 3rd September, 1883, together with the 
 exchange of notes in 1896 extending the operation of that treaty in Siam. 
 
 The treaty concerning certain boundaries and the jurisdiction of Siamese 
 courts, signed at Bangkok on the 10th March, 1909, together with 
 annexes thereto. 
 
 Provided, however, that Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4, and Annexes I and III of 
 the treaty signed at Bangkok on the 10th March, 1909, together with all 
 provisions of any treaty in force at the time of the signature of the 
 
 2 Printed infra, p. 43. 
 
40 
 
 present treaty, which fix or delimit the boundary between Siam and 
 British possessions or protectorates, shall remain in force. 
 
 Article 6 
 
 The provisions of the agreement on the registration of British subjects in 
 Siam, signed at Bangkok on the 29th November, 1899, as extended in ac¬ 
 cordance with the note dated the 3rd October, 1910, from His Royal High¬ 
 ness the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Siam to His Britannic Majesty’s 
 Minister at Bangkok, remain in force and shall be applicable for the purposes 
 of the present treaty and of the commercial treaty signed this day, except in 
 so far as Articles 4 and 5 of the said agreement are inconsistent with the 
 terms of the treaties signed this day or of the jurisdiction protocol attached 
 to the present treaty. 
 
 The provisions of the said agreement relating to persons of Asiatic descent 
 born within Flis Majesty’s dominions and to their children born in Siam shall 
 respectively extend to persons to whom the said agreement does not apply 
 and who enjoy the protection of His Britannic Majesty by virtue of being 
 citizens of or born in British protectorates, British-protected States, or 
 territories in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations 
 has been accepted by His Britannic Majesty, and to the children of such 
 persons. 
 
 Article 7 
 
 The provisions of the present treaty which apply to subjects of the high 
 contracting parties shall also be applicable to limited liability and other 
 companies, partnerships and associations duly constituted in accordance 
 wdth the laws of such high contracting parties. 
 
 Article 8 
 
 The provisions of the present treaty which apply to British subjects shall 
 also be deemed to apply to all persons who both enjoy the protection of His 
 Britannic Majesty and are entitled to registration in Siam in accordance with 
 Article 6 of the present treaty. 
 
 Article 9 
 
 The stipulations of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the present treaty shall not be 
 applicable to India or to any of His Britannic Majesty’s self-governing 
 dominions, colonies, possessions or protectorates, unless notice is given by 
 His Britannic Majesty’s representative at Bangkok, of the desire of His 
 Britannic Majesty that the said stipulations shall apply to any such territory. 
 
 Article 10 
 
 The terms of the preceding article relating to India and to His Britannic 
 Majesty’s self-governing dominions, colonies, possessions and protectorates 
 shall apply also to any territory in respect of which a mandate on behalf of 
 the League of Nations has been accepted by His Britannic Majesty. 
 
41 
 
 Article 11 
 
 The present treaty shall come into effect on the date of the exchange of 
 ratifications, and shall remain in force for ten years from that date. 
 
 In case neither of the high contracting parties shall have given notice to 
 the other twelve months before the expiration of the said period of ten years 
 of its intention to terminate the present treaty, it shall remain in force until 
 the expiration of one year from the date on which either of the high con¬ 
 tracting parties shall have denounced it. 
 
 It is clearly understood, however, that such denunciation shall not have 
 the effect of reviving any of the treaties, conventions, arrangements or agree¬ 
 ments abrogated by former treaties or agreements or by Article 5 hereof. 
 
 As regards India or any of His Britannic Majesty’s self-governing domin¬ 
 ions, colonies, possessions or protectorates, or any territory in respect of 
 which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by 
 His Britannic Majesty, to which the stipulations of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the 
 present treaty shall have been made applicable under Articles 9 or 10, either 
 of the high contracting parties shall have the right to terminate it separately 
 on giving twelve months’ notice to that effect. Such notice, however, can¬ 
 not be given so as to take effect before the termination of the period of ten 
 years mentioned in the first paragraph of this article except in the case of His 
 Britannic Majesty’s self-governing dominions (including territories admin¬ 
 istered by them under mandate) and the colony of Southern Rhodesia, in 
 respect of which notice of termination may be given by either high con¬ 
 tracting party at any time. 
 
 Article 12 
 
 This treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged 
 at London as soon as possible. 
 
 In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the present 
 treaty, and have thereunto affixed their seals. 
 
 Done in duplicate in the English language, at London, the 14th day of 
 July, in the nineteen hundred and twenty-fifth year of the Christian era, 
 corresponding to the 14th day of the 4th month in the 2468th year of the 
 Buddhist era. 
 
 (l.s.) Austen Chamberlain, 
 (l.s.) Prabha Karavongs. 
 
 Annex 
 
 PROTOCOL CONCERNING JURISDICTION APPLICABLE IN THE KINGDOM OF SIAM 
 TO BRITISH SUBJECTS AND OTHERS ENTITLED TO BRITISH PROTECTION 
 
 At the moment of proceeding this day to the signature of the general 
 treaty between His Majesty the King of Siam and His Britannic Majesty, 
 the plenipotentiaries of the two high contracting parties have agreed as 
 follows: 
 
42 
 
 Article 1 
 
 The system of jurisdiction heretofore established in Siam for British 
 subjects and the privileges, exemptions and immunities now enjoyed by 
 British subjects in Siam as a part of, or appurtenant to the said system, shall 
 absolutely cease and determine on the date of the exchange of ratifications 
 of the above-mentioned treaty, and thereafter all British subjects, corpora¬ 
 tions, companies and associations, and all British-protected persons in Siam 
 shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Siamese courts. 
 
 Article 2 
 
 Until the promulgation and putting into force of all the Siamese codes, 
 namely, the Penal Code, the Civil and Commercial Code, the Codes of 
 Procedure and the Law for Organisation of Courts, and for a period of five 
 years thereafter, but no longer. His Britannic Majesty, through his diplo¬ 
 matic and consular officials in Siam, whenever in his discretion he deems it 
 proper so to do in the interest of justice, may, by means of a written requisi¬ 
 tion addressed to the judge or judges of the court in which such case is 
 pending, evoke any case pending in any Siamese court, except the Supreme 
 or Dika Court, in which a British subject, corporation, company or associa¬ 
 tion, or a British-protected person is defendant or accused. 
 
 Such case shall then be transferred to the said diplomatic or consular 
 official for adjudication, and the jurisdiction of the Siamese courts over 
 such case shall thereupon cease. Any case so evoked shall be disposed of by 
 the said diplomatic or consular official in accordance with English law, 
 except that as to all matters coming within the scope of codes or laws of the 
 Kingdom of Siam regularly promulgated and in force, the texts of which have 
 been communicated to the British Legation in Bangkok, the rights and 
 liabilities of the parties shall be determined by Siamese law. 
 
 For the purpose of trying such cases and of executing any judgments 
 which may be rendered therein, the jurisdiction of the said diplomatic and 
 consular officials in Siam is continued. 
 
 Should His Britannic Majesty perceive, within a reasonable time after the 
 promulgation thereof, any objection to the said codes, namely, the Penal 
 Code, the Civil and Commercial Code, the Codes of Procedure and the Law 
 for Organisation of Courts, the Siamese Government will endeavour to take 
 such objections into account. 
 
 Article 3 
 
 Appeals from judgments of courts of first instance in cases to which British 
 subjects, corporations, companies or associations, or British-protected per¬ 
 sons may be parties shall be adjudged by the Court of Appeal at Bangkok. 
 
 An appeal on a question of law shall lie from the Court of Appeal at 
 Bangkok to the Supreme or Dika Court. 
 
 A British subject, corporation, company or association, or British-pro¬ 
 tected person, who is defendant or accused in any case arising in the prov- 
 
43 
 
 inces, may apply for a change of venue, and should the court consider such 
 change desirable the trial shall take place either at Bangkok or before the 
 judge in whose court the case would be tried at Bangkok. 
 
 The provisions of this article shall remain in force so long as the right of 
 evocation continues to exist in accordance with Article 2. 
 
 Article 4 
 
 In order to prevent difficulties which may arise from the transfer of juris¬ 
 diction contemplated by the present protocol, it is agreed as follows: 
 
 (a) All cases instituted subsequently to the date of the exchange of rati¬ 
 
 fications of the above-mentioned treaty shall be entered and decided 
 in the Siamese courts, whether the cause of action arose before or 
 after the date of said exchange of ratifications. 
 
 (b) All cases pending before the diplomatic and consular officials of His 
 
 Britannic Majesty in Siam on the said date shall take their usual 
 course before such officials until such cases have been finally disposed 
 of, and the jurisdiction of the said diplomatic and consular officials 
 shall remain in full force for this purpose. 
 
 In connection with any case coming before the said diplomatic or consular 
 officials under clause (h) of this article, or which may be evoked by the said 
 officials under Article 2, the Siamese authorities shall upon request by such 
 diplomatic or consular officials lend their assistance in all matters pertaining 
 to the case. 
 
 In witness whereof the undersigned plenipotentiaries have signed the 
 present protocol and affixed thereto their seals. 
 
 (l.s.) Austen Chamberlain, 
 (l.s.) Prabha Karavongs. 
 
 TREATY OF COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM 
 
 AND SIAM ^ 
 
 Signed at Londofi, July 14, 1925; ratifications exchanged at London, March 30, 
 
 1926 
 
 His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 
 and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His 
 Majesty the King of Siam, being desirous of facilitating and extending the 
 commercial relations already existing between their respective countries, 
 have determined to conclude a treaty of commerce and navigation with this 
 object, and have appointed as their plenipotentiaries, that is to say: 
 
 His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 
 and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India: The Right 
 Honourable Joseph Austen Chamberlain, a Member of Parliament, His 
 Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and 
 
 His Majesty the King of Siam: Phya Prabha Karawongse, His Envoy 
 
 1 British Treaty Series No. 8 (1926). Cir.d. 2643. 
 
44 
 
 Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Britannic 
 Majesty; 
 
 Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, 
 found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles: 
 
 Article 1 
 
 There shall be between the territories of the two contracting parties 
 reciprocal freedom of commerce and navigation. 
 
 The subjects of each of the two contracting parties, upon conforming 
 themselves to the laws and regulations applicable generally to native sub¬ 
 jects, shall have liberty freely and securely to come, with their ships and 
 cargoes, to all places and ports in the territories of the other to which subjects 
 of that contracting party are, or may be, permitted to come, and shall enjoy 
 the same rights, privileges, liberties, favours, immunities and exemptions in 
 matters of commerce and navigation as are, or may be, enjoyed by subjects 
 of that contracting party. 
 
 Article 2 
 
 The subjects of either of the two contracting parties shall be entitled to 
 enter, travel and reside in the territories of the other so long as they satisfy 
 and observe the conditions and regulations applicable to the entry, travelling 
 and residence of all foreigners. 
 
 Article 3 
 
 The dwellings, warehouses, factories and shops and all other property of 
 the subjects of each of the two contracting parties in the territories of the 
 other, and all premises appertaining thereto, used for purposes of residence 
 or commerce, shall be respected. Except under the conditions and with the 
 forms prescribed by the laws, ordinances and regulations for native subjects 
 or for the subjects or citizens of the most favoured foreign country, no 
 domiciliary visit shall be instituted and no search of any such buildings or 
 premises be carried out, nor shall books, papers or accounts be examined or 
 inspected. 
 
 Article 4 
 
 In so far as taxes, rates, customs duties, imposts, fees which are substan¬ 
 tially taxes and any other similar charges are concerned, the subjects of each 
 of the two contracting parties in the territories of the other shall enjoy, in 
 respect of their persons, their property, rights and interests, and in respect 
 of their commerce, industry, profession, occupation or any other matter, in 
 every way the same treatment as the subjects of that party or the subjects 
 or citizens of the most favoured foreign country. 
 
 Article 5 
 
 With respect to all forestry undertakings, and to searches for minerals 
 (including oil) and mining operations (including oil wells), in Siam, British 
 
45 
 
 subjects and companies, partnerships and associations established in His 
 Britannic Majesty’s territories shall be entitled to treatment not less favour¬ 
 able than that which is, or may hereafter be, accorded to Siamese subjects or 
 the subjects or citizens of any other foreign country. 
 
 Article 6 
 
 The two contracting parties agree that in all matters relating to commer¬ 
 cial or industrial pursuits or the exercise of professions or occupations, any 
 privilege, favour or immunity which either of the two contracting parties has 
 actually granted, or may hereafter grant, to the subjects or citizens of any 
 other foreign country shall be extended, simultaneously and unconditionally, 
 without request and without compensation, to the subjects of the other, it 
 being their intention that the pursuit of commerce and industry in the 
 territories of each of the two contracting parties shall be placed in all respects 
 on the footing of the most favoured nation. 
 
 Article 7 
 
 The subjects of each of the two contracting parties in the territories of the 
 other shall be at full liberty to acquire and possess every description of 
 property, movable and immovable, which the laws of the other contracting 
 party permit, or shall permit, the subjects or citizens of any other foreign 
 country to acquire and possess. They may dispose of the same by sale, 
 exchange, gift, marriage, testament or in any other manner, or acquire the 
 same by inheritance, under the same conditions as are, or shall be, established 
 with regard to subjects of the other contracting party, or the subjects or 
 citizens of the most favoured foreign country. 
 
 They shall not be subjected in any of the cases mentioned in the foregoing 
 paragraph to any taxes, imposts or charges of whatever denomination other 
 or higher than those which are, or shall be, applicable to native subjects, or 
 to the subjects or citizens of the most favoured foreign country. 
 
 They shall also be permitted to export their property and their goods in 
 general, and shall not be subjected in these matters to any other restrictions 
 or to any other or higher duties than those to which native subjects or the 
 subjects or citizens of any other foreign country would be liable in similar 
 circumstances. 
 
 In all these matters British subjects shall continue to enjoy in Siam the 
 same rights and, subject to the provisions of Articles 4 and 8 of the present 
 treaty, be subject to the same obligations as those which were provided for 
 by Article 6 of the Anglo-Siamese treaty signed at Bangkok on the 10th 
 March, 1909. 
 
 Article 8 
 
 In all that relates to compulsory military service and to the exercise of 
 compulsory judicial, administrative and municipal functions, the subjects of 
 one of the two contracting parties shall not be accorded in the territories 
 
46 
 
 of the other less favourable treatment than that which is, or may be, accorded 
 to subjects or citizens of the most favoured foreign country. 
 
 British subjects in Siamese territory shall be exempted from all compulsory 
 military service whatsoever, whether in the army, navy, air force, national 
 guard or militia. They shall similarly be exempted from all forms of com¬ 
 pulsory manual labour (except in cases of sudden and unexpected occurrences 
 involving great public danger, or where Siamese law gives the option of 
 performing such labour in lieu of the payment of taxes) and from the exercise 
 of all compulsory judicial, administrative and municipal functions whatever, 
 as well as from all contributions, whether in money or in kind, imposed as an 
 equivalent for such personal service, and finally from all forced loans, whether 
 in money or in kind, and from ail military exactions or contributions. 
 
 It is, however, understood that British subjects shall continue as hereto¬ 
 fore to be liable to capitation tax. 
 
 Article 9 
 
 Articles produced or manufactured in the territories of one of the two 
 contracting parties, imported into the territories of the other, from whatever 
 place arriving, shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges 
 than those paid on the like articles produced or manufactured in any other 
 foreign country. Nor shall any prohibition or restriction be maintained or 
 imposed on the importation of any article, produced or manufactured in the 
 territories of either of the two contracting parties, into the territories of the 
 other, from whatever place arriving, which shall not equally extend to 
 the importation of the like articles produced or manufactured in any other 
 foreign country. 
 
 The only exceptions to this general rule shall be in the case of the sanitary 
 or other prohibitions occasioned by the necessity of securing the safety of 
 persons, or the protection of animals or plants against diseases or pests, and 
 of the measures applicable in the territories of either of the two contracting 
 parties with respect to articles enjoying a direct or indirect bounty in the 
 territories of the other contracting party. 
 
 Article 10 
 
 4 
 
 The following articles manufactured in any of His Britannic Majesty’s 
 territories to which this treaty applies, viz., cotton yarns, threads, fabrics 
 and aU other manufactures of cotton, iron and steel and manufactures 
 thereof, and machinery and parts thereof, shall not, on importation into 
 Siam, be subjected to any customs duty in excess of 5 per cent, ad valorem 
 during the first ten years after this treaty has come into force. 
 
 It is understood that the articles to which this provision applies shall be 
 those included in the groups III (i). III (c) and III (g), in Volume I of the 
 Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom for 1923 compiled 
 in the Statistical Office of the British Customs and Excise Department. 
 
 It is further understood that in regard to particular classes of the above- 
 
47 
 
 mentioned articles customs duties may be imposed on a specific basis, pro¬ 
 vided that such specific duties do not in any case exceed in amount the 
 equivalent of 5 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Article 11 
 
 Drawback of the full amount of duty shall be allowed upon the exportation 
 from Siam of all goods previously imported into Siam from His Britannic 
 Majesty’s territories which, though landed, have not gone into consumption 
 in Siam, or been subjected there to any process. 
 
 Nevertheless, His Britannic Majesty will not claim the advantages of this 
 article in so far as exports of filled gunny bags are concerned, so long as the 
 duty leviable on the importation of gunny bags into Siam from the territories 
 of His Britannic Majesty shall not exceed 1 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Article 12 
 
 As soon as possible and in any case within six months of the coming into 
 force of this treaty a supplementary convention shall be concluded between 
 the two contracting parties which shall determine all matters incidental to 
 the application of the duties specified in Articles 10 and 11 of this treaty. 
 
 Article 13 
 
 Any prohibitions or restrictions, whether by the creation or maintenance 
 of a monopoly or otherwise, which are, or may hereafter be, imposed in Siam 
 on the importation, purchase and sale of arms and ammunition shall not be 
 so framed or administered as to prevent British subjects, firms and com¬ 
 panies from obtaining adequate supplies of industrial explosives for use in 
 their industries, it being understood that nothing in this article shall preclude 
 the Siamese Government from enforcing such reasonable regulations as 
 may be required in the interests of public safety. 
 
 Article 14 
 
 Each of the two contracting parties undertakes to inform the other of its 
 intention to establish any monopoly with a view to securing that the 
 monopoly shall interfere as little as possible with the trade between the 
 territories of the two contracting parties. 
 
 In the event of the establishment of any such monopoly, the question of 
 the payment of compensation, and the amount, if any, of such compensation 
 which shall be paid to the subjects or companies, partnerships or associations 
 of one of the two contracting parties established in the territories of the other, 
 shall be settled by mutual agreement between the two contracting parties or 
 by arbitration. 
 
 Nothing in this article shall require the payment of compensation in the 
 event of the establishment of a monopoly relating to opium or other drugs 
 included now or hereafter within the scope of the International Opium Agree¬ 
 ment and of the International Opium Convention signed at Geneva on the 
 11th February, 1925, and the 19th February, 1925, respectively. 
 
48 
 
 
 Article 15 
 
 Articles produced or manufactured in the territories of either of the two 
 contracting parties, exported to the territories of the other, shall not be 
 subjected to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on the like 
 articles exported to any other foreign country. Nor shall any prohibition or 
 restriction be imposed on the exportation of any article from the territories of 
 either of the two contracting parties to the territories of the other which 
 shall not equally extend to the exportation of the like articles to any other 
 foreign country. 
 
 Nothing in this article shall apply to any prohibition or restriction imposed 
 on the exportation of opium or other dangerous drugs included within the 
 scope of the International Opium Convention signed at Geneva on the 19th 
 February, 1925. 
 
 Article 16 
 
 Articles exported from Siam to His Britannic Majesty’s territories shall 
 not from the time of production to the date of shipment pay more than one 
 impost, whether this be levied as an inland or transit duty or paid on 
 exportation. 
 
 Where the Siamese Government has granted concessions which provide for 
 payments to the government in respect of the product to which the concession 
 relates on the understanding that an inland duty formerly levied should be 
 withdrawn the payments in question shall be held to include an impost for 
 the purpose of this article. 
 
 Article 17 
 
 Having regard to the provisions of Article 7 of the International Conven¬ 
 tion relating to the Simplification of Customs Formalities signed at Geneva 
 on the 3rd November, 1923, the two contracting parties agree to take the 
 most appropriate measures by their national legislation and administration 
 both to prevent the arbitrary or unjust application of their laws and regula¬ 
 tions with regard to customs and other similar matters, and to ensure redress 
 by administrative, judicial or arbitral procedure for those who have been 
 prejudiced by such abuses. 
 
 Article 18 
 
 Internal duties levied within the territories of either of the two contracting 
 parties for the benefit of the State or local authorities on goods, the produce 
 or manufacture of the territories of the other party, shall not be other or 
 greater than the duties levied in similar circumstances on the like goods of 
 national origin, provided that in no case shall such duties be more burden¬ 
 some than the duties levied in similar circumstances on the like goods of any 
 other foreign country. 
 
 Article 19 
 
 The two contracting parties agree, with respect to the treatment of com¬ 
 mercial travellers and sam.ples, to accord to each other all those facilities 
 
49 
 
 and privileges which are set out in the International Convention relating 
 to the Simplification of Customs Formalities signed at Geneva on the 3rd 
 November, 1923. 
 
 Any further facilities or privileges accorded by either party to any other 
 foreign country in respect of commercial travellers or samples shall be 
 extended unconditionally to the other party. 
 
 Article 20 
 
 Limited liability and other companies, partnerships and associations 
 formed for the purpose of commerce, insurance, finance, industry, transport 
 or any other business, and established in the territories of either party, shall, 
 provided that they have been duly constituted in accordance with the laws 
 in force in such territories, be entitled, in the territories of the other, to exer¬ 
 cise their rights and appear in the courts either as plaintiffs or defendants, 
 subject to the laws of such other party. 
 
 Each of the two contracting parties undertakes to place no obstacle in the 
 way of such companies, partnerships and associations which may desire to 
 carry on in its territories, whether through the establishment of branches or 
 otherwise, any description of business which the companies, partnerships and 
 associations of any other foreign country are, or may be, permitted to carry 
 on. 
 
 Limited liability and other companies, partnerships and associations of 
 either party shall enjoy in the territories of the other treatment in regard to 
 taxation no less favourable than that accorded to the limited liability and 
 other companies, partnerships and associations of that party. 
 
 In no case shall the treatment accorded by either of the two contracting 
 parties to companies, partnerships and associations of the other be less 
 favourable in respect of any matter whatever than that accorded to com¬ 
 panies, partnerships and associations of the most favoured foreign country. 
 
 Article 21 
 
 Each of the two contracting parties shall permit the importation or ex¬ 
 portation of all merchandise which may be legally imported or exported, 
 and also the carriage of passengers from or to their respective territories, 
 upon the vessels of the other, and such vessels, their cargoes and passengers 
 shall enjoy the same privileges as, and shall not be subject to any other or 
 higher duties, charges or restrictions than national vessels and their cargoes 
 and passengers, or the vessels of any other foreign country and their cargoes 
 and passengers. 
 
 Article 22 
 
 In all that regards the stationing, loading and unloading of vessels in the 
 ports, docks, roadsteads and harbours of the territories of the two contracting 
 parties, no privilege or facility shall be granted by either party to vessels of 
 any other foreign country or to national vessels which is not equally granted 
 
50 
 
 to vessels of the other party from whatsoever place they may arrive and 
 whatever may be their place of destination. 
 
 Article 23 
 
 In regard to duties of tonnage, harbour, pilotage, lighthouse, quarantine 
 or other analogous duties or charges of whatever denomination levied in the 
 name or for the profit of the government, public functionaries, private in¬ 
 dividuals, corporations or establishments of any kind, the vessels of each of 
 the two contracting parties shall enjoy in the ports of the territories of the 
 other treatment at least as favourable as that accorded to national vessels 
 or the vessels of any other foreign country. 
 
 Article 24 
 
 The provisions of this treaty relating to the mutual concession of national 
 treatment in matters of navigation do not apply to the coasting trade. In 
 respect of the coasting trade, however, as also in respect of all other matters 
 of navigation, the subjects and vessels of each of the contracting parties 
 shall enjoy most-favoured-nation treatment in the territories of the other, 
 ill addition to any other advantages that may be accorded by this treaty. 
 
 The vessels of either contracting party may, nevertheless, proceed from 
 one port to another port in the territories of the other contracting party, 
 either for the purpose of landing the whole or part of their cargoes or passen¬ 
 gers brought from abroad, or of taking on board the whole or part of their 
 cargoes or passengers for a foreign destination. 
 
 It is also understood that in the event of the coasting trade of either party 
 being exclusively reserved to national vessels, the vessels of the other party, 
 if engaged in trade to or from places not within the limits of the coasting 
 trade so reserved, shall not be prohibited from the carriage between two 
 ports of the territories of the former party of passengers holding through 
 tickets or merchandise consigned on through bills of lading to or from places 
 not within the above-mentioned limits, and while engaged in such carriage 
 these vessels and their passengers and cargoes shall enjoy the full privileges 
 of this treaty. 
 
 Article 25 
 
 Any vessels of either of the two contracting parties which may be com¬ 
 pelled by stress of weather or by accident to take shelter in a port of the 
 territories of the other shall be at liberty to refit therein, to procure all neces¬ 
 sary stores and to put to sea again, without paying any dues other than such 
 as would be payable in a similar case by a national vessel. In case, however, 
 the master of a merchant vessel should be under the necessity of disposing of 
 a part of his merchandise in order to defray his expenses, he shall be bound to 
 conform to the regulations and tariffs of the place to which he may have 
 come. 
 
 If any vessel of one of the two contracting parties shall run aground or be 
 wrecked upon the coasts of the territories of the other, such vessel and all 
 
51 
 
 parts thereof and all furniture and appurtenances belonging thereto, and all 
 goods and merchandise saved therefrom, including any which may have been 
 cast into the sea, or the proceeds thereof, if sold, as well as all papers found on 
 board such stranded or wrecked vessel, shall be given up to the owners of 
 such vessel, goods, merchandise, &c., or to their agents, when claimed by 
 them. If there are no such owners or agents on the spot, then the vessel, 
 goods, merchandise, &c., referred to shall, in so far as they are the property of 
 a subject of the second contracting party, be delivered to the consular officer 
 of that contracting party in whose district the wreck or stranding may have 
 taken place, upon being claimed by him within the period fixed by the laws of 
 that contracting party, and such consular officer, owners or agents shall pay 
 only the expenses incurred in the preservation of the property, together with 
 the salvage or other expenses which would have been payable in the like case 
 of a wreck or stranding of a national vessel. 
 
 The two contracting parties agree, however, that merchandise saved shall 
 not be subjected to the payment of any customs duty unless cleared for 
 internal consumption. 
 
 In the case of a vessel being driven in by stress of weather, run aground or 
 wrecked, the respective consular officer shall, if the owner or master or other 
 agent of the owner is not present, or is present and requires it, be authorised 
 to interpose in order to afford the necessary assistance to his fellow-country¬ 
 men. 
 
 Article 26 
 
 All vessels which, according to British law, are deemed to be British ves¬ 
 sels, and all vessels which, according to Siamese law, are deemed to be Sia¬ 
 mese vessels, shall, for the purposes of this treaty, be deemed British or 
 Siamese vessels respectively. 
 
 Article 27 
 
 It shall be free to each of the two contracting parties to appoint consuls- 
 general, consuls, vice-consuls and consular agents to reside in the towns and 
 ports of the territories of the other to which such representatives of any other 
 nation may be admitted by the respective governments. Such consuls- 
 general, consuls, vice-consuls and consular agents, however, shall not enter 
 upon their functions until after they shall have been approved and admitted 
 in the usual form by the government to which they are sent. 
 
 The consular officers of one of the two contracting parties shall enjoy in the 
 territories of the other the same official rights, privileges and exemptions as 
 are or may be accorded to similar officers of any other foreign country. 
 
 Article 28 
 
 In the case of the death of a subject of one of the two contracting parties in 
 the territories of the other, leaving kin but without leaving at the place of his 
 decease any person entitled by the laws of his country to take charge of and 
 administer the estate, the competent consular officer of the country to which 
 
52 
 
 the deceased belonged shall, upon fulfilment of the necessary formalities, be 
 empowered to take custody of and administer the estate in the manner and 
 under the limitations prescribed by the law of the country in which the 
 property of the deceased is situated. 
 
 It is understood that in all that concerns the administration of the estates 
 of deceased persons, any right, privilege, favour or immunity which either 
 contracting party has actually granted, or may hereafter grant, to the con¬ 
 sular officers of any other foreign country shall be extended immediately and 
 unconditionally to the consular officers of the other contracting party. 
 
 Article 29 
 
 The consular officers of one of the two contracting parties residing in the 
 territories of the other shall receive from the local authorities such assistance 
 as can by law be given to them for the recovery of deserters from the vessels 
 of the former party. Provided that this stipulation shall not apply to sub¬ 
 jects of the contracting party from whose local authorities assistance is 
 requested. 
 
 Article 30 
 
 The subjects of each of the two contracting parties shall have in the terri¬ 
 tories of the other the same rights as subjects of that contracting party in 
 regard to patents for inventions, trade-marks, trade names, designs and 
 copyright in literary and artistic works, upon fulfilment of the formalities 
 prescribed by law. 
 
 Article 31 
 
 As soon as possible after the preponderating proportion of the imports into 
 Siam is obtained from countries whose subjects or citizens shall have become 
 subject to Siamese law and jurisdiction (even though still enjoying privileges 
 under the right of evocation), the Siamese Government will promulgate and 
 bring into operation laws for the proper regulation of the matters dealt with 
 in Article 30 and will also take the necessary measures for the regulation of 
 merchandise marks by which imported products shall be protected from 
 competition through false marks, false indications of origin, the short reeling 
 of yarns, and the false lapping of piece-goods. 
 
 Article 32 
 
 It is hereby understood and agreed that none of the stipulations of the 
 present treaty by which Siam grants most-favoured-nation treatment is to be 
 interpreted as granting rights, powers, privileges or immunities arising solely 
 by virtue of the existence of rights of exemption from Siamese jurisdiction, 
 judicial, administrative or fiscal, possessed by other foreign countries. 
 
 Article 33 
 
 The two contracting parties agree that any dispute that may arise between 
 them as to the proper interpretation or application of any of the provisions of 
 
53 
 
 the present treaty shall, at the request of either party, be referred to arbitra¬ 
 tion, and both parties hereby undertake to accept as binding the arbitral 
 award. 
 
 The court of arbitration to which disputes shall be referred shall be the 
 Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague, unless in any 
 particular case the two contracting parties agree otherwise. 
 
 Article 34 
 
 The stipulations of the present treaty shall not be applicable to India or to 
 any of His Britannic Majesty’s self-governing dominions, colonies, posses¬ 
 sions or protectorates unless notice is given by His Britannic Majesty’s 
 representative at Bangkok of the desire of His Britannic Majesty that the 
 said stipulations shall apply to any such territory. 
 
 Nevertheless, goods produced or manufactured in India or in any of His 
 Britannic Majesty’s self-governing dominions, colonies, possessions or pro¬ 
 tectorates shall enjoy in Siam complete and unconditional most-favoured¬ 
 nation treatment so long as goods produced or manufactured in Siam are 
 accorded in India, or such self-governing dominion, colony, possession or 
 protectorate, treatment as favourable as that accorded to goods produced or 
 manufactured in any other foreign country. 
 
 Article 35 
 
 The terms of the preceding article relating to India and to His Britannic 
 Majesty’s self-governing dominions, colonies, possessions and protectorates 
 shall apply also to any territory in respect of which a mandate on behalf of 
 the League of Nations has been accepted by His Britannic Majesty. 
 
 Article 36 
 
 The provisions of the present treaty which apply to British subjects shall 
 also be deemed to apply to all persons who both enjoy the protection of His 
 Britannic Majesty and are entitled to registration in Siam in accordance 
 with Article 6 of the general treaty signed this day.^ 
 
 Article 37 
 
 The present treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications shall be exchanged 
 at London as soon as possible. It shall come into force on the same day as 
 the general treaty between the two contracting parties signed this day, and 
 shall be binding during ten years from the date of its coming into force. In 
 case neither of the two contracting parties shall have given notice to the other 
 twelve months before the expiration of the said period of ten years of its 
 intention to terminate the present treaty, it shall remain in force until the 
 expiration of one year from the date on which either of the two contracting 
 parties shall have denounced it. 
 
 2 Printed supra , p. 38 at p. 40. 
 
54 
 
 It is clearly understood that such denunciation shall not have the effect of 
 reviving any of the treaties, conventions, arrangements or agreements 
 abrogated by former treaties or agreements or by Article 5 of the general 
 treaty signed this day. 
 
 As regards India or any of His Britannic Majesty^s self-governing domin¬ 
 ions, colonies, possessions or protectorates, or any territory in respect of 
 which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by 
 His Britannic Majesty to which the stipulations of the present treaty shall 
 have been made applicable under Articles 34 and 35 either of the two con¬ 
 tracting parties shall have the right to terminate it separately on giving 
 twelve months^ notice to that effect. Such notice, however, cannot be given 
 so as to take effect before the termination of the period of ten years men¬ 
 tioned in the first paragraph of this article, except in the case of His Britannic 
 Majesty’s self-governing dominions (including territories administered by 
 them under mandate) and the colony of Southern Rhodesia, in respect of 
 which notice of termination may be given by either contracting party at any 
 time. 
 
 In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the present 
 treaty and have affixed thereto their seals. 
 
 Done in duplicate in the English language, at London, the 14th day of 
 July, in the nineteen hundred and twenty-fifth year of the Christian era, 
 corresponding to the 14th day of the 4th month in the 2468th year of the 
 Buddhist era. 
 
 (l.s.) Austen Chamberlain, 
 (l.s.) Prabha Karavongs. 
 
 notes exchanged between the united kingdom and SIAM IN CONNECTION 
 
 WITH THE GENERAL AND COMMERCIAL TREATIES BETWEEN THE UNITED 
 KINGDOM AND SIAM, SIGNED AT LONDON ON JULY 14, 1925 ^ 
 
 London, July 14 -September 15, 1925 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 The Siamese Minister to Mr. Austen Chamberlain 
 
 Siamese Legation, London, July H, 1925. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 In signing this day the general and commercial treaties between Great 
 Britain and Siam,^ I have the honour to assure you, by order of my gov¬ 
 ernment, that it is not the present intention of the Royal Siamese Govern¬ 
 ment to impose any new, or increase any existing, export duties on teak, 
 tin or rice. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 
 Prabha Karawongs. 
 
 * British Treaty Series No. 9 (1926). Cmd. 2644. ^ ppintgjj supra, pp. 38 and 43. 
 
55 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 The Siamese Minister to Mr. Austen Chamberlain 
 
 Siamese Legation, London, July H, 1925. 
 
 Sm: 
 
 I have the honour to inform you that, when the time comes for the 
 termination of the existence of the international or empowered courts, cases 
 then pending before the said courts to which British subjects are parties 
 will take their usual course before the said courts until such cases have been 
 finally disposed of, and the jurisdiction of the said courts will remain in 
 full force for this purpose. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 
 Prabha Karawongs. 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 The Siamese Minister to Mr, Austen Chamberlain 
 
 Siamese Legation, London, July H, 1925. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 In connection with the new treaties recently signed between our two 
 governments, I have the honour to inform you, by order of my government, 
 that, in order to protect British interests with respect to non-contentious 
 probate matters under the regime effected by the new treaties, the Royal 
 Siamese Government will be happy, after the ratification of the new treaties, 
 to continue as heretofore the present system of consular probate jurisdic¬ 
 tion with respect to non-contentious matters connected with estates of pre¬ 
 registered British subjects and the present practice by which consular 
 officers deal with non-contentious matters connected with estates of post- 
 registered British subjects in accordance with Article 3 of the treaty of 1856 
 until such time as a new Siamese law shall be promulgated dealing with the 
 question of succession and probate. 
 
 I have the honour to inform you further, that it is the intention of the 
 Royal Siamese Government to proceed with the preparation and promul¬ 
 gation of the new law as soon as possible. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 
 Prabha Karawongs. 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 Mr. Austen Chamberlain to the Siamese Minister 
 
 Foreign Office, July 14, 1925. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 His Majesty’s Government are happy to think that, in signing the general 
 and commercial treaties under which Siam obtains full jurisdictional and fiscal 
 autonomy, they have made some contribution towards the free and pros¬ 
 perous development of Siam. Under the jurisdictional head, in particular, 
 they have agreed to the arrangements embodied in the annex to the general 
 
56 
 
 treaty, because they are convinced that in the near future nothing short of 
 full autonomy in these matters will be consonant with the position of Siam 
 among civilised nations. Moreover, they feel sure that these arrangements 
 will strengthen the ties that so happily unite the two countries. 
 
 2. The existing ties between Siam and Great Britain are mutually advan¬ 
 tageous in a peculiarly high degree by reason of two facts. More than 50,000 
 Indian British subjects pursue their avocations in Siam and contribute to 
 the prosperity of the country. Furthermore, British trade with Siam is 
 longer established and larger in volume than that of any other country. 
 These facts give to Anglo-Siamese relations an especially close and cordial 
 character which His Majesty’s Government are sure that the Siamese Gov¬ 
 ernment fully appreciate and share the desire of His Majesty’s Government 
 to preserve. His Majesty’s Government therefore feel very confident that 
 the Siamese Government are not likely to take any steps calculated to 
 prejudice the British interests arising from these considerations. 
 
 3. His Majesty’s Government, without wishing to make any suggestion 
 which might constitute an interference in the internal affairs of Siam, or 
 to make the grant of the rights acquired by Siam under the new treaties 
 subject to any conditions or restrictions, feel, nevertheless, in view of the 
 magnitude of the interests involved, that it may be useful to state frankly 
 certain apprehensions which they entertain. They do so at this moment 
 when a new epoch of Siamese progress is beginning, with the object of avert¬ 
 ing possible future contingencies in which Siamese as well as British inter¬ 
 ests might suffer. It is possible that by the time the new codes have been 
 promulgated there will not be available, either because the law school 
 established by the Siamese Government has not been fully developed 
 or for some other reason, a sufficient supply of fully trained Siamese judges 
 to take the places of the present European legal advisers. Moreover, in 
 any case, the fact that the new codes are based on Roman law must somewhat 
 accentuate the difficulties of dealing with the large number of commercial 
 cases involving British interests that come before the courts. The Siamese 
 Government doubtless appreciate this position; and it therefore occurs to 
 His Majesty’s Government that they may well wish, should it be necessary 
 in order to avoid possible future injury to the interests common to both 
 countries, for a reasonable time after the coming into force of the various 
 codes, and even, if necessary, after the disappearance of the right of evoca¬ 
 tion, to continue to employ a reasonable number of European legal advisers, 
 of whom a proportion commensurate with British interests will be of British 
 nationality; to continue to employ them in general in the same posts and in 
 the same judicial capacities as at present, and to arrange that they shall 
 exercise their powers in the same general manner as they have hitherto done 
 (except in so far as the termination of the 1909 treaty may result in their judg¬ 
 ments no longer prevailing in the cases provided for under that treaty); 
 to retain the post of judicial adviser, which it will probably be impracticable 
 
57 
 
 to fill with a lawyer of other than British nationality; and to employ as a 
 teacher in the law school an English lawyer, preferably a barrister familiar 
 with the Indian codes. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 No. 5. 
 
 Austen Chamberlain. 
 
 The Siamese Minister to Mr. Austen Chamberlain 
 
 Siamese Legation, London, July 28^ 1925. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 The Royal Siamese Government desire to express their very sincere 
 appreciation for the frank and friendly note of His Britannic Majesty’s 
 Government with reference to affairs in Siam under the new regime. The 
 Royal Siamese Government have taken very careful note of the matters set 
 forth in this communication, and they will endeavour, in respect of the several 
 points set out in the letter from His Britannic Majesty’s Government, to 
 do everything possible to safeguard British interests in Siam, so far as this 
 can be done without injury to the interests of the Royal Siamese Government. 
 
 In particular, the Royal Siamese Government readily give an assurance 
 that it is their intention not to dispense with the services of European 
 legal advisers upon the ratification of the new treaties, but to continue to 
 employ them until such time after the promulgation of the codes as they may 
 be convinced that the administration of justice by Siamese judges shows 
 the further services of such European advisers to be unnecessary. 
 
 The Royal Siamese Government take this opportunity of reaffirming the 
 principle as to the use of British law in commercial cases where no Siamese 
 law exists. Until the promulgation of the civil and commercial code they 
 intend to continue to act upon this principle, which was expressed in the 
 following form in the letter of the 19th May, 1909, from Mr. Westengard 
 to Mr. Beckett: 
 
 Where there is no existing Siamese statute or precedent the Siamese 
 courts administer customary law. The custom in commercial matters 
 where there are foreign communities is generally in accordance with 
 English principles. Therefore, Siamese courts in such cases are guided 
 by English statutes and cases as far as circumstances admit. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 
 Prabha Kara WONGS. 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 Mr. Austen Chamberlain to the Siamese Minister 
 
 Foreign Office, August 6, 1925. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 I have the honour to inform you that I have noted with gratification the 
 contents of the three notes complementary to the general and commercial 
 treaties signed on the 14th ultimo between Siam and Great Britain, which 
 
58 
 
 you handed to me on that date, and which contain the following assurances: 
 (1) That it is not the present intention of the Siamese Government to im¬ 
 pose any new or increase any existing export duties on teak, tin or rice; (2) 
 that, when the time comes for the termination of the existence of the inter¬ 
 national or empowered courts in Siam, cases then pending before those courts 
 to which British subjects are parties will take their usual course before the 
 courts until such cases have been finally disposed of, and that the jurisdic¬ 
 tion of those courts will remain in full force for this purpose; and (3) that 
 the Siamese Government agree to continue, after the ratification of the 
 treaties, the present system of consular probate jurisdiction with respect to 
 non-contentious probate matters until such time as a new Siamese law shall 
 be promulgated dealing with the question of succession and probate, and 
 that it is their intention to proceed with the preparation and promulgation 
 of the new law as soon as possible. 
 
 2. I have also the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of 
 the 28th ultimo, in reply to the note which I handed to you at the time of 
 signature of the treaties, in which you inform me of the intentions of the 
 Siamese Government in regard to the matters mentioned in my note, in 
 particular the retention of the European judicial advisers, and give an as¬ 
 surance of the continued use of British law in commercial cases until the 
 promulgation of the civil and commercial code. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 
 Austen Chamberlain. 
 
 No. 7. 
 
 The Siamese Minister to Mr. Austen Chamberlain 
 
 Siamese Legation, London, August 12, 1926. 
 
 Dear Mr. Chamberlain, 
 
 Sir Sydney Chapman, of the Board of Trade, has called my attention 
 to the possible ambiguity of the word ^‘tin’^ as used in my letter to you of 
 the 14th July, 1925, concerning export duties on teak, tin and rice, and 
 has raised the question of whether the assurance contained in this letter 
 covers export duties on tin ore as well as on tin in its other forms. 
 
 I have pleasure in informing you that it is the understanding of my 
 government that the word ^‘tin^’ as used in this letter covers both tin and 
 tin ore. 
 
 Believe me, &c. 
 
 Prabha Kara WONGS. 
 
 No. 8. 
 
 Mr. Austin Chamberlain to the Siamese Minister 
 
 Foreign Office, September 16, 1926. 
 
 My dear Minister, 
 
 I thank you for your letter of the 12th ultimo informing me that it is the 
 understanding of the Siamese Government that the word ^‘tin’^ used in 
 
59 
 
 your note of the 14th July concerning export duties on teak, tin and rice 
 covers both tin and tin ore. 
 
 I am bringing this understanding to the attention of Sir Sydney Chapman 
 and the various government departments concerned. 
 
 Believe me, &c. 
 
 Austen Chamberlain. 
 
 ARBITRATION CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND SIAM ^ 
 
 Signed at London, November 25, 1925; ratifications exchanged at London, 
 
 February 2, 1927. 
 
 His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 
 and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His 
 Majesty the King of Siam, parties to the protocol establishing the Permanent 
 Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva on the 16th December, 
 1920, being desirous of concluding a convention with a view of referring to 
 arbitration all questions which they may consider possible to submit to that 
 mode of settlement, have appointed as their plenipotentiaries: 
 
 His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 
 and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India: The Right 
 Honourable Joseph Austen Chamberlain, a Member of Parliament, His 
 Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and 
 
 His Majesty the King of Siam: Phya Prabha Karavongs, His Majesty’s 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His 
 Britannic Majesty; 
 
 ^ British Treaty Series No. 7 (1927). Cmd. 2813. In her new treaties Siam has obtained 
 a noteworthy series of arbitration provisions with European nations. In Article II of the 
 Franco-Siamese treaty of Feb. 14, 1925, both parties agree “in conformity to the principles 
 announced in the Covenant of the League of Nations that in case controversial questions 
 should arise between them in the future which cannot be settled by mutual agreement or 
 by the method of diplomacy, they will submit the controversy to one or more arbitrators 
 chosen by them, or in default of arbitration, to the Permanent Court of International 
 Justice. This court will obtain jurisdiction by means of a common agreement between the 
 two parties, or if agreement cannot be reached, by the simple request of either of them.” 
 (See League of Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 43, p. 193; Registration No. 1055). It will thus 
 be seen that war is renounced by both countries as a method of settling disputes of every 
 kind. The arbitral provision is sweeping and compulsory. More or less similar clauses 
 were inserted in most of the other European treaties. Great Britain, however, declined to 
 enter into such an engagement; and the British arbitration treaty, here printed, follows the 
 older, conservative type, with the loophole of “vital interests,” “independence,” and 
 “honour.” It is to be remembered, however, that in Article 33 of the Treaty of Commerce 
 and Navigation between Great Britain and Siam, “the two contracting parties agree that 
 any dispute that may arise between them as to the proper interpretation or apphcation of 
 any of the provisions” of that treaty “shall, at the request of either party, be referred to 
 arbitration, and both parties undertake to accept as binding the arbitral aw’ard. The 
 court of arbitration to which disputes shall be referred shall be the Permanent Court of 
 International Justice at the Hague, unless in any particular case the two contracting parties 
 agree otherwise.”—F. B. Sayre. 
 
60 
 
 Who, having communicated to each other their respective full powers, 
 found in good and true form, have agreed as follows: 
 
 Article 1 
 
 Differences of a legal nature which may arise between the two contracting 
 parties and which it may not have been possible to settle by diplomacy, in 
 the absence of contrary agreement shall, at the request of either party, be 
 referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice established by the 
 protocol of December 16, 1920, in accordance with the procedure laid down 
 in the statutes of that court and in the rules of court adopted thereunder, 
 provided, nevertheless, that such differences do not affect the vital interests, 
 the independence or the honour of the two contracting parties, and do not 
 concern the interests of third parties. The contracting parties agree to 
 accept the decision of the court as binding. 
 
 Article 2 
 
 The present convention, which shall be ratified, is concluded for a period 
 of five years dating from the exchange of ratifications, which shall take 
 place at London as soon as possible. In case neither of the two contracting 
 parties shall have given notice to the other twelve months before the expira¬ 
 tion of the said period of five years of its intention to terminate the present 
 convention, it shall remain in force until the expiration of one year from the 
 date on which either of the two contracting parties shall have denounced it. 
 
 In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the present 
 convention and have affixed thereto their seals. 
 
 Done in duplicate in the English language at London, the twenty-fifth 
 day of November in the nineteen hundred and twenty-fifth year of the 
 Christian era, corresponding to the twenty-fifth day of the eighth month in 
 the two thousand four hundred and sixty-eighth year of the Buddhist era. 
 
 (l.s.) Austen Chamberlain, 
 (l.s.) Prabha Karavongs. 
 
4 
 
 •.i»^ 
 
 ^ V i'-,v'-^ a ,t!^ j^^jss,' 
 
 :A»<* r‘-- ‘ri'ft}'-k'^.:.’^v^y-ii 
 
 
 
 
 ji 
 
 S'.A r ^ - ^ >3 5=,'. ^ i >-*%::.>^ V - 
 
 4 ^ i-^ ^ ^ i < ^ ^ '#3 
 
 '-■*. V ^ ^ ^ 3s^ 
 
 1 
 
 ^ -iV >■ 
 
 •*n-^ i. f ,yf^ 
 
 • <»* 
 
 ^',4 / 
 
 
 <r - :/V. 
 
 " i'K' 
 
 rC* 
 
 ji ^ X- ^ 4=- (W ^ -TT^ — 
 
 ■" ^ V ^ J- - <s 
 
 "'^ ^ %x.- ^ -f ^ - ■■ 
 
 »• '*'^un.^ -l£«- •t- -•^*»> ■« 44 
 
 . 51 -%.* ' ? ^ ~' f ^ ■.’> j: 4 ':-. 
 
 *“» ' " .0 
 
 -.'fi '""'x-" 1 ^ 4L^’ 
 
 V. ^ i ’“ ^ ''■^ >«- 
 
 v*' . ' A >• •^-. ♦•* 
 
 -> \ 
 
 
 tuP 
 
 ■* j. 
 
 
 .%.tiiv— r.:^—~.: " 
 
 >. 
 
 
 ^ r"' 
 
 
 f , t ’.r^'' 
 
 
 A!C> 
 
 
 
 ^4^^^ .XX4^ -' 
 
 ^ ^ .41 ‘ '- 4s' 
 
 y ‘ y; c 
 
 x/.^xiixys-y' 
 
 
 , \ 
 
 Vsu. 
 f ft ■>■