Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:37:30.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Cromwell Incident

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Ellery C. Stowell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 1940 , pp. 294 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1940

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 New York Times, March 20, 1940.

2 Representative Sweeney introduced a resolution directing the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives to conduct an investigation as to the truth of the reported statements and, if they were found to be true, that it be recommended to the President that the Minister be recalled. Congressional Record, March 20, 1940, pp. 4848–4849. Congressman Tinkham of Massachusetts and Senator Clark of Missouri were also reported as demanding Mr. Cromwell’s recall. See Washington Post, March 24, 1940.

3 The attempt to show on the basis of an alleged “unimpeachable authority” that the President had received a copy of the speech prior to its delivery was met by a categorical statement from Presidential Secretary Early that the “unimpeachable authority” had been “deliberately invented.” (March 24,1940, cf. C.T.P.S. dispatch in the Washington Times-Herald of the same date.) Minister Cromwell issued a statement from his Fifth Avenue office in which he said:

“Published reports that President Roosevelt saw an advance copy of my Toronto speech or had any knowledge of its contents beforehand are made out of whole cloth. Such stories are absolutely untrue. The views which I expressed on the contrast between the principles of totalitarian and democratic forms of government and their results were made entirely on my own responsibility. Since that address, no one has at any time been given any reason or authority to express any views for me.” (New York Times, March 24, 1940.)

4 Washington Times-Herald, March 21, 1940; cf. Washington Post, March 23, 1940.

5 March 23, 1940.

6 The Instructions to Diplomatic Officers of the United States, prescribed by executive order of the President, March 8, 1927, contain the following paragraph:

“Diplomatic officers should be careful not to allude in any public address to political issues pending in the United States or elsewhere.” (Diplomatic and Consular Laws and Regulations of Various Countries, edited by Feller, A. H. and Hudson, Manley O. (Washington, 1933), Vol. II, p. 1276.)Google Scholar

7 Moore’s Digest of International Law, Vol. IV, p. 575.

8 Gentili, De legationibus, Book II, Ch. XVI, as quoted in Scott, James Brown, Law, The State, and the International Community (Columbia University Press, 1939), Vol. II, p. 270 Google Scholar.

9 Moore’s Digest of International Law, Vol. IV, p. 575.

10 Calliéres, The Practice of Diplomacy (English rendering, London, Constable & Co.. 1919), pp. 56–58.