"الشيفرات والوثائق السرية: تقارير الحفظ الآمن وتسليم الشهادات الخاصة بالوثائق السرية" [ظ‎‎٩‎٤] (٥٢٣/١٩٣)

Case No. 3.
Memorandum, paragraphs 5 and 16.
C 4750/2324/12 of 1932.
Litigation was in progress in Czechoslovakia between Sir Richard Waldie Griffith and his
former agent, Herr Kurt Seebohm, concerning the ownership of certain mining shares.
Sir Richard desired to be supplied with copies of letters about Sir Richard's business written
by Herr Seebohm to the British Legation at Prague prior to the outbreak of the dispute
between them. Doubts were expressed whether it would be proper to comply (a) on
the ground of appearing to favour one side at the expense of the other [Memorandum,
pararaph 16 (4)], (h) because a breach of confidence might be involved, unless the writer
consented, which it was clear he would not do [Memorandum, paragraph 16 (3)]. It was,
however, decided to comply with the request. The correspondence was not marked private or
confidential [Memorandum, paragraph 16 (2)] ;; it was clearly in the interests of justice that
copies should be supplied [Memorandum, paragraph 16 (1)] ; further, the letters having been
written at a time when the writer was acting on Sir Richard Waldie Griffith's behalf, it was to
be presumed that, whatever Hen- Seebohm now intended, he had, when he wrote them, meant
them to be used in any manner which would benefit his principal [Memorandum,
paragraph 16 (5)]. Proceedings having actually been commenced [Memorandum, paragraph 5].
permission to supply copies was accordingly given.
The Consul-General at New York was subpoenaed, and the Passport Control Officer was about
to be subpoenaed, to produce the originals of certain cards of application for passport visas filed
by United States citizens. These cards were required as affording evidence of the status of
parties to certain matrimonial proceedings in the New York courts. Instructions were sought.
It was decided that as the cards in question were the property of His Majesty's Government, and
part of the archives, production of them could not be compelled, nor could individual offu-ers
be made to answer questions in respect of them [Memorandum, paragraph 20 (2)]. Instructions
were accordingly given that, if necessary, appearance should be made in court, and the position
explained as above, and that the State Department should be informed to the same effect.
It was pointed out in minutes that the United States courts would be bound to accept the
statement of a responsible officer of His Majesty's Government that the documents were the
property of his Government [Memorandum, ihid.'].
It was subsequently decided that, the documents being innocuous from the standpoint of the
public interest, voluntary production of them might be made [Memorandum, ihid.], and
instructions were issued authorising this provided the cards bore no minutes other than of a
formal character [Memorandum, paragraph 6 (2) (iii) (a)], and that it was made clear that the
production \\as an act of grace and not to be regarded as a precedent [Memorandum,
paragraph 20 (2)].
I he Palestine Potash Company, who had been granted a concession by the Government of
Palestine to extract salts from the Dead Sea, were sued as trespassers by a French company,
who alleged themselves to be in possession of a valid and still subsisting pre-war Turkish
concession relating to the same subject-matter. Lord Lytton, on behalf of the Palestine Potash
Company, applied to be allowed to inspect certain official documents, and put forward as a
ground the fact that one of the points at issue in the suit would be the validity of a concession
granted by the Government of a territory in respect of which His Majesty had accepted a
mandate : in other words, that it was in the public interest that this company should be assisted
[Memorandum, paragraph 18 (2), footnote ( 20 )]. The request was granted. It is probable
that it would have been granted even had no considerations of public interest been involved,
seeing that justice in any event seemed to require it [Memorandum, paragraph 16 (])] and that
there were certainly no considerations of public interest against it. But the existence of positive
grounds in the public interest for granting the request naturally strengthened the reasons for
doing so, and probably makes the case one of that class where, even had the request been for
the supply of information from official sources, and not merely for the inspection of certain
documents, it could have been granted [Memorandum, end of paragraph 18 (2)].
Case No. 4.
Memorandum, paragraphs 6 (2) (iii) (a) and 20 (2).
T 1498 and 1751/1498/373 of 1931.
Case No. 5.
Memorandum, paragraphs 16 (1) and 18 (2) and note ( 20 ).
E 421/90/31 of 1932.