claim relating to a contract for port construction was a private and not a sovereign activity.

In an order of November 20, 1967, the court dismissed the case on the ground of lack of diversity jurisdiction, since plaintiff was a foreign citizen organized under the laws of Liberia.

No. 54. Caribbean Mercantile Export Co. v. Dominican State and Compania Dominicana de Aviacion, Civil Action No. 67-10228 (Cir. Ct., 11th Jud. Cir. Fla. 1967).

Diplomatic requests (from the Ambassador and Embassy of the Dominican Republic): August 14, 1967, and November 22, 1968.

Shortly after the initial request for immunity was made, the Department was advised that a default judgment had been entered and that property occupied by the Dominican Consulate in Miami had been levied upon and was to be sold to satisfy the default judgment. Immunity from execution of the property in question was recognized by the Department in a letter to the Attorney General of October 2, 1967. In December 1967, plaintiff commenced a supplementary proceeding to obtain a declaration that Compania Dominicana de Aviacion was "property" of the Dominican State and to obtain execution against Compania Dominicana de Aviacion. In April 1968, the Florida Circuit Court entered an order holding that assets in Florida of Compania Dominicana de Aviacion were subject to execution to satisfy the default judgment against the Dominican State.

This order was appealed to the Florida District Court of Appeal, and the Dominican Embassy then submitted a second request for immunity.

In letters dated November 27 and 29, 1968, the Department recognized an immunity from execution of assets of Compania Dominicana de Aviacion and requested that a suggestion of immunity be filed by the District Court of Appeal of Florida. The latter court subsequently held that this suggestion of immunity was not properly before it since it had not been ruled on by the trial court.

Reported: 218 So.2d 523 (1969).

No. 55. Ocean Transport Co., Inc. v. Government of the Republic of the Ivory Coast, Docket No. 67-99-E (E.D. La. 1967).

Diplomatic requests (from the Ambassador of the Republic of the Ivory Coast): February 16 and March 7, 1967.

Immunity from suit was denied in a Department note dated April 4, 1967, which stated in part:

It appears from the complaint, a copy of which was furnished by the Ivory Coast Embassy, that this is a suit for alleged breach of a

contract between the parties under which the complainant was to furnish a master and crew for the fishing vessel President Kennedy in addition to other services and to deliver the vessel to the defendant in the Port of Abidjan, Republic of the Ivory Coast. Damages in the amount of $35,000 are claimed. It further appears that the account of the defendant in The Hibernia National Bank of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana, has been attached. There is no indication that court process has been issued against the vessel.

As both parties to the suit have been advised, the Department of State follows the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity set forth in its letter of May 19, 1952, to the Acting Attorney General, copies of which were furnished. It is the Department's view that the contract out of which the present action against the Government of the Republic of the Ivory Coast arises and in which the defendant Government contracted for the services of a private company for the transportation of a vessel and its delivery in Abidjan is of a private nature (jure gestionis). In these circumstances, the Department of State regrets that it is unable to comply with the request of the Embassy of the Ivory Coast for recognition of sovereign immunity from suit.

Reported: 269 F. Supp. 703.

No. 56. Carpets by Certified, Inc. v. Permanent Mission of Ghana to the United Nations, Index No. 50301-65 (Civ. Ct., Kings Cty, N.Y. 1968).

Diplomatic request (from the Permanent Mission of Ghana to the United Nations).

In a letter of January 10, 1969, the Department advised the Attorney General that it recognized immunity from execution of New York bank accounts of the Permanent Mission of Ghana to the United Nations, and requested that a suggestion of immunity be filed.

No. 57. Orcor Transportation Co. v. Embassy of Pakistan, 67 Civ. 4094 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).

Diplomatic requests (from the Embassy of Pakistan): November 16 and December 5 and 11, 1967.

In a note of January 5, 1968, the Department declined to suggest the immunity from attachment of funds of the Embassy of Pakistan, stating in part :

In its consideration of this request, the Department has studied the information furnished to it by the Embassy of Pakistan concerning the uses to which the funds in question are put. On the face of the above-referenced notes and aide-memoire, it appears that the subject funds are used "... in support of acquisition and shipment of commodities provided by the Government of the United States to the Government of Pakistan in accordance with agreements between the two countries under U.S. Public Law No. 480." The Embassy of Pakistan has not submitted to the Department any

additional data concerning use of the funds that might indicate that the bank accounts in question are used for other purposes. Moreover, in its note of December 5, 1967, the Embassy has informed the Department that the Embassy does not wish to make any additional submissions nor ". . . enter into a controversy with the complainants in the course of the suggested hearing in the Department of State."

In prior cases, the Department has concluded that activities con-ducted in the United States by a foreign government in support of P.L. 480 programs are commercial in nature. The courts of the United States have reached the same conclusion. Consequently, the funds in question are, according to the information supplied by the Embassy, used for commercial purposes. Therefore, the Department regrets that it cannot comply with the Embassy's request to suggest the immunity of the funds from attachment in the referenced case.

No. 58. New York World's Fair 1964-1965 Corporation v. Republic of Guinea, Index No. 477/1967 (Sup. Ct., Queens Cty. 1967).

Diplomatic request (from the Ambassador of the Republic of Guinea): October 24, 1967.

Action to recover unpaid rent on space in a pavilion rented by the Republic of Guinea during the New York World's Fair of 1964-1965. The Republic of Guinea had paid half the rental upon signing a rental agreement with plaintiff, but allegedly ignored repeated requests to pay the balance. Plaintiff commenced suit in January 1967 and secured an attachment of a New York bank account of the Republic of Guinea allegedly used as the operating account for the Republic's pavilion during the Fair.

Immunity from suit was denied by the Department in a note dated January 31, 1968, which stated in part:

In this case, the Republic of Guinea requests a suggestion of sovereign immunity from a suit arising out of its participation in the 1964-65 New York World's Fair, more particularly, from a contract it entered into with the World's Fair Corporation for the rental by the Republic of Guinea of exhibition space at the Fair grounds. In considering this application, the Department has been particularly impressed by the fact that the Fair was privately organized, that entities other than foreign governments, including a number of business corporations, participated in the Fair, and that in at least one case a pavilion in the international section was sponsored by a group of business firms resident in the country concerned. Considering these facts and the character of the New York World's Fair, the actions of the Republic of Guinea giving rise to this suit do not qualify as sovereign or public acts under the standards established in the Tate Letter. The Department of State finds it necessary, therefore, to decline the request for a suggestion of sovereign immunity.

Reported: 159 N.Y.L.J. 15, 63 Am.J.Int'l L. 343 (1969).

No. 59. Worldwide Carriers v. National Bank of Egypt, et al., Civ. 4009 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).

Diplomatic request (from the Embassy of India on behalf of the United Arab Republic): December 9, 1968.

Action for payment and damages under a bill of lading relating to the shipment of 16 street cars to Egypt. Immunity from suit and attachment was denied by the Department in a note dated October 31. 1968, which stated in part:

This is a suit in Admiralty against the National Bank of Egypt as consignee under a bill of lading covering this shipment of sixteen tram cars to Alexandria, United Arab Republic. The complaint seeks a balance due under the bill of lading and damages. For jurisdictional purposes the funds of the defendant National Bank of Egypt on deposit in the First National City Bank of New York have been attached.

As both parties to the suit have been advised, the Department of State follows the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity in accordance with the policy set forth in its letter of May 19, 1952 (the so-called Tate Letter), to the Acting Attorney General, copies of which were furnished to the parties. It should be added that it is also the practice of the United States Government to recognize the validity of attachment of foreign government property for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction unless such property is exclusively used for public purposes.

It is the Department's view that the transaction out of which the present action against the National Bank of Egypt arose was of a commercial and therefore private nature under the theory adopted by the Tate Letter. It further appears that the defendant National Bank of Egypt has not shown that its funds deposited with the First National City Bank were government funds used solely for public rather than commercial purposes. In these circumstances. the Department of State regrets that it is unable to comply with the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic to suggest the sovereign immunity of the funds from attachment. The Department wishes to emphasize that this decision is in no way intended to reflect upon the arguments of the defendants on the merits of this case, or upon other legal issues apart from the question of sovereign immunity.

No. 60. Pruitt v. M/V Patignies (E.D. Mich. 1968).

Diplomatic request (from the Ambassador of Canada): March 13,

1968.

In a note of July 18, 1968, the Department declined to recognize the immunity of the Government of Canada from suit. The case involved a collision on the Great Lakes alleged to be due to the negligence of the pilot of the Patignies, who was an employee of the Canadian Department of Transport. The Department's note stated in part:

In the instant case, representatives of the Government of Canada contended that pilotage on the Great Lakes was "governmental" activity and therefore sovereign immunity should attach. The Department of State notes that pilotage on the Great Lakes is provided by private independent contractors working through pilot associations as well as by employees of the Canadian Department of Transport. Therefore, the Government of Canada, by directly furnishing pilotage service, is participating in an operation open to and in fact carried on by private enterprise. Consequently, the furnishing of this service does not qualify as a governmental act under the standards established in the Tate letter.

The representatives of the Government of Canada also suggested that the activity in question was performed in furtherance of a public service and in fulfillment of Canada's obligations under an international agreement. The Department of State believes that these factors are not determinative of the question whether pilotage is a governmental or commercial act, especially where, as here, the activity in question is largely carried on by private individuals as a commercial venture. In fact, the United States Government has chosen to meet its obligations under the relevant international agreements by relying on private pilots.

The representatives of the Government of Canada contended that the responsibility of the Government of Canada for pilots employed by the Department of Transport ceases when these pilots take command of a vessel. The Department of State believes that this question is a matter for the courts to determine. While a foreign sovereign, like any other employer, is not responsible for the acts of persons who are not its agents or employees, this conclusion is founded on ordinary rules of agency and not on principles of sovereign immunity.

Finally, the representatives of the Government of Canada contended that the collision had occurred in Canadian waters and that, accordingly, an action arising therefrom involving the Canadian government would not fall within the purview of a United States court. The Department of State does not, of course, have any means of determining the factual issue in question and must leave it and its legal effect on other issues of jurisdiction and choice of law to the court in this case. However, in the circumstances of this case, where the activities of Canadian pilots are carried out both in United States and Canadian territorial waters, the Department of State does not believe that the question of sovereign immunity should turn on the fortuity that the accident may have occurred in Canada.

For these reasons, the Department of State finds it necessary to decline the request of the Government of Canada that a suggestion of sovereign immunity be made in this case.

No. 61. Amkor Corp. v. Bank of Korea, 61 Civ. 444 (S.D.N.Y. 1969).

Diplomatic requests (from the Ambassador of Korea): September 1968 and December 30, 1968.