I am in receipt of your letter dated the 16th August [1]
concerning my activities in relation to the crew of the S.S.

Commissaire Ramel. I shall not discuss the information given to
the officers of the Commonwealth Government as it obviously
emanates from people who have no knowledge of French maritime
legislation or of the conditions in which, as you know, I can
communicate with my Government, inadvertently, I am sure, referred
to in your letter as the Petain Government. However, it is indeed
a fact that when I went on board the S.S. Commissaire Ramel with
the Captain, at his request, accompanied by Lieutenant-Commander
Chesterman of Garden Island, in order to advise the crew, as I
did, to agree to unload the ship, which they had previously
refused to do, I told them not to sail under a British flag, which
is forbidden by French law. In so doing I was not only fulfilling
my duty towards my Government and towards these people themselves
but also exercising a right that could be taken from me but cannot
be questioned. Moreover, a cable from the General Agent of the
Messageries Maritimes in Noumea [2], the contents of which are in
substance what I said to the men, was received on the 6th instant
and delivered to the Sydney Agent [3], the Commonwealth
Authorities having obviously no objection to the said contents
being known. The cable reads as follows:

DIRECTION TELEGRAPHIE INFORMEZ SABOURET [4] POUR LUI-MEME ETAT
MAJOR ET EQUIPAGE QUE LOI INTERDIT CITOYEN FRANCAIS SERVIR SUR
BATIMENT DANS CAS RAMEL EN CONSEQUENCE ENCOURIR RADIATION CADRES.

DELEGATION COURANT JUILLET AVOIR ETE PAYEE ENCORE AUX FAMILLES.

MOIS SUIVANTS RESERVES. JOBARD. [5]

May I point out that I am extremely surprised that the
Commonwealth Government which, I think, is no party to the
regrettable happenings concerning the S.S. Commissaire Ramel,
should question my attitude in the matter as long as this attitude
has not been unfriendly towards themselves. The ship was seized in
Fiji after a promise given that she would not be seized, and taken
by the crew to Sydney instead of to Auckland (where it was
requested that they should go with the choice of being formally
engaged there under British orders or repatriated) because they
made it clear that they would agree to go only to a port where
there was a French Consul who could tell them how they stood in
regard to French law and what they should do as French citizens.

Am I to understand that it was nevertheless the intention of the
English Authorities concerned that these men should not be
informed by me of their position, more particularly that they
should be kept unaware of the fact that for the same pay they
would run greater risks than English sailors, and that the French
Government had not even given a tacit consent to an action
altogether forbidden by a law dated 1927? It would then seem that
the offer made to them to decide whether they wanted to serve on
the ship under English orders or to be repatriated did not imply
any free choice.

When the ship arrived in Sydney I was told from Garden Island that
the Australian Authorities had nothing to do with the matter. This
and the fact, which I learned later, that the English Ministry of
Shipping was to decide on the use of the ship and see to the
repatriation of the men who would not stay, prevented me from
lodging a formal protest against the seizure made in Fiji, as such
a protest should have been made to the English Government which in
the present circumstances cannot be approached. Now your letter,
Sir, seems to show that the Commonwealth Government considers
itself a party to the case. I must therefore formulate here an
emphatic protest against the seizure of the S.S. Commissaire
Ramel, reserving all rights of reparation or indemnification
liable to be claimed by the French Government, the owners of the
ship, the crew or any others involved, but setting aside the
circumstances of the capture in which I am glad to know the
Australian Authorities had no part, and the men of the
'Achilles', comparing perhaps their present task with what they
had accomplished in the South Atlantic, just did what they had to
do. I must also ask what steps are contemplated to provide for the
prompt and safe repatriation of the men who wish to be sent back
to France.

As to the position in which this incident places me, I can but
leave it to the Commonwealth Government to decide, if they think
fit, that I am no longer persona grata in Australia. This could be
done without reasons being given either to my Government or to
myself and would require only that the French Government be
informed that the Commonwealth Government wishes another Consul
General to be appointed in this country. Thus the relations
between the two countries, which I understood from recent
interviews Australia wanted maintained, might not be broken,
leaving open the possibility of collaboration between the proper
Authorities in the Pacific, which might prove more beneficial to
all concerned than relations with self-appointed bodies whose
aims, if my information is correct, may not be all that they would
like the Commonwealth Government to believe, and whose activities
might even lead to the very interference they were, seemingly,
designed to counteract. But the withdrawal of my exequatur
following any action of mine to have French law respected by
French citizens would, I am sure, be considered very seriously by
my Government. I have no doubt that the Commonwealth Government on
its side is fully aware of the consequences that such a measure
could have now, and possibly when the war is over.

JEAN TREMOULET